Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Northwind Village DEIS Text
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT AND DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWIND VILLAGE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: 17.19±-acre parcel located on the south side of County Road 48 (North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS: District 1000 - Section 40—Block 3 —Lot 1 APPLICANT: KACE LI, LLC PO Box 67, 755 Main Road Greenport,New York 11944 Contact: Michael Kontokosta, Esq. 631-477-0600 LEAD AGENCY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook,New York 11790-3409 Contact: Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst 1 (631) 444-0403 PREPARER& CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VH13 Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.* 2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300 Hauppauge,New York 11788 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal Gail A. Pesner, AICD, Senior Project Manager (631) 234-3444 *The operations of Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. were acquired by VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. in January 2009 With technical input from: Site Engineering: Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman&Van Weele, P.C. 175A Commercial Drive Hauppauge,New York 11788 Contact: Kevin Walsh, P.E. (631) 435-1111 Wetland and Ecological Analysis: Land Use Ecological Services 209 West Main Street PO Box 1060 Riverhead,NY 11901 Contact: William Bowman, Ph.D. (631) 727-2400 Traffic Engineering: Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach,New York 11978 Contact: Patrick Lenihan, P.E. (631) 288-8822 DATE OF PREPARATION: December 2008 Revised August 2009 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") prepared by the above-referenced applicant. Copies are available' for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency. A copy of the DEIS is available for review at the Floyd Memorial Library at North and First Street, Greenport and at the Southold Free Library at 53705 Main Road, Southold. The document is also available on-line at hLtp://www.vhb.com/northwindvillage/deis DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: September 28, 2009 DEADLINE FOR CONEqENTS: November 30, 2009 � TABLE 0OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY------------..—.---.--.----.—.---.—.—.—.. i 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION..........................................................................l 2.1 hitrocuctiouz.......................................................................................................................l 2.2 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................................5 - 2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Property....—.—.—..—.....—.--.--.--.—. 5 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Surrounding Roadways--------._—__-.---._.--...---.—..---.—.—. 8 2,3 Brief Si��and ProjectHistory.----.-----.--..---.----.------..—.....0 2/4 ^ Project 2.5 Purpose,Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action......................................................2\ 2.6 Construction Activities...................................................................................................26 2.7 Required Permits and Approvals---.--.--..---.—.-----------.---27 10 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...............................................................28 � 3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography—.--.----..--..----.--..--.—.------..28 3.1.1 Geology-------.--.------------.--------..—.---.—,—... 2@ 3.1.2 Soils -------------,.--.—.—..--.—..--,.—.--..---------... 29 3.1.3 Topography------.----.---.----.------.._..--.—.—.--.--.48 3.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................5l 3.2.1 Groundwater--.-------------------.—.—.—..---.----- 5l 3.2.2 Water Usage.............................................................................................................. 5V 3.2.3 Sanitary Flow............................................................................................................ 59 3.2/4 StorznwntorRunoff............................................................................................. ..... 60 3.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplains--..--......--.—...—.------ 62 3.3 Ecology._.~.,.__,_.,.__.____._._._____________________,..69 3.3] Ecological Communities------_....—...---..—.----.—.....------. 6g 3,3.2 Wildlife..................................................................................................................... 73 3.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species..............................-_.—.—,---.. 76 3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and .........86 3.4.1 Land Use and Zoning—.-----.—.—._..—..._.--,—._,_—.—...,----- 86 3.4.2, Community Character............................................................................................... 80 3.4.3 .---.-------.--.--.—_.__.__.,--- 9U 9.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.................................................................... 124 3,5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................}3l 3.5.1 Public Schools......................................................................................................... l3l 3.5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service ................................................................. l36 3.5.3 Police Protection..................................................................................................... l37 3.5/4 Water ---------.—....-__........-.—._......-..--..—.. !37 3.5.5 _--..—..—.--.----.--.--..—.—.----.—.—.-----. l37 _ Disposal 3.5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. }]8 � 3.5.7 Energy Suppliers................................................................................. ................... |38 3.5,8 Recreation............................................................................................................... }38 3.6 Transportation.-----------.--__—.—.---..--.--...--...—.----13g 3.6.1 Methodology.....,.................................................................................................. 139 3.6.2 Existing Roadway Network.................................................................................... }4U 3.6.3 Unsignalized Intersections....................................................................................... 14l 3.6.4 Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................... }42 3.0.5 Accident Records.................................................................................................... 144 3.6.6 Existing Public Transportation Services................................................................. l45 3.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................{47 3.7] Introduction—.-------.—.---.—_._--.--.--....—..,..—..--,—.—. T47 3.7.2 Prehistoric Potential................................................................................................ l47 3.7.3 Historic Potential .................................................................................................... /48 3.7/4 Field Methods for Phase IB .................................................................................... I50 3.7.5 Field Results............................................................................................................ \50 3.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations--.—..-_—._.—..-..----.--.—.--,. T5l 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS (}FTHE PROPOSED ACTION............................................... 52 4.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography.---.—.--..------.---.--,,.—.—,—.—..}52 4.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................I55 4.2'1 Groundwater--'-----'-------------'---~—^—`'^^--'---' l55 � 4.2.2 Water Usage............................................................................................................ 157 4.2.3 Sanitary Flow.......................................................................................................... ]57 4.2/4 StozzowuterRunoff................................................................................................. l58 4.2.5 Surface Water,Wetlands and Floodplains.............................................................. 161 4`3 Ecology—.—.--.._—..—.-..--.---.—..—.---.---.---.—.--------.I64 /[3] Ecological Communities.—.--.---.—.--.---..--.—.,..-.—.—.....—.— l64 4.3.2 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species--.--..--.---------.—.-- l6g 4/4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and --.}74 4/4.1 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character........................................................ l74 4.4.2 Community Character............................................................................................. l80 4/43 —.---.—.--.----.------.------.-- l8I � 4/4/4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.................................................................... 2}0 4.5 Community Services and Utilities.................................................................................%24 4.5.1 Public Schools......................................................................................................... 224 4.5.2 Fire Protection......................................................................................................... 23O 4[5.3 Police Protection..................................................................................................... 231 4.5/1 Water Supply..---_—..—.--------.---.----.—_---------- 232 4.5.5 Sewage Disposal—.—.-----.------.---.--_--..--...—._--_.. 232 4,5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 233 4.5.7 Energy Suppliers—.—.—..--.---.—.------.------.---------. 234 4.5.8 Recreation............................................................................................................... 234 4.6 Transportation......_..—.--.--.---.—.------.----.---.—.------.236 4.6.1 Site Trip Generation Analysis--.--.—.--.---.---.—.._._---.--- 236 4`6.2 Directional Distribution Analysis and Traffic Assignment Analysis..................... 237 4.6.3 Planned Roadway Improvements .--.—..—.--..—..---.----.--.----- 237 4.6/4 Other Planned Developments --.--.—.--.---.---._..._.....__...---. 237 4.6.5 Intersection Capacity Analyses............................................................................... 238 4]6.6 Access..................................................................................................................... 24S ` 4.6.7 Grades and Sight Distances .................................................................................... 244 4.6.8 Parking....—....—.....—.---.--.--.—.----.------.—.-----.-- 246 4.6.0 Alternate Means of Transportation--------------.—,_._.---_. 246 4.6.10 Construction Traffic -------------------------.. 247 4.6.11 Conclusions......................................................................................................... 24K 4.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................25{ 4.8 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................252 5.0 PBI)P()SET) MITIGATION MEASURES------------.-----------..255 5.1 Geology, Soils and Topography---------..---.--.----------.--255 5.2 Water Resources...........................................................................................................%56 5.3 Ecology--.------.-----.----.—.—.—.---.----..--------.—.256 5.4 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character----.------.----.---.--.258 5.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................2�58 5.6 Transportation----------------.---------.—..--------.—.259 5.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................26V 6.0 UNAVOIDABLEADVERSE EFFECTS..........................................................................20{ 6.1 Short-Tenn Impacts...................--..............................................................................26l 6.2 ......................................................................................................262 7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS.....................................................................264 7.1 SNo-action Alternative....................................................................266 7.1.I Geology, Soils and Topography-------.--.--.----.--.—.--.--- 266 7.1.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 266' 7.1.3 Ecology.—.—.----.---------------.---.--...--.------. Z67 7.1.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and . 267 7.1.5 Community Services and Utilities.---------------^--------. 267 7.1.6 Transportation.--.---------.---.---.---.-----.--..'---._ 267 7.1.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 268 7.2 Alternative Site Design—.--------------.-----..----__.—.--.269 7.2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography---.------..-------.------.-- 260 7.2.2 Water Resources -------------_---.—.----.--.---..—.—.—.270 7.2.3 Ecology-----.--.—.--..-.--------._---------------- 77l 7.2.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and . 271 7.2.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 273 7.2.6 Transportation~------------..---.-----_..-----------. 274 7.2.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 274 '7.3 Development Under Prevailing Zoning iothe Town ofSouthold................................275 7.3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography------..----.--------------. 275 7.3.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 276 7.3.3 Ecology--------..-----.-------..--.-----.-------- 277 7.3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and . 27g 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 280 7.3.6 Transportation------------.—.—_._—.-----------.---.—.. 28} 7.3.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 282 7.4 Alternative Sites............................................................................................................283 8.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES...........2844 � 9.0 ASPECTS................................................................................... 11.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................287 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - SEQRA Documentation Appendix B - 108 Unit Resolution Appendix C - Full Enviromnental Assessment Form and Supporting Material, Submitted August 23, 2005 Appendix D - Town of Southold Resolution No. 709 of 2005,November 16, 2005 Appendix E - Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., February 9, 2006 Appendix F - Reply Affidavit of the Honorable David E. Kappell, Mayor of Greenport, February 2006 and Support Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing Appendix G - Proposed Site Plans Appendix H - One, Two, and Three-Bedroom Floor Plan Layouts Appendix I - Suffolk County Work Force Housing Needs Assessment and Responses Appendix J - Correspondence from Cameron Engineering &Associates and the Village of Greenport Utilities Operations Appendix K - Geologic Cross-section of Long Island- Appendix slandAppendix L - Soils Boring Report and Driller's Log Appendix M - Correspondence from the Suffolk County Water Authority and Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Quality Data Appendix N - Ecological Reports and Correspondence Appendix O - Site Photographs Appendix P - Emergency Service Correspondence and Energy Suppliers Appendix Q - Traffic Impact Study Appendix R - Archeological Investigation Reports Appendix S - Architectural Renderings Appendix T - Alternative Site Plans ^ LIST OF FIGURES Figurel —Site Location Map ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure2—Excerpt VfTax Map....................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 —Aerial Photograph--.----------.—.------.--.--------.----. 6 Figure 4—Excerpt of USDA Soil Map ............................................................................. 3l Figure 5 —On-Site Soil Borings-----.------------.-----.---.—.—.—.--- 44 6— of[��(�� y�xn ---.--..-------...--..—.—.—.--- 50 Figure � Topographic � � Figure 7—Excerpt of Hydrogeologic Zone Map.......................................................................... 53 Figure 8—Excerpt ofWater Table Elevation Map....................................................................... 55 Figure 0—Excerpt ofSGPz\Map................................................................................................. 57 Figure T0—Excerpt ofNYSDECFreshwater Wetlands Map...................................................... 65 Figure Il —Excerpt ofNational Wetlands Inventory Map........................................................... 66 Figure l2—NYSDECTidal Wetlands Mapping(7l8-557)......................................................... 67 Figure 13 —FEM/\ Flood Insurance Rate Map ---.—..----.—..--.-----.----...... 68 Figure }4—Excerpt of Zoning Map ............................................................................................. 88 Figure l5 —HALO Map November 2004................................................................................... 115 Figure }6—HALO Map December 2004................................................................................... }l6 Figure l7—Adopted Greenport TIAL() Yv/un 20. 2008\..—.---...—.--.—.----.— 117 Figure l8—Total Enrollment Grades K-3.................................................................................. l33 LIST OF TABLES Table l —Existing and Proposed Site Data................................................................................... 15 Table 2—Potential Town Property Tax Under Annexation ..................................... 24 Table 3 —Potential Town Property Too—NoAzuzoxatiou(S .----.—.—.------. 25 Table 4—Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations..................................................................42 Table 5 —Existing Slopes mzthe Subject Property—_--....—.—..-----------.--..4g Table 6— Ecological Communities Present utNon±hvviod Village Site........................................ 70 Table,7—Bulk and Dimensional Regulations—H]0District........................................................ 86 Table 8 —Total Student Enrollment, 1gg8-09hJ2006-07.......................................................... l3l � Table 9—Population Change Between 1090 and 2000.............................................................. 134 Table |0—Accident North Rood(C.R. 4R)............................................................... 146 Table ll — Proposed Earthwork(in Cubic .—.—.--.—.--.---.---..--_—...., }54 -[able l3 —Consistency with `8R-2 Zoning District.................................................. 175 Table |4—Rutgers Shx1n Demographic Multipliers_.—.....--.---.-----------. 226 Table l5 —NCES -----.--.----.----._-.._. 227 Table 16—Town ofSouthold Demographic Multipliers—....—.-.-.............-....—.---. 227 Table l7—Estimates OfSchool-Aged Children Generated........................................................ 228 Table /8—Greenport School Capacity v8, Enrollment.............................................................. 229 Table19— Trips................................................................................................. 236 Table 70— Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R48) at Chapel Lane..................................................................................................... 240 ' Table 21 —Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R. 4R) ut Queen Street.................................................................................................... 241 Table 22— Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R48) a±Moores Lane .................................................................................................... 242 Table%3 —Site Distance Criteria................................................................................................ 245 Table 24—Comparison OfAlternatives...................................................................................... 265 � ' , � 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS")prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 and pursuant to a Positive Declaration issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), as Lead Agency, for the action contemplated herein. This DEIS evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, which involves the annexation of a 17.19±-acre parcel from the Town of Southold ("Town") to the Village of Greenport ("Village"), rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District, and (upon site plan approval) the construction of a 128-unit, mixed-income residential workforce housing development consisting of one, two, and three bedroom homeownership units, of which 64-units will be "affordable"as defined by Suffolk County. The 17.19±-acre subject property is situated on the south side of County Route 48 (North Road) in the Town of Southold. Based upon the Positive Declaration issued by the NYSDEC, a formal scoping process was conducted by the Lead Agency to identify impact issues to be evaluated in this DEIS. These impact issues were outlined in the Final Scope, have been incorporated into various sections of this DEIS, and are as follows: Proposed Action; Geology, Soils, and Topography; Water Resources; Ecology; Land Use and Zoning; Community Character; Community Services; Transportation; Cultural Resources; Cumulative Impacts; Use and Conservation of Energy; Production and Disposal of Solid Waste; Consistency with the Town of Southold's comprehensive planning studies; and Consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs ("LWR-Ps") of both the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport. This Executive Summary is designed solely to provide an overview of the proposed action, a brief summary of the potential adverse impacts identified and mitigation measures proposed, as well as alternatives considered. Review of the Executive Summary is not a substitute for the full evaluation of the proposed action performed in Sections 2.0 through 11.0 of this DEIS. BRIEF SITE AND PROJECT HISTORY The subject property has been zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") since the creation of the HD designation in 1989. Prior to 1989, the subject property had been zoned Multiple Residence ("M"), which allowed seven units per acre. In July, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter "Town Planning Board") approved a site plan proposed by KACE LI, LLC's (the current property owner)predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., allowing it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property to be known as "Northwind Village." According to the Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York,the site has never been developed. In July, 2005, KACE LI, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "KACE") filed a petition with both the Town and the Village to annex the subject property into the Village. Annexation is the alteration or changing of boundaries of a county, city, town or village that has the effect of adding territory. Moreover, annexation is the process by which a municipality, such as the Village of Greenport, incorporates contiguous land into its boundaries. The basic prerequisite to the annexation of territory from one local government to another is the consent of the governing board of each local government. Prior to adopting a resolution, each governing board must, on the basis of considerations including, but not limited to, (a) those relating to the effects upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c) the remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory is situated, and (d) any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall public interest. There have been various court decisions that have assessed when a proposed annexation is in the public interest. For example, some cases have weighed the potential benefits and detriments to the municipalities involved in the annexation. Such benefits and detriments can be defined in terms of municipal services, including (but not limited to) police protection, fire protection, public education, and sewer and water utilities. The applicant respectfully submits that, in the extant case, the improved, expeditious and cost-effective connection to the annexing government's sewage system should be weighed heavily to determine if an annexation proposal is in the overall public interest. This would assist the applicant in building, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residential units, of which 64 would be workforce units. The applicant respectfully asserts that if the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. It is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." Specifically, as noted at page 18, paragraph 51 of the Reply Affidavit of Honorable David E. Kapell in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of the Peter of the Village of Greenport, against The Town of Southold, Joshua Horton as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, Louisa Evans, John M. Romanelli, Thomas H. Wickham, William P. Edwards, and Daniel C. Ross, Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Greenport School District, Greenport Library, East West Fire Protection District, the Southold Solid Waste District, Suffolk County, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is in support of the annexation: "The Village denies that KACE [the current applicant] is entitled to a sewer connection other than as a discretionary act, because the property is presented located outside the Village, and a 1996 stipulation of settlement providing for connection is obsolete and void. " ii The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion, it does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold. If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. On August 16, 2005, the Town of Southold Town Board (hereinafter the "Town Board") determined that the proposed annexation was an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency in the matter. On August 23, 2005, the applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form ("Full EAF") and information supporting the proposed annexation at a public hearing of the Town Board. The Village challenged this determination by requesting lead agency status, and the lead agency question was submitted to the Commissioner of the NYSDEC for resolution. The Commissioner then submitted the matter to the NYSDEC Region I office for input due to the existence of freshwater wetlands on the subject site. The Region I office ultimately indicated 1) its desire to be lead agency; 2) that the project many have significant environmental impacts; and 3) that an environmental impact statement must be prepared. Thereafter, the NYSDEC assumed lead agency status for this matter. In November, 2005, the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 709 of 2005, which found that the petition for annexation filed by the applicant complied with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law. However, the Town Board resolved that the petition was not in the overall public interest, based on the considerations identified in the Order and Determination dated November 16, 2005. Upon Southold's denial of the petition for annexation, the Village of Greenport filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment pursuant to Section 712 and Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law and Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against the Town of Southold. The Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney for the Town of Southold, in opposition to the Verified Petition of the applicant, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department on February 9, 2006. A decision on this matter is still pending. The Village of Greenport has continued to express its support for the proposed annexation. In addition, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing has given its support to the proposed project. In correspondence dated November 25, 2008, the Department indicated that since the proposed project would "promote energy efficient and environmentally responsible smart growth principles" and that 64 of the units "are proposed to be built as affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program," it "support[s] your efforts and encourage[s] -the approval of your proposed development." BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves three components, as follows: ® the annexation of the 17.19±-acre subject property from the Town into the Village; ® the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD District into the Village's R-2 District; and ® the development of the subject property with 128 multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be workforce housing units. .Annexation of the property into the Village would be necessary in order to allow the development of 64 workforce housing units without government subsidy or use of taxpayer funding. Should such annexation occur, the property would require zoning in Greenport. The applicant is requesting that the subject property (consisting of the current tax parcel designated as District 1000 — Section 40 — Block 3 — Lot 1) be classified in the R-2 District within the Village. Upon such annexation, the tax parcel number would also require reassignment to reflect its new location in the Village. The proposed development consists of the construction of a residential community to be known as Northwind Village that would be composed of 128, mixed-income ownership units. There would be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, of which 64 (50 percent) would be market-rate units and 64 (50 percent) would be workforce units, based upon current income guidelines of Suffolk County. These units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions."The restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on a number of priority and qualification requirements. The applicant is proposing that the affordability restrictions have a 30-year duration. However, the duration ultimately will be determined by the Village of Greenport in its administration of the program. Given the configuration of the subject property, the proposed development has been designed to maximize preservation of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. The 128 units would be situated in 23 buildings, which would be situated around the proposed interior roadway. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,350 to 1,500 square feet. The workforce units would be distributed amongst the different unit types and sizes and be indistinguishable from the market- rate units in terms of exterior fagade and materials. Specifically, all of the one- and two- bedroom units would be workforce units and six of the three-bedroom units would be workforce units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate. iv The proposed development would continue to be served by the Village of Greenport Fire Department, the Town of Southold Police Department and the Greenport UFSD. In addition, solid waste would be collected by a private carter under contract with the Village of Greenport. As indicated in the table below, the proposed development would disturb approximately 6.65 acres, with no regulated wetland or adjacent area being disturbed. Existing and Proposed Site Data Site Coverage: Exsting'Coridtion Proposed Condition> Acres.(Percept) . Acres;(Percent Buildings 0 1.87±acres (10.88%) Other Paved Surfaces 0 2.27±acres (13.21%) Wetlands 3.93+acres (22.86%) 3.93+acres (22.86%) IIVIPEI2'VIOUS'URFACE;` 3:93 acres(22:86% 8.07 acres (46 95%'. Forest 13.26±acres (77.14%) 6.61±acres (38.45%) Lawn and Landscaping 0 2.51±acres (14.60%) PERVIOUS..ST7RFACE . 13.26 acres 77:14% 912 acres 53,05%);. . TOTAL 17.19±acres 100.00% 17.19± acres (100.00% The sales prices of the proposed workforce units will be determined at time of listing using the guidelines established by Suffolk County. Using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") figure for the median income for a family of four in the County of Suffolk as the Area Median Income ("AMI"), price ranges will be determined using standard calculations (i.e., 2.5 times the AMI, as described below). The target AMI levels will be adjusted for household size. As of 2008, the HUD AMI for Suffolk County is $97,100. Half (32) of the proposed workforce units will be for households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI ($77,700) and half(32) of the workforce units will be for households earning less than 120 percent of the AMI ($116,500). This distribution is consistent with current Suffolk County and Town of Southold workforce housing guidelines and policies. The anticipated sales prices for the workforce units are based on 2.5 times the HUD income limits. For 2008, the allowable sales prices for workforce units are as follows —up to $194,250 (for households earning 80 percent of the AMI) and up to $291,250 (for households earning 120 percent of the AMI). Prices will also depend on the size of the units. The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the Long Island Housing Partnership regarding administration of the workforce housing program. However, should annexation occur, the Village of Greenport would have control over individual eligibility and overall administration of the program. Access to the proposed development would be from C.R. 48 by a single, two-way access drive located at the northwestern portion of the subject property. Parking for the proposed multi- family development would be primarily provided in the front of each dwelling unit. A proposed emergency access entrance from C.R. 48 would be constructed at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. v According to the Village of Greenport Village Code (Chapter 150 — Zoning), the proposed development would require 192 parking spaces, based upon 1.5 parking spaces per unit. As such, the proposed development provides 192 parking spaces, which complies with the off-street parking requirements. The proposed site plan incorporates sidewalks throughout the site to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and parking areas back to North Road along the access driveway. As the site is undeveloped, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity are not currently supplied to the subject property. As part of the proposed action, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity would be supplied by the Village of Greenport utilities. The Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA") would provide potable water to the proposed development, which would utilize a total of 34,050 gallons per day ("gpd"), not including irrigation, as no irrigation system is proposed at this time. The Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System would provide sanitary sewage disposal service to the proposed development. The total projected sanitary flow is approximately 34,050 gpd. The Village's sewage treatment plant is currently permitted to accept up to 650,000 gpd and the current flow is 325,000 gpd. Therefore, the existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to serve the proposed development, as confirmed by Cameron Engineering. As the subject property is vacant, there is no stormwater management system on the site. Upon development, stormwater runoff would be controlled and recharged on-site via new drywells installed throughout the developed portion of the subject site. Stormwater would be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, then transported through subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action has been designed to contain the runoff from a 10- year storm event (two inches). The two-inch storage requirement imposed by the Town (the current jurisdictional entity) would also satisfy the various provisions of the federal and state Phase II Stormwater regulations with respect to volume and water quality controls. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, would guide many aspects of the proposed development, including site layout and design. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the aforesaid adopted Smart Growth principles, including: ® Direct development to strengthen existing communities; ® Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; 0 Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention would be devoted the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. Vi It is expected the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the United States Green Building Council. Furthermore, the residences are proposed to meet Energy Star for Home requirements. The identification of the need for workforce housing in the Town dates as far back to the 1985 Southold Town Master Plan Update. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy 2003 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement also identifies a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly every geographic location within the Town. High housing costs forced out younger residents of the Southold community. As a result, the portion of the population under the age of 35 is impacted more than any other age group. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 35 decreased by almost 30 percent, three times faster than the national average. The people most affected by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions.in the Southold community—.nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, etc. and their families who are unable to afford the typical Southold home, which sold for over $510,000 in 2007 according Suffolk Research Service, Inc. In order to provide 64 affordable workforce homes without taxpayer contribution or government subsidy, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable in the Town of Southold. Greenport has the necessary zoning classifications and most importantly, the infrastructure in the form of sewer, water and electric systems to make the proposal, at the necessary density, financially feasible without using tax dollars to pay for the workforce housing. Presently, tax parcel 1000-40-3-1, totaling approximately 17.2 acres, has assessed value of $4,300 generating $3,816 annually in real property taxes. A property tax analysis was undertaken by the applicant in order to assess the difference in potential property taxes generated between the as-of-right development (50 units) and the proposed action (128 units). The analysis was prepared by Robert Scott, Town of Southold Assessor. This analysis presents the potential tax revenues to the Town of Southold for the proposed project and the as-of-right alternative in Southold. Projected tax revenues would be anticipated to be slightly higher at the time of development than indicated in the analysis. The first scenario is based upon the premise that the property is annexed into the Village of Greenport. The current (2007-2008) tax rate (Town portion) in the Village of Greenport is $809.356 per $1,000 of Assessed Value ("AV"). Therefore, based upon the total adjusted AV, the proposed project would generate approximately $395,775 for the Town, upon annexation. In addition, the Village of Greenport, based on the current Village tax rate of 170.200 per$1,000 of Assessed Value, would receive $83,228 annually in property tax revenue from the proposed development, should the site be located within the Village of Greenport. The second scenario assumes that the subject property remains under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and 50 condominium units would be built. The current (2007-2008) tax rate in the Town of Southold is $909.267/$1,000 AV. Therefore, the total property tax revenue to the town generated by the as-of-right development, based upon the adjusted AV would be $264,824. This represents $130,951 less than the proposed action. Vii Therefore, the proposed action would generate more taxes for the Town of Southold than development under the existing HD zoning, and would thus be a property tax benefit for the Town of Southold. Although the Town of Southold will continue to receive significant tax revenue from the proposed project, it would no longer have responsibility to provide municipal services, which would now be provided by the Village of Greenport. However, these services are expected to be minimal, as the proposed project will be structured as a condominium operated by a homeowners association that would be responsible for all maintenance, roads, solid waste collection and landscaping within the proposed development. Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over three phases. Phase I would include installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures,construction of 48 units and a substantial portion of the site work. Site improvements in the first phase would include the roads, utilities, drainage, and a portion of lighting and landscaping. It is expected that Phase I would last a total of 10 months. Phase II would continue with the construction of units and site improvements. An additional 40 units would be built, and work would continue on roads, drainage, utilities, and landscaping. Phase II is scheduled for seven months. The last phase, Phase III, would include the construction of the final 40 units and completion of the remaining site work, over approximately seven months. Site work in this final phase would be minimal, relating only to those units being constructed. Overall, construction is proposed to last a total of 24 months. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION Geolou, Soils, and Topography As the site is currently undeveloped, the proposed development would disturb soils that have previously been essentially undisturbed. Based upon a review of the proposed development and the soil map, no development is expected to occur in either the Berryland mucky sand ("Be") or Canadice silt loam ("Ca"), which have the most development limitations. In addition, as much of the wetland area is comprised of Raynham loam ("Ra") (which is also very limited), no development would.occur in this area. The majority of development is proposed to occur within Riverhead sandy loam ("RdB"), Montauk fine sandy loam ("MfB") and Plymouth loamy sand ("P1B"). These mapping units have few, if any, limitations to development that cannot be easily overcome. One of the predominant soil groups on the site, P1B, is described as having slight erosion potential. The slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential and detailed erosion and sediment control plans would be an integral part of the final development plans. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") prepared for compliance with Phase II Stormwater Regulations will address measures necessary to meet water quality standards for runoff and safe accommodation of flows from extreme storm events. viii Erosion and sediment control measures will include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties. Due to the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from those shown on the Soil Survey, actual on-site investigations were performed. Overall, the test-hole exploration revealed quality soil conditions that were judged well-suited for standard construction practices. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered an issue. Therefore, the soils appear suitable for development, and no significant adverse impact is anticipated. The nature and scope of the development would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas, building areas and drainage and sanitary facilities. As the site is currently undeveloped, particular care would be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed would be protected from development. The soils that constitute the wetland areas of the site would not be disturbed by the proposed development. The following measures would be incorporated into the development of the subject property to minimize impacts: ® the limit of disturbance would encompass the areas landward of the wetlands and their associated 100-foot buffers; ® silt fence would be installed at the limit of disturbance to protect existing vegetation; ® clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the extent of open areas and limit the time areas are open; and ® a stabilized construction entrance would be installed. Water Resources In order to ensure the protection of groundwater, the proposed project will comply with the relevant recommendations of the "Highest Priority Areawide Alternatives" of the 208 Study regarding Hydrogeologic Zone W. No irrigation is proposed as part of this action. The proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to existing municipal water and sewer facilities. Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. As shown on the Preliminary SWPPP and the Preliminary Utility Plan, stormwater runoff would be recharged on-site through the use of drywells. In addition, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be.implemented both during construction and post development. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the above criterion. ix Suffolk County has promulgated various regulations and standards that are designed to protect the water resources of Long Island. Article 6 of the SCSC specifically governs sanitary wastewater discharges. The subject property is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, and therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the SCSC, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 600 gpd per acre or approximately 10,314± gpd, based upon 17.19 acres. As the proposed development includes the connection to municipal sewer system, and there would not be any on-site sanitary discharge, this limitation does not apply and no significant adverse impacts to water resources associated with increased sanitary flow on site would be expected. The Village's sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development (34,050 gpd) and the sewage treatment plant is also undergoing an upgrade. As such, no significant adverse impacts associated with the projected increase in sanitary flow would be expected. Potable water would be supplied by the SCWA through an existing main located under C.R. 48. The proposed development is estimated to use 34,050 gallons of potable water per day. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action. As SCWA has sufficient capacity to serve the subject development, no significant adverse impacts to water supply are anticipated. As described above, the total projected sewage flow would be 34,050 gpd, based upon Suffolk County sewage flow standards, as calculated by the project engineer. The proposed development will be connected to the Village of Greenport sewer system through a sewer main located under C.R. 48. Due to the topography of the property and the location of the sewer lines within C.R. 48, a small pump station is proposed to be constructed in the northeast comer of the site, adjacent to the emergency access. The proposed stormwater management system for the Northwind Village would be designed according to the local requirement to store the runoff from a two-inch rainfall over the developed portion of the subject site. According to the project engineer, storage of stormwater will be accomplished using drywells placed throughout the subject site. General calculations for the storage volume required, based on proposed area coverage, indicate a required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. Stormwater runoff generated on the site will be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, and will be transported by subsurface piping to a system of drywells throughout the site. Total storage would be 35,610.64 cubic feet, thus exceeding the required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. As a result of the studies conducted under the NURP, stormwater discharge from construction activities disturbing more than.one acre requires a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). In order to implement the regulations, the NYSDEC has issued General Permit GP-0-08-001 for stormwater discharge from construction activities, under which the applicant for this project will be required to obtain coverage. In order to obtain coverage, the necessary SWPPP will be developed, and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") will be filed with the NYSDEC. Under the criteria set forth by the Village Engineer, the project will be required to provide storage and recharge of runoff from a two-inch rainfall. Under the provisions of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, which is the primary NYSDEC reference used for compliance with the Phase 11 regulations, the SWPPP will demonstrate that Water Quality Control and Water Quantity Control goals are met through the use of various Best Management Practices to control stormwater runoff. In this case, the storage of two-inch of runoff ensures that the Water Quality Control goals are met in that the storage volume exceeds the calculated Water Quality Runoff Volume (which only requires storage of the runoff from a 1.3-inch storm). Water Quantity Controls are not required since there would not be any discharge to a stream. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared for the proposed project. The following is a summary of the pollution control measures proposed for the Northwind Village development: ® Existing vegetation to remain will be protected by installation of a construction fence (or other approved means) and will remain undisturbed; • Clearing and grading will be scheduled so as to minimize the extent of exposed area and the length of time that areas are exposed. A maximum of five acres will be disturbed at one time unless written permission is received from the NYSDEC; ® Grading and stripped areas will be stabilized through the use of temporary seeding, as required; ® Bare soils will be seeded within 14 days of exposure, unless construction will begin within 21 days, as sections are completed, or if construction on an area is suspended, the area will be seeded immediately; m The length and steepness of cleared slopes will be minimized in order to reduce runoff velocities. Runoff will be diverted away from cleared slopes; ® Sediment will be trapped on site and not permitted to enter adjacent properties, public, roadways, drainage systems or water bodies; ® Sediment barriers will be installed along the limits of disturbance prior to the start of construction and will be maintained until construction is complete; • A stabilized construction entrance will be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads. Any sediment tracked onto public roads will be removed or cleaned on a daily basis; ® All runoff will be retained on-site, in accordance with local regulations. Drainage inlets installed on-site will be protected from sediment build-up through the use of appropriate inlet protection; ® Appropriate means will be use to control dust during construction; and ® Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures will remain in place until upland disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Following permanent stabilization, paved areas will be cleaned of soil and debris and drainage systems will be cleaned and flushed, as necessary. Based on the preparation of the SWPPP, no significant adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development would be anticipated. Xi The proposed development has been designed and modified to ensure there is no infringement into the 100-foot freshwater wetland setback area. There will be no disturbance to the wetland setback area during construction, as the proposed development has been modified to provide a minimum of 10 feet between the buildings and the 100-foot wetland setback. As such, the applicant has submitted a request to the NYSDEC for a letter of non jurisdiction, as noted in Section 2.7 of this DEIS. The freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. As the proposed residential units will be served by municipal water supply and sewer systems and recharge will occur wholly on the subject property, the project will not result in the addition or removal of water to the adjacent wetlands from those sources. In order to help minimize impacts associated with clearing, grading and the installation of impervious surfaces and landscaping, the stormwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to accommodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stormwater drainage system will prevent the transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. In conjunction with the preliminary drainage design, soil borings were taken at five locations throughout the subject property. The borings show groundwater generally located at 20-to-25 feet bgs, which will not interfere with the installation or operation of the proposed drainage system. The drywells installed as part of the drainage system for recharge of runoff will only extend to a depth of two feet above groundwater elevations, and may require excavation and backfill of unsuitable materials to facilitate leaching. Where excavation is not practical, other methods (such as the use of deeper diffusion wells) have been used in this area to facilitate groundwater recharge. One of the borings (in the vicinity of Building 16) (formerly Building 14) does indicate perched water at approximately five feet bgs. However, this is considered a localized condition likely due to poor soils. As the proposed buildings do not have basements, any dewatering required for the footings and foundations would be minimal. As demonstrated above, the project has been designed to be protective of both groundwater and surface water resources. The development will conform to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study and the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Furthermore the site will be served by public water and the municipal sewer system, both of which agencies indicated their ability to serve the proposed multi-family development. Stormwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon water resources. Xii Eeo102y The proposed action will result in the elimination of 2.0 acres of successional old field habitats and 4.6 acres of successional southern hardwood forests. Approximately 10.54 acres of existing red maple-hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods, old fields, and successional southern hardwood forests will be preserved under the proposed action. The loss of 6.65 acres of old fields and successional hardwood forests will be associated with permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals, herpetiles, and songbirds which utilize thickets, shrublands, forest edges, and/or open habitats. Field observations and correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program ("NYNHP") indicate that the subject property does not provide habitat for any protected species of wildlife. While the proposed project will result in the loss of old field and successional forest habitats, the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor as no sensitive species will be impacted and the effected ecological communities are abundant. Nesting sites for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) were observed within the successional old fields of the subject property. One of the nesting sites will be destroyed during construction, the other site is located within the dirt access road on the western side of the property and will not be destroyed. Eastern box turtles are recognized to be declining due to loss of habitat from development and mortality on roadways (William s and Parker 1987; Nazdrowicz et al. 2008). Accordingly, this potential impact to Eastern box turtle populations is expected to be insignificant in magnitude; however, the loss of the nesting site could be easily mitigated by providing additional habitat, as is proposed. Specifically, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. See the Proposed Mitigation Measures section,below, for additional details. Approximately 4.6 acres of forest will be cleared as a result of the proposed project. These successional hardwood forests are re-growth stands and are likely to have resulted from the abandonment of historical agricultural activities on the property. These stands are contiguous with the mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands associated with Moore's Woods. Small remnants of an oak-beech-tulip forest type are present on the subject property and are within the boundaries of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or occur as a narrow band surrounding its landward margin. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100-foot buffer area. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6± acres), the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e., oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+acres). xiii The clearing of 4.6±- acres of successional hardwood forests adjacent to the mature f6rest communities associated with Moore's Woods will result in the creation of a new forest edge. Forest edges exhibit diff6rences in microclimate, plant composition, plant density, and habitat quality than forest interiors and, accordingly, forest edges and forest interiors are often utilized by different wildlife species. The proposed project will result in.a new forest edge and, accordingly,result in changes in microclimate that will penetrate up to 240±feet into the existing forests associated with Moore's Woods. The altered microclimate, particularly increased light levels, associated with the new forest edge created by the proposed project is likely to result in colonization and increased growth of invasive plant species (Brothers and Spingarin 1992), within the 100-foot-wide buffer area. The habitat quality for nesting songbirds in surrounding forests may also be degraded by the proposed project due to presence of lights in parking areas and buildings, increased levels of noise and disturbance resulting from human activities, and increased abundance of predators and invasive competitors. The magnitude of the impact associated with alteration of the forest edge on microclimate and abundance of invasive plant and wildlife species is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted and the high-quality oak- tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within 240± feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). The proposed residential units will be serviced by a municipal water supply and sewer systems. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition of water to the hydrological budget of the adjacent wetlands resulting from the discharge of wastewater from septic systems into the wetland's watershed. The proposed project will result in a perturbation to the existing pathways by which precipitation falls on the site, drains through the site's soils, and discharges through the site's wetlands. It is likely that this perturbation will not impact the surrounding wetlands uniformly as some wetland areas may receive greater water supply from nearby uplands, while other areas receive less. The conversion of successional fields or forest habitats to landscaped lawn will alter the underlying soil conditions, therefore altering the chemical composition of water infiltrating through these soils. The human activity associated with the proposed project has the potential to result in increased flow of petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and other contaminants to the surrounding wetlands. However, significant impacts to water quality in the wetlands associated with Moore's Woods are not likely to occur due to the installation of the proposed stormwater collection system, establishment of a 100-foot-wide buffer area, and implementation of other mitigation measures. Xiv Overall, the proposed action is not- expected to substantially affect ecological resources, including species diversity and carrying capacity. Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Land Use and Zoning The subject property is currently a vacant, unimproved parcel. The proposed action includes the annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into Village of Greenport and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be "workforce"units. The proposed development has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the N_YSDEC regulated wetland. Twenty-three buildings containing the 128 dwelling units are proposed to be developed on the property. Each building would be two stories in height and would contain from four to eight units. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,500 square feet in size. All of the one- and two- bedroom units and six of the three-bedroom units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate units. Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access drive along North Road(C.R. 48), and a proposed emergency access from North Road would be constructed at the northeastern comer of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. Upon annexation from Southold to Greenport, the applicant would apply to Greenport for inclusion in the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 district permits the development of one- and two- family dwelling units. A variance would be required to permit the development of more than two units in a building. The bulk and dimensional requirements for the R-2 district and the proposed development's compliance with such are below. Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District Parameter R64nir6d/P:erinitt6d Pro osed : Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 300 feet N/A Side Yard Setback 25 feet N/A Building Lot Coverage 35% 10.9% Building Height 2V2stories/35 feet 2 stories XV The annexation to Greenport and the R-2 zoning would permit the development of a greater number of workforce units (64 versus five) than would be permitted by the Town of Southold's HD zoning district. This is due to the location within the Village, which would allow for sewer connection. The greater overall density would allow the price of the workforce units to be absorbed into the market-rate dwellings, thus requiring no external subsidyto maintain the affordability of the units. Therefore, the annexation would create no significant impact on the land use of the property, although the specific zoning of the property would change from HD to R-2. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the adopted Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, including: ® Direct development to strengthen existing communities; ® Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; ® Provide a variety of transportation choices; ® Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and ® Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention will be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation. of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the US Green Building Council ("USGBC"). The proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED-Neighborhood Development certification. Overall, as the proposed action would result in the development of a vacant and undeveloped property and would incorporate LEED building elements for environmental sustainability, no significant adverse land use impacts would be expected to result upon implementation of the proposed action. Community Character Although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Therefore, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. The proposed development would remove a portion of the on-site vegetation along North Road and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to the north,would increase. xvi However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. The architectural design of the residential units will be harmonious with the local vernacular, following the architectural styles of those found in the surrounding houses and Greenport Village. A blend of traditional architectural style with contemporary material and finishes will provide low-maintenance, high-value homes. The workforce housing units will be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in architectural appearance. Design elements will include well-landscaped public areas and preservation of mature vegetation, integration of walkways and bike paths, and homes with front porches close to the street to encourage community interaction and maximize public safety. While changing the property from undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, such development would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. Comprehensive Plans/Studies/Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans As part of the DEIS, the applicant analyzed the following land use plans as well as the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan — Village of Greenport (1988) and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan—Town of Southold: • Town Master Plan(1985); • Town Affordable Housing Policies &Program(1993); • Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994); • Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold(1997); • Community Preservation Project Plan(1998); • County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study(1999); • Southold Township Plan: 2000 Planning Initiatives • Town Water Supply Management &Watershed.Protection Strategy(2000); • Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan(2001); • North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002); • Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold, Final Report(July 2002); • Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment(June 2005); • Town of Southold Hamlet Study(2005); • Community Preservation Project Plan(2006 Update); and • Housing Implementation Plan(2007). A consistency analysis with each of the aforesaid plans is provided in the main body of the text (Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of this DEIS). Xvii Community Facilities and Services Public Schools The intended market of the proposed development is current and previous residents of the Town and the Village, particularly working individuals and families who have been forced to move away or live in inadequate conditions due to rising home prices and the insufficient supply and variety of housing. As previously noted, 50 percent of units in the proposed development would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project will be young individuals or families looking for their first home. It is anticipated that the limited size of the units would constrain potential household size and, thus, the number of school-age children generated. Furthermore, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living within the Greenport UFSD. The. first set of estimates was developed using a 2006 report of residential demographic multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University (the "Rutgers Study"). The multipliers created by the Rutgers Study are widely-accepted and utilized in school impact analyses. The second source is actual enrollment statistics from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ("NCES") for the Greenport UFSD. Custom multipliers were generated using actual enrollment, demographic, and housing statistics for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000. The third source for estimating school-age children generated by the proposed development are multipliers utilized by the Town of Southold in its own calculations included in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement("CIS/FGEIS"), dated August 2003. The estimated number of school-age children generated by the proposed development, based on the multipliers from the Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold is 52, 26, and 42, respectively. Therefore, the average estimate of school-age children generated by the proposed project based on all the three sources is 40 students. All of these figures assume that 100 percent of the school children generated would attend public schools. The analysis projects that between 26 and 52 school-aged children may be generated by the proposed development. Using the highest value of this range and the 2006/07 student enrollment, the Greenport UFSD would have a total enrollment of only 713 students after the phased completion of the proposed project, which is only 64.8 percent of the stated capacity of the District. Therefore, the Greenport School District has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the highest possible number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project. Fire Protection The subject property is located within the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have an impact on fire protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service. Xviii Furthermore, the Fire District would receive the increased property taxes generated by Northwind Village, which would be slightly higher than under the as-of-right development. To minimize the potential impacts to the Greenport Fire Department, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. All internal driveways would be designed for proper turning radii for all emergency service vehicles and an emergency access driveway will be constructed at the northeast coiner of the subject property. All hallways and stairways would be of adequate width to accommodate emergency personnel. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action. Overall, the proposed action (including annexation and development) is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Similar to the Fire District, the Police Department would receive increased property taxes to be generated by Northwind Village. Such taxes would be slightly higher than those produced by the as-of-right development. In order to mitigate the potential demand for police services, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. The design of the community is such that structures are located proximate to one another, which provides "de-facto" security for the proposed development. In addition, site lighting would be installed to adequately illuminate parking areas. As such, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. Water Supply A water main traverses C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed development would be served by connecting to the water main,whi ch is under the jurisdiction of the SCWA. The proposed development is expected to generate a demand for approximately 34,050 gpd in potable water. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property, based upon a formerly-projected demand of 38,400 gpd. The proposed action would require more potable water (34,050 gpd) than the as-of-right development (15,000 gpd). However, as 50 single-family homes could be developed as part of current zoning, they could have 50 individual irrigation systems. Thus, the amount of water used by these systems could not be easily controlled. Sewage Disposal Village sewer mains are located within C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Annexation of the property into the Village of Greenport would allow connection to the sewer lines. XiX Connection allows the development to include a larger number of workforce units than would otherwise be feasible. Therefore, it is the intent of the applicant to extend the sewer lines into the property and to connect to the municipal sewer system. Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP dated November 6, 2006, indicated that Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to handle the estimated sewage flow. This was confirmed by Jack Naylor of the Greenport Department of Utilities. In a telephone conversation of July 17, 2008, Mr. Naylor indicated that only about one-half of the sewage treatment plant's capacity was currently used. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to serve the subject property. Solid Waste It is estimated that the proposed development would generate approximately 15.3±tons of solid waste per month, based on 2.25 persons-per-household and 3.5-pounds ("lbs") per-capita-per- unit-per-day. There would be no change in the collection and disposal of solid waste due to the proposed annexation of the property from Southold into Greenport. Solid waste generated by the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by private carters at licensed facilities. It is expected that as-of-right development would generate 6.0± tons of solid waste per month, which would also be collected and disposed of by private carters. The incremental difference in quantity of solid waste generate between the two scenarios is approximately 9.3 tons of solid waste per month. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with Village requirements. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Thus, no significant impacts on the production and disposal of solid waste are anticipated. Energy Suppliers In a letter dated April 28, 2008, John M. Merill, New Construction Representative of KeySpan Energy, has indicated that KeySpan will supply natural gas service to the proposed development provided that all scheduled main reinforcements for the North Fork area are completed prior to the start of construction of the proposed action and in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required. Steven Aylward, Design Section Manager, Electric and Design Construction at LIPA, responded to correspondence on May 2, 2008, indicating that LIPA would provide electric service for the proposed project in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required. Annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport would not change the status of the energy providers for the proposed project. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would require an increase in the use of natural gas and electricity. This incremental increase in natural gas and electricity is expected to have only a minimal impact on the supply of natural gas and electricity in the area. xx Recreation The proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, thus it is expected that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on existing area recreational facilities. It is anticipated that development of residences under the HD zoning district in the Town of Southold would allow for the provision of private on-site recreational facilities, which would provide on- site recreational facilities. Development of the proposed residential units is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on area recreational resources. Transportation A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. Information on trip generation rates for residential condominiums is contained in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. For the purposes of this investigation, the trips expected to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by utilizing ITE data for residential condominiums/townhouses (Land Use Code 230). The proposed townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips are expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village residential community. A review of the most recent five-year Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") revealed that there are no projects planned by the SCDPW that would affect North Road (C.R. 48) in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind Village project. Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted with regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of this project to determine the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in this report. Discussions held with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold revealed that they are not aware of any other developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind residential community. Unsignalized capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of vehicles to safely negotiate turning movements at the key locations noted below: ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. Intersection capacity analyses were first conducted to examine the 2007 existing traffic conditions (2007 Existing Condition). This condition evaluates the traffic conditions at the site and adjacent study area intersections without the proposed condominium' community development at present. Intersection capacity analyses were then calculated for the "2008 No- Build" condition. xxi This examination projected the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village community. The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the New York State Department of Transportation's LIT? 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. The traffic from the proposed Northwind Village development was then added to the predetermined 2008 "no build" traffic volumes and the capacity analyses was performed for the 2008 Build Condition using the resulting 2008 Build traffic volume totals. The results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses performed indicate that the traffic due to the proposed Northwind Village condominium community development will have no significant impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. All of the unsignalized intersections studied continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during all three peak time-periods studied and increases in delay due to the North Wind development are slight. Although the results indicate a decrease in LOS,from B to C from the 2008 No-Build Condition to the 2008 Build Condition for the northbound combined left turn/right turn lane at the North Road at Moores Lane intersection, the delay experienced by drivers in this land will only be increased by an average of 0.6 seconds per vehicle. The No-Build LOS B delay was very close to the LOS B/LOS C delay threshold of 15.0 seconds causing the minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. The operation of the proposed site driveway was found to be LOS B, C and C during the Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively. It is noted that all movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and traffic exiting the site do not cause any delay to thru traffic on North Road - The proposed development will have a single access drive constructed on North Road. This access drive will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking should be installed. It is further recommended that, given the speeds on North Road, a westbound left turn lane be constructed for entering site traffic. While a shoulder on the north side of the roadway exists on North Road it is narrow (five feet) and constructed of asphalt adjacent to through lanes constructed of concrete panels. The shoulder's narrow width and uneven surface causes difficulties for westbound through vehicles in passing vehicles stopped to rhake a left turn. Installation of a westbound left turn lane eliminates this condition and provides an added level of safety. In addition, an emergency access would be installed in the northeastern portion of the property, in order to enhance the safety of the development. West of the sight there exists a horizontal curve on North Road with the road's alignment curving south as it heads west. To ensure no sight distance problems at the proposed site access point, field sight distance movements were performed. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 is 50 mph. Xxii Sight distance from the proposed site driveway to the west exceeds both the required Stopping Sight Distance ("SSD") and desirable Intersection Site Distance ("ISM) for design speeds over 60 mph. With minor clearing the desirable ISD for design speeds over 70 mph will be achieved. As the speed limit on North Road in this vicinity is 50 mph, design speeds approaching 70 mph will not be present. The design speed, or 85th percentile speed, although typically higher than the speed limit will not approach 70 mph. It is recommended that vegetation along the south side of North Road in the vicinity of the horizontal curve be trimmed back to the right-of-way line. With this improvement sight distance from the site access will be maximized. As a result, no sight distance restrictions will exist on North Road in the vicinity of the site. Given the location and nature of the proposed Northwind Village residential community to the commercial districts of Greenport and Southold, it is likely that some portion of the residents will be employed at nearby businesses in both Greenport and Southold. Some residents may opt to carpool or choose alternative means of transportation (bicycle) to travel to work and back home. In this study, no credit was applied for use of any alternate means of transportation, and the traffic destined to and from the proposed Northwind Village was based on the use of passenger cars only. However, high potential for carpooling and/or alternative means of transportation by Northwind Village residents would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the site on the surrounding roadway network. As noted in Section 3.6, Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, since the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane it is questionable whether many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. However, the developer of Northwind Village is proposing to explore the establishment of a private shuttle service in conjunction with the homeowners association. This service could potentially provide transportation to downtown Greenport as well as to other local destinations. According to Dunn Engineering's analysis, the development of Northwind Village will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development will not significantly disrupt the traffic flow on the adjacent roadway network and will not create undue traffic congestion. Although the proposed development will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be at minimal. The proposed development will provide safe traffic operations for the residents and guests of the Northwind Village. Xxiii Cultural Resources A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted for the subject property, and no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered. Therefore, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. Cumulative Impacts The Final Scope for the proposed action, identifies several potential impacts associated with the proposed development which, when considered in the context of the community, local area, or region may have significant environmental impact. The following is a consistency analysis with each: • The impact of the potable water.supply requirements of the proposed action on the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork. The proposed action includes connection to the municipal water and sewer systems. As such, the proposed development would not require an on-site well to supply potable water or an on-site sanitary disposal system. A letter of water availability from the SCWA dated.March 4, 2008, clearly indicates that this entity is able to and would supply water to-the-proposed development, without detriment to the water supply source. Moreover, correspondence from Stephen M. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the SCWA, dated March 23, 2009 (see Appendix M), indicates that the water to be supplied to the proposed development will come from wells located on the North Fork. The SCWA indicates that the. "water supplies are tested every five years in a comprehensive way with a thorough SEQRA analysis." The correspondence indicates that the NYSDEC issues well permits to the SCWA based on a capped maximum gallons per minute and the SCWA is required to provide a complete analysis of any potential problems that might occur from pumping. The peak amounts are used in computations to determine if a peak demand is approaching. The correspondence further indicates that wells are pumped "very lightly" and some only seasonally in order to reduce the potential for either salt water intrusion and/or infiltration of surface contaminants. The SCWA did not indicate that there would be any problems associated with such water supply. In addition, the Greenport sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to handle the sanitary waste generated. Furthermore, the proposed development would collect and recharge all stormwater on-site, thereby increasing stormwater flow to the groundwater/aquifer. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the aquifer or the public water supply system. xxiv ® The impact of the wastewater generated by the proposed action, on either the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility or, if septic systems are installed, on the groundwater and groundwater-related surface water features in the project area such as Moore's Drain and its associated wetlands. The proposed action includes connection to the municipal sewer and treatment facility, which has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated effluent. As such, the proposed development would not require installation of an on-site sanitary system to accommodate sanitary waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts from sanitary effluent generated by the proposed development on either groundwater or groundwater-related surface water features (i.e., Moore's Drain and associated wetlands). Moreover, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the Greenport sewage treatment plant, as the plant has sufficient capacity to handle to the sewage effluent expected to be generated by the proposed development. ® The possibility that the loss of about 17 acres of forested area resulting from the action may be an incremental reduction in the deep forest habitat provided by the approximately 300 acre Moore's Woods, habitat which is especially important to certain forest dwelling species. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are proposed to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100- foot-wide buffer area, that will be preserved. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6±-acres), the magnitude of this impact is not expected to be significant, as no Federal- or State- protected species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e. oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Geology, Soils and Topography The nature and scope of the development will necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As the site is currently undeveloped, in order to minimize potential significant adverse impacts, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed will be protected; this includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot-wide buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property. xxv In developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped,' the grade will have a maximum slope of 1:3. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. All disturbed areas that are not planned to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Common green spaces and other softscape areas will be landscaped with low-maintenance, native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and upon implementation of the proposed action, a final SWPPP and NOI will be prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC to ensure stormwater is properly handled and impacts are mitigated. Water Resources In order to minimize the impact to water resources, a number of measures will be employed. The proposed development would be connected to both the public sewer and water systems. This will minimize the impact of potential sewage effluent impacting the subject property. As no potable water would be drawn from the property, there would be no localized draw-down on the property. In addition, stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged within the site in compliance with both local standards and NYSDEC Phase II regulations. The recharge of stormwater on the site would assist in ensuring that the aquifer is replenished. As indicated above, prior to construction, a detailed SWPPP will be prepared and implemented to ensure that there will be no significant impacts to surrounding properties or roadways. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shown on the Preliminary SWPPP include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (including the use of hay bales and silt fencing), and installation of a stabilized construction entrance. Finally, the proposed action would adhere, to the maximum extent practicable, to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, the NURP Study, and the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook as well as the relevant prevailing regulations regarding the protection of surface and groundwater resources. Ecology Based upon the proposed development, there would be a permanent loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests. These ecological communities currently provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including songbirds, small mammals, and herpetiles. The impact of the loss of habitat on wildlife would be mitigated through the preservation of 10.9± acres of natural habitats consisting of successional hardwood forests and red maple hardwood swamps. Xxvi Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and shrubs, which provide shelter and food for wildlife. Furthermore, the proposed development would, where possible,preserve mature trees within.the 6.6-acre building area. In order to avoid a potential loss of box turtle habitat, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. The box turtle nesting site construction and maintenance will follow guidelines for creation of box turtle nesting habitat put forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2009). The nesting site will be located on the western portion of the project site as shown in Appendix G. The creation of box turtle nesting will include removal of tall, herbaceous vegetation and organic soil layer from a 400-square-foot area to expose native, sandy soils. This area will be an open sunny location without nearby trees and shrubs which would shade the nesting area. A thin layer (approximately three inches) of clean, washed sand will be spread on the nesting area. Maintenance will include inspection of the nesting site every two years to ensure that the sandy soil remains exposed. Herbaceous plants and shrubs taller than 24 inches in height would be removed from the nesting area and the soils lightly raked to remove accumulated plant material. Maintenance will be conducted in April prior to nesting of female box turtles to avoid potential disturbance to eggs. In order to minimize potential impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods, a 100-foot-wide buffer area has been established landward of the freshwater wetlands. In addition, a row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) or white pine (Pinus strobus), will be planted along the perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. The dense foliage of these trees will serve to shade the new forest edge and will reduce potential perturbations to the microclimate of the forest and limit the spread of invasive plants into the woodlands. Finally, in order to minimize potential impacts to the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands and potential transport of sediments or other pollutants, the development will be comlected to the municipal sewer services, which will prevent discharges of wastewater from septic systems to the watershed of the adjacent wetlands and will prevent the addition of water to the hydrological budget of these wetlands. In addition, the installation of a stormwater control system capable of collecting two inches of runoff from impervious road, roof, and walkway surfaces will minimize the potential transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Moreover, the 100-foot-wide buffer area established landward of the freshwater wetlands will also serve to prevent transport of pollutants to the adjacent wetlands. Land Use, Zoning and Community Character In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts, the following measures will be employed: ® Appropriate landscaping and lighting will be provided throughout the development in order to enhance the aesthetics and be compatible with existing community character; and xxvii ® The proposed plan includes Smart Growth development aspects such as the clustering of units and the compact building sizes, which preserve open space and natural resources. Community Services and Utilities The potential impacts to the Greenport UFSD would be mitigated, as follows: ® By limiting unit sizes and incorporating a variety of unit types, the overall number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project will bemuch lower than if all four-bedroom detached single-family homes were built on the site; ® Construction of the proposed project will be a phased process, occurring over approximately three years. This timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new students into the school system. The 26 to 52 students that could be generated by the proposed project will be introduced over three years, which-will result in less than 0 to 17.new students per year. Divided equally among the thirteen grades, this represents less than 1.5 new students per grade per year; and ® The workforce units will be sold based on a priority list to Southold and Greenport residents. It is likely that many of these residents have been living in substandard or overcrowded housing conditions and whose existing living accommodations, once vacated, will not be reoccupied. Therefore, many of the expected school children may already be enrolled in the School District and their former units would not be re-occupied by"new" school-aged children. The applicant will work with the Greenport Fire Department and the Southold Police Department in order to ensure that the design of the proposed development (including all interior roadways) meets the requirements of both departments. The two-story height limit would not increase the burden of the Fire Department, as two-story buildings already exist in its jurisdiction. In addition, the design of the development (with front porches, etc.) will allow neighbors to informally provide security for the community. Finally, the proposed development would have an emergency access, located as far as possible from the main access. This would ensure that if there is a problem either gaining access to or leaving the property through the main entrance, another access point(in a different location) would be available. Transportation The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering examined the traffic-related implications of the proposed action. Methods of alleviating existing and projected traffic problems have been developed and presented in that study. 'Based on the traffic analyses performed by Dunn Engineering, the following actions would be implemented to enhance the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site and mitigate the effects of the additional site traffic: Installation of a STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking at the intersection of the proposed access drive and North Road; Xxviii ® Installation of a westbound left-turn-lane to be constructed for entering site traffic; ® Parking of all construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles on-site during construction activity; and ® Cut-back of vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access to the right-of-way lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate. Cultural Resources As no significant adverse impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary. ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section examines alternatives to the proposed action as set forth in the Final Scope, as follows: ® SEQRA-mandated,No-action Alternative (Site Remains as it Currently Exists); ® Alternative Site Design; ® Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold; and ® Alternative Sites. The following table provides a comparison of the quantitative impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives discussed below. XXiX Comparison of Alternatives No-Action As-of-Right Proposed Action 50-Unit 108-Unit Alternative AAlternative Alternative Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres Land Use Multi-Family Attached Single- Multi-Family Residential Vacant Family Residential Residential Total Number of Units 128 0 50 108 Number of Workforce 64 0 5 50 Units Population otel 318 0 192 288 School Children Note 2 40 0 50 40 Water Usage/Sewage 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd (Note 3 Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 29,806 cubic feet 34,306 cubic feet Required Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 30,264 cubic feet 34,400 cubic feet Provided Solid Waste(Note 4) 15.3 tons per month 0 tons per month 6.0 tons per month 12.9 tons per month Traffic(Note 5) AM Peak 63 0 30(44)(Note 6) 55 PM Peak 74 0 34(57) 64 Saturday Peak 80 0 57(55) 74 Area to Remain in Natural 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres Vegetation Area to Remain Wetlands 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres Area of Roads,Buildings 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres and Pavement Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.64 acres 2.75 acres Note 1 The projected population based on structure type as provided in the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. Note 2 The projected number of school children provides the averages of the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University,U.S.Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics for the Greenport School District,and the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Impact Statement dated August 2003 used to calculate the generation of school children. Note 3 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time. Note 4 Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al. (John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003) Note 5 Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Condominiums/Townhouses. Note 6 The numbers in the parentheses represent the trip generation based upon the single-family detached home (Land Use Code 210)factor,rather than the factor for Townhouse/Condominium(Land Use Code 230)as shown outside the parentheses. See Section 7.3.6 for a more detailed discussion. xxx SEQRA-mandated,No-action Alternative The no-action alternative would leave the subject site as it currently exists. However, this alternative is not feasible as the 17.19±-acre site is privately-owned and zoned for residential development. Moreover, this alternative is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the applicant,and thus, is not a reasonable option for the applicant to pursue. Alternative Site Design This alternative development plan reflects the original site plan which, on or about July 11, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board approved for KACE LI, LLC's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., permitting it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property. Similar to the proposed action, implementation of the alternative site design would consist of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town into the Village, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property with a residential community consisting of 108 dwelling units. Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold This alternative involves the redevelopment of the subject property in accordance with the prevailing HD zoning within the Town of Southold. This alternative design would not require annexation of the subject property. This alternative would permit the development of 50 single- family attached residential units, an internal driveway, associated parking and an on-site sewage treatment plant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The 50-unit plan has a very similar layout to the 128-unit and 108-unit plans, based upon the required wetland setbacks. However, the overall footprint of the dwellings would be slightly smaller than in the other scenarios. Alternative Sites According to §617.9(b)(v) of the SEQR regulations, the DEIS should include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Furthermore, "site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor." As, there are no other sites owned by the project sponsor that would accommodate the proposed development, discussion of alternative sites is not warranted. Xxxi 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS")has been prepared for the proposed action, which consists of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town of Southold (hereinafter"Southold" or the "Town") into the Village of Greenport (hereinafter"Greenport" or the "Village"), rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2: One- and Two-Family Residence District (hereinafter the "R-2 District"), and the subsequent development of the property as a residential community consisting of 128 dwelling units. One half of the dwelling units (64) would be workforce units and the other half would be market-rate units. The DEIS has been prepared to address the issues noted in the Positive Declaration (see Appendix A) and ultimately identified in the Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the Lead Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation("NYSDEC") (see Appendix A). The proposed annexation and subsequent development involve a 17.19±-acre parcel that is situated on the south side of County Road ("C.R.") 48 (otherwise'known as North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York (hereinafter the "subject property" or "subject site") (see Figure I — Site Location Map). The subject property is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 - Section 40 — Block 3—Lot I (see Figure 2). The DEIS is divided into 12 sections, the first of which is the Executive Summary. This section, Section 2.0, provides a description of all components of the proposed project including: an explanation of the annexation; a complete description of the proposed development to be known as "Northwind Village;" a brief history of the subject site and project; the project's purpose, benefits and needs; proposed construction; and the required pen-nits and approvals. �F N• t j 9 Mll -•0 i • - - - EP4E - tziu� 141 a n n c r o •T 0 n r f u t t 10 -� r .. a� PS v t - m O .S t+• s (�;'f,� Q --t(`l Wtit B > F tl E Sr �T 0 O N L 9 A 1r _ p 9 Nr 6 9< l P RfCK.+: Y. P �•�Sxt cae• a a :� _ ?��a<Itl E ow•�I ' -• - � Ivt cua Z PP; O' AI S P.{r NZtT A o„ 4 S 1 1 h N t µ E T l•' Y1'EP Sla' ,.�`.r� V ,�IP~x•p\. .G L�-'1 '! •�•� :i �PNGV CEM. �� l �t •t YJtytlO w O p .. - FA 1 Ft SILVCI•_ OaOAa 5 - e T _ :::•1.... } rt__i %COA oAtH Si L'y� yL-j rRArEFR i� PARK d7,. 'siCnEtM o crI enO14n-S PL...,: }•�:. S.�-- -� :'_•���:•:•;; .''j�;';',' m0 a lab•O _..�WItl S//i � "'t•i'f` ':f.: -OAWnva SZ m V a v •E 25 �{ud a hNFrs Ftl�1r .IS t d:ir.< ..a n R wAYa An1Yq A f� i� :-.... R• AV K Z ...,.. ^- ICA. u L• fH c e y r 7 n �•y 4 a e c '`jam , ! -`: �','�� ;•'`�::'_.,�,? :.D u'� 1 � k AU ?'•PIPES;"'COVE.:.;�:;:,,:`';i:i.: L t . \•' E M 9.. A SNa Ri 3 v1 n P �S - �y •O ti,A .yE . q 4 i 4 n 4 ..b bro1 5 •'t{ a, E �eI 3 n 7 �o •p 4 rP.is7.�°::' u'o sf { ! t rV+ : dFhf•f.LlH�-.. Site Location Map Source:Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas, 2004 Scale: 1 inch=2,000 feet Figure I FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 2 1131 SA : Nt�n r .p 1E 'L R 4. 6a1 G 1.1 CVA1R 6 t,u O s y Whl�xn,u�p�� Awl F i7 t " i 7r t it't a[E 5SL 14 Iln � 44'• 33a 1,� IaWG O tig� ,N v y to.] •" L t isauG L 9PMf In1uG YOt g 1 ;11, 0 50. 5,09 �'° rr tool o (n.nmuf � O �� IAA •i b 1DIR1 1)a' Vr 1t allfG A1tIU t� YYp ;� \. d tyl f N t 21a1G i] ¢1 e �• 1 uuG t utnu,ir. t n.umt �orn�m ' S.D.N90 ,vunn W11ntM1 ��tT� u, X rtiii�n TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' 1 ` ' '•�—{-�—/ j stESEmta.as� ' Ii o ' '111 OF CREENPORT E ¢ nom e:tot StE SFG W.e1! �� .� ev //Gtif,�m i 0,0�91'GI N y i'f vxfr ,n�n a�wt i Yt u„" fvJ vt /t'N ✓ U \O u'trtn In'�n 4 tntu'tnn µ$@$ 'ht .� � u ttl•rpt+ ulna vvt,��»t l,u.tuf• J O It 13uU ix y SD. F.o.m Gn,ae Site Location d IIurJ ' YNDt'r]-� /'t•.. �ln•,..R^��\ ,_ ;;;!!!��� w '... ro \15. .a osoa �Ypiffif 1 F ,SUU `3pa rd� .r�y J]'.v..4lixu '(•A 2 RaFN,o , u � vuG O T ve 4 R tYD TWO •U. 5p� ua 59j�d 'LSA � Ss4J \5� 10.1 OL11 / Jp: Excerpt of Tax Map Source: Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency, Town of Southold,District 1000, Section 40 last revised March 30, 2006 and Section 45 last revised July 29, 2005. Scale: Not to Scale FREUDMsfl A &ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 2 3 Section 3.0 of this DEIS provides a discussion of the environmental setting for the project, broken down by topic. Section 4.0 of the DEIS is devoted to potential impacts that are likely to occur upon project implementation, and existing conditions, described in Section 3.0, are superimposed with post-development conditions. Potential beneficial and adverse environmental impacts are presented in this segment of the document. Section 5.0 of this DEIS presents proposed mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate those impacts that were identified in the analyses presented in Section 4.0. Section 6.0 enumerates those short-term and long-term impacts described within Section 4.0 that cannot be mitigated. Alternatives and their impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 of the DEIS. Among these alternatives, is the "No-action" alternative that is required to be discussed pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617. Section 8.0 presents a brief discussion of natural resources consumed as a result of project implementation and Section 9.0 includes an analysis of potential growth-inducing aspects of the proposed project. Section 10.0 of the DEIS presents a discussion of the energy sources to be used, expected levels of consumption and means to reduce consumption. Finally, Sections 11.0 and 12.0 contain the glossary and references, respectively. 4 2.2 ExiSTING SITE CONDITIONS 2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Property The subject property consists of 17.19± acres located on the south side of south side of County Road 48 (North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The site is surrounded by the Village of Greenport to its southwest, south and southeast. Currently, the subject property is undeveloped, consisting of forested upland area and wetlands. An aerial photograph, depicting the existing conditions of the subject property, is presented in Figure 3. Over three quarters of the site is forested and less than one-quarter (22-percent) is comprised of wetlands. The property contains a portion of a NYSDEC freshwater wetland, identified as wetland SO-1 on the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map of Suffolk County, Map No. 6 of 39, Southold Quadrangle. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") in Southold, which allows for four units per acre, and has been zoned the highest residential density allowed by the Town. In 1983, Southold approved a site plan for 108 multi-family units on the property; however, the property was not developed at that time. A copy of the approval is included in Appendix B of this DEIS. Aerial Photograph i bo � it r �r i ' Ir r r �wa�r�a/� fir � r w r/ rr r� br. ��(llr rGr` r U � I 1yl /f l N M vp i �i Sourm Google Earth Aerial Photograph (2004), Suffolk County,New York Long Island FREUDE THAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 3 6 The property is located within the Greenport Union Free School District("UFSD"), and is served by the Greenport Fire District and the Southold Police Department. As the site is undeveloped, there are no utility connections. However, water, sewer, electricity, telephone and cable utilities exist in the immediate area. 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Within the immediate vicinity of the subject property, the following uses and zoning classifications exist. The zoning districts are those of the Town of Southold, unless otherwise noted: North: Single-family residences (on non-conforming one-acre lots) within the R-80 Residential District(80,000 square feet per dwelling unit); South: Vacant land within the Park District(Greenport); East: Vacant parcels within the R-80 Residential District, KOA Campgrounds within the Resort/Residential (RR) District and Moore's Woods within the Park District (Greenport) (southeast of the subject site); and West: Vacant Land within the Park District (Greenport); the San Simeon Life Care Facility within the Hamlet Density District (southwest of the subject site); the Sunset Motel, Breezy Sound Motel, the Cliffside Condominiums,the Sound View Motel and Apartments within the RR District; and the Sea Breeze Condominiums within the Hamlet Density District. Existing zoning and land uses surrounding the subject property will be further discussed in Section 3.4 of this DEIS. 7 2.2.3 Surrounding Roadways The following are brief descriptions of the major local roads in the vicinity of the project: North Road (C.R. 48) is a major east/west County highway located north of the site that provides direct access to the site. In the vicinity of the proposed development, North Road consists of two lanes (one in each direction) with additional turning lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit on North Road in the vicinity of the subject site is 50 miles per hour. Chapel Lane is a north/south roadway located west of the site. Chapel Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continues to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Chapel Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Chapel Lane in the vicinity of the subject site is 30 miles per hour. Queen Street is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Queen Street has no pavement markings but allows for two-way traffic onto and off North Road. Queen Street serves as access to the KOA campground located at its southern terminus. Moores Lane is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Moores Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continuous to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Moores Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Moores Lane in the vicinity of the subject site is 30 miles per hour. 8 21.3 BRIEF SITE AND PROJECT HISTORY The subject property has been zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") since the creation of the HD designation in 1989. Prior to 1989, the subject property had been zoned Multiple Residence ("M"), which allowed seven dwelling units per acre. The applicant and property owner (KACE Ll, LLC) has petitioned to annex the undeveloped 17.19+-acre parcel located in Southold, and zoned Hamlet Density, to Greenport. According to the Phase 1,4rchaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the site was never developed. As previously mentioned, in July, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter "Town Planning Board") approved a site plan proposed by KACE's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., allowing it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property to be known as "Northwind Village." In July, 2005, KACE Ll, LLC filed a petition with both the Town and the Village to annex the subject property into the Village. Annexation is the alteration or changing of boundaries of a county, city, town or village that has the effect of adding territory. Moreover, annexation is the process by which a municipality, such as the Village of Greenport, incorporates contiguous land into its boundaries. The basic prerequisite to the annexation of territory from one local government to another is the consent of the governing board of each local government. Prior to adopting a resolution, each governing board must, on the basis of considerations including, but not limited to, (a) those relating to the effects upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c)the remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory is situated, and (d) any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall public interest. 9 There have been various court decisions that have assessed when a proposed annexation is in the public interest. For example, some cases have weighed the potential benefits and detriments to the municipalities involved in the annexation. Such benefits and detriments can be defined in terms of municipal services, including (but not limited to) police protection, fire protection, public education, and sewer and water utilities. The applicant respectfully submits that, in the extant case, the improved, expeditious and cost-effective connection to the annexing government's sewage system should be weighed heavily to determine if an annexation proposal is in the overall public interest. This would assist the applicant in building, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residential units, of which 64 would be workforce units. The applicant respectfully asserts that if the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. It is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." Specifically, as noted at page 18, paragraph 51 of the Reply Affidavit of Honorable David E. Kapell in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department b2 the Matter of the Peter of the Village of Greenport, against The Town of Southold, Joshua.Horton as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, Louisa Evans, John M. Romanelli, Thomas H. Wickham, William P. Edwards, and Daniel C. Ross, Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Greenport School District, Greenport Library, East West Fire Protection District, the Southold Solid Waste District, Suffolk County, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is in support of the annexation: "The Village denies that KACE [the current applicant] is entitled to a sewer connection other than as a discretionary act, because the property is presented located outside the Village, and a 1996 stipulation of settlement providing for connection is obsolete and void. " 10 The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion, it does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold.* If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. On August 16, 2005, the Town of Southold Town Board (hereinafter the "Town Board") determined that the proposed annexation was an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency in the matter. On August 23, 2005, the applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form ("Full EAF") and information supporting the proposed annexation at a public hearing of the Town Board (see Appendix C for a copy of the EAF and supporting material submitted to the Town). The Village challenged this determination by requesting lead agency status, and the lead agency question was submitted to the Commissioner of the NYSDEC for resolution. The Commissioner then submitted the matter to the NYSDEC Region I office for input due to the existence of freshwater wetlands on the subject site. The Region 1 office ultimately indicated 1) its desire to be lead agency; 2) that the project many have significant environmental impacts; and 3) that an environmental impact statement must be prepared. Thereafter, the NYSDEC assumed lead agency status in this matter. In November, 2005, the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 709 of 2005, which found that the petition for annexation filed by the applicant complied with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law. However, the Town Board resolved that the petition was not in the overall public interest, based on the considerations identified in the Order and Determination dated November 16, 2005. All of the reasons for the denial of such annexation petitions are outlined in the Town's Resolution No. 709 of 2005 (see Appendix D of this DEIS). TJ-Don Southold's denial of the petition for annexation, the Village of Greenport filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment pursuant to Section 712 and Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law and Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against the Town of Southold. The Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney for the Town of Southold, in opposition to the Verified Petition of the applicant, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department on February 9, 2006 (see Appendix E of this DEIS). A decision on the annexation is still pending. The Village of Greenport has continued to express its support for the proposed annexation (see Appendix F). In addition, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing has given its support to the proposed project. hi correspondence dated November 25,,2008, the Department.indicated that since the proposed project would "promote energy efficient and environmentally responsible smart growth principles" and that 64 of the units "are proposed to be built as affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program," it "support[s] your efforts and encourage[s] the approval of your proposed development" (see Appendix F). 12 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed action involves three components, as follows: ® the annexation of the subject property from the Town into the Village; ® the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD District into the Village's R:-2 District; and ® the development of the 17.19± acre subject property with 128 multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be workforce housing units.' As described in Section 2.3.2, in July 2005, the applicant/owner filed a petition to both Southold and Greenport to annex the undeveloped 17.19+ acre parcel located in Southold into Greenport. As previously noted, the Town rejected the petition for annexation, while the Village of Greenport favored it. As explained in Section 2.5.2, annexation of the property into the Village would be necessary in order to allow the development of 64 workforce housing units without government subsidy or use of taxpayer funding. Should such annexation occur, the property would require zoning in Greenport. The applicant is requesting that the subject property (consisting of the current tax parcel designated as District 1000 - Section 40 — Block 3 — Lot 1) be classified in the R-2 District within the Village. Upon such annexation, the tax parcel number would also require reassignment to reflect its new location in the Village.. 'The target income limits are that at least 50 percent of the units must be occupied by families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the HUD-established median income limits for Suffolk County and the remaining units must be occupied by families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of the HUD-established median income limits for Suffolk County. 13 The proposed development consists of the construction of a residential community to be known as Northwind Village. The residential community would be composed of 128, mixed-income ownership units. There would be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, of which 64 (50 percent) would be market-rate units and 64 (50 percent) would be workforce units, based upon current income guidelines of Suffolk County. These units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions." The restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on a number of priority and qualification requirements. The applicant is proposing that the affordability restrictions have a 30-year duration. However, the duration ultimately will be determined by the Village of Greenport in its administration of the program. It should be noted that implementation of the proposed action would produce 64 units of workforce housing. Given the configuration of the subject property, the proposed development has been designed to maximize preservation of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland (see Appendix G). The 128 units would be located in 23 buildings, which would be situated around the proposed interior roadway. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,350 to 1,500 square feet. The workforce units would be distributed amongst the different unit types and sizes and be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in terms of exterior fagade and materials. Specifically, all of the one- and two-bedroom units would be workforce units and six of the three-bedroom units would be workforce units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate. Typical floor plans are included in Appendix H of this DEIS. The proposed development would continue to be served by the Village of Greenport Fire Department, the Town of Southold Police Department and the Greenport UFSD. In addition, solid waste would be collected by a private carter under contract with the Village of Greenport. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed development would disturb approximately 6.65 acres, with no regulated wetland or adjacent area being disturbed. 14 Table 1 —Existing and Proposed Site Data Site Coverage Existing Condifion Proposed Condition Acres (Percent Acres (Percent Buildings 0 1.87zL acres (10.88%) Other Paved Surfaces 0 2.27±acres (13.21%) Wetlands 3.93+acres (22.86%) 3.93+acres (22.86%) IIVIPERVIOUSSURFACE; 3:93 acres (22:86% S 07�acres (46'.95%>` Forest 13.26±acres (77.14%) 6.61±acres (38.45%) Lawn and Landscaping 0 2.51±acres (14.60%) PER`VTOUS SURIiACE ]3:26 acres 77:14%)` 9acres.(S3OS%' TOTAL 17.19±acres (100.001/6) 17.19± acres (100.00%) The sales prices of the proposed workforce units will be determined at time of listing using the guidelines established by Suffolk County. Using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") figure for the median income for a family of four in the County of Suffolk as the Area Median Income ("AMI"), price ranges will be determined using standard calculations (i.e., 2.5 times the AMI, as described below). The target AMI levels will be adjusted for household size. As of 2008, the HUD AMI for Suffolk County is $97,100. Half(32) of the proposed workforce units will be for households earning less than 80'percent of the AMI ($77,700) and half (32) of the workforce units will,be for households earning less than 120 percent of the AMI ($116,500). This distribution is consistent with current Suffolk County and Town of Southold workforce housing guidelines and policies (see Appendix. I). The anticipated sales prices for the workforce units are based on 2.5 times the HUD income limits. For 2008, the allowable sales prices for workforce units are as follows —up to $194,250 (for households earning 80 percent of the AMI) and up to $291,250 (for households earning 120 percent of the AMI). The developer usually sets a range of housing prices at either end of the spectrum in order to capture a wider pool of applicants (e.g., those earning between 70 percent and 80 percent of the median income for a family of four and those earning between 100 percent and 120 percent of the median income for a family of four). Prices will also depend on the size of the units. 15 The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the Long Island Housing Partnership regarding administration of the workforce housing program. However, should'annexation occur, the Village of Greenport would have control over individual eligibility and overall administration of the program. It should be noted that since the HUD AMI changes each year, the,actual sales price of the affordable units will be re-evaluated at the time of sale using the above-referenced standard guidelines to reflect current income levels. The expected sales prices of the market-rate units will be between$395,000 and$495,000,based on market conditions. The Village would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce unit in the development. Applications for the purchase of a unit by eligible individuals or families would be selected by lottery. However, it is understood by the applicant that priority may be determined based on the following or similar criteria, at the discretion of the Village, and subject to prevailing regulations: 1. Live in the Greenport UFSD and work in the Town or the Village, and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village, or work as a uniformed police office in the Town of Southold Police Department; 2. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 3. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport; 4. Live in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 5. Work in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; or 6. Have previously lived in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport. 16 Furthermore, it is understood by the applicant that eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following or similar guidelines: ® Meet income guidelines of less than 80 percent or 120 percent of the HUD AMI for the current year; ® Able to secure a mortgage; ® Agree to occupy the unit as a principal residence; ® Be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent U.S. Resident; and ® Agree to credit history and criminal background checks. Access to the proposed development would be from C.R. 48 (see Appendix G of this DEIS). Access would be provided by a single, two-way access drive located at the northwestern portion of the subject property. Parking for the proposed multi-family development would be primarily provided in the front of each dwelling unit. A proposed emergency access entrance from C.R..48 would be constructed at the northeastern comer of the site at the end of the parking area. According to the Village of Greenport Village Code (Chapter 150 — Zoning), the proposed development would require 192 parking spaces, based upon 1.5 parking spaces per unit. As such, the proposed development provides 192 parking spaces, which complies with the off-street parking requirements. The proposed site plan incorporates sidewalks throughout the site to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and parking areas back to North Road along the access driveway. As the site is undeveloped, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity are not currently supplied to the subject property. As part of the proposed action, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity would be supplied by the Village of Greenport utilities. 17 The Suffolk County Water Authority would provide potable water to the proposed development. The proposed development would utilize a total of 34,050 gallons per day ("gpd"), which does not include irrigation, as no irrigation system is proposed at this time. Sanitary sewer infrastructure would be installed to accommodate sanitary waste from the proposed development. The Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System would provide sanitary sewage disposal service to the proposed development. The total projected sanitary flow is approximately 34,050 gpd. Based on the correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, dated November 6, 2006 (see Appendix J), the Village's sewage treatment plant is currently permitted to accept up to 650,000 gpd and the current flow is 325,000 gpd. Therefore, the existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to the serve the proposed development, as confirmed by Cameron Engineering. As the subject property is vacant, there is no stormwater management system on the site. Upon development, stormwater runoff would be controlled and recharged on-site via new drywells installed throughout the developed portion of the subject site. Stormwater would be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, then transported through subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action has been designed to contain the runoff from a 10- year storm event (two inches). The two-inch storage requirement imposed by the Towne (the current jurisdictional entity) would also satisfy the various provisions of the federal and state Phase 11 Stormwater regulations with respect to volume and water quality controls. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission,3 would guide many aspects of the proposed development, including site layout and design. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the aforesaid adopted Smart Growth principles, including: o Direct development to strengthen existing communities; 2 The Village of Greenport does not have stormwater storage requirements;therefore,the Town of Southold requirement were used for calculation purposes. 3 Smart Growth 77irough Smart Coinnzunities:Applying Sinart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and Villages, Suffolk County Planning Commission,March,2000. 18 • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention would be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the United States Green Building Council ("USGBC"). The proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED- Neighborhood Development certification.4 These include: • Site location within a half mile of existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure; • Site within a quarter mile of community resources; • Site within a half mile of green spaces; • Compact development; • Minimization of disturbed area of the site; • Erosion control during construction; • Meeting Energy Star for Homes requirements; • Conservation of wetlands areas; • Provision of a diversity of housing types; and • Provision of affordable housing. A consistency analysis with these criteria is included in Section 4.4.1 of this DEIS. 4 USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development. 19 In addition, the following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:5 ® Use of plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; ® Preservation of existing mature trees on site, where possible; ® Where possible, provision of usable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; ® Use of patios, front yards, porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; ® Provision for alternative transportation, e.g., bike paths and storage, carpooling opportunities, and recommendation for re-routing of public bus routes; • Provision of accessible routes of travel and avoid use of stairs wherever the terrain permits; ® Prioritizing pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; ® Provision of well-insulated buildings that minimizes heat gain and loss; ® Specification of energy-efficient windows; ® Ensuring water meters are installed and there is owner accountability in water use; ® Assuring that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner for use; and ® Specification of Energy Star appliances throughout the development. 5 Affordable Green Guidelines,American Institute of Architects. 20 2.5 PURPOSE,NEED AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The identification of the need for workforce housing in the Town dates as far back to the 1985 Southold Town Master Plan Update. The Southold Comprehensive Inzplenaentation Strategy 2003 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement also identifies a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly every geographic location within the Town. High housing costs forced out younger residents of the Southold community. As a result, the portion of the population under the age of 35 is impacted more than any other age group. In the year 2000, the Town population under the age of 35 accounted for only 35.5 percent of the total, compared to 47.2 percent for Suffolk .County. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 35 decreased by ahnost 30 percent, three times faster than the national average. The people most affected by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions in the Southold community — nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, etc. and their families who are unable to afford the typical Southold home, which sold for over$510,000 in 2007 according Suffolk Research Service, Inc. In addition, the more recent October 2007 report entitled Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses, prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, indicated that entire East End of Long Island will continue to grow at a very high rate. Growth is predicted to be approximately 70,000 households between 2005 and 2020. As the general number of households grows, the need for workforce housing will grow commensurately. In order to meet the need, Suffolk County would need to provide approximately 2,000 affordable workforce units per year for the next 15 years and Southold would need at least 1,505 affordable workforce units. The report indicates that Suffolk County could achieve these numbers through various methods including rehabilitation of deficient units, reconfiguration of an addition to existing units, buy down of cost-burdened units and new construction. 21 The report notes that whatever the method used, "the most important consideration for all involved is to realize that workforce housing is in short supply in eastern Long Island. Everything possible should be attempted to deal with the imbalance that currently exists between workforce housing demand and workforce housing supply. If this is not addressed, the local nonprofessional workforce will wither and even the middle-class professional workforce will be noticeably reduced. Suffolk County needs to house its workers... " Finally, according to a report prepared by the Long Island Housing Partnership ("LIHP"), Lack ofAffordable Housing: Prescription for Economic Disaster, an affordable home should not consume more than 35 percent of a household's income. This .35 percent includes mortgage payments,property taxes, insurance, etc. for homeowners. However, the aforesaid LIHP Report indicates that 30 to 35 percent of all renters in Nassau and Suffolk Counties consume greater than 35 percent of their household income on housing costs; and approximately 25 percent of homeowners on Long Island pay more than 35 percent of their household incomes for a place to live. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey, more than 37 percent of owners and 50 percent of renters pay more than 35 percent of their household income for a place to live in Suffolk County. In order to provide 64 affordable workforce homes without taxpayer contribution or government subsidy, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable in the Town of Southold. Greenport has the necessary zoning classifications to provide for this requirement. However, the annexation is not about zoning alone. Most importantly, Greenport has the infrastructure in the form of sewer, water and electric systems to make the proposal, at the necessary density, financially feasible without using tax dollars to pay for the workforce housing. Access to the Greenport sewer system is one of the most critical elements of the annexation proposal. If the property is annexed into Greenport it will have access to these systems. Finally, the Village has expressed its commitment to providing workforce housing on the North Fork and to meeting the desperate housing needs of its working families. The applicant respectfully submits that it is this government support and determination that is necessary to make immediate meaningful strides and progress in addressing the workforce housing needs of everyone in the community(see Appendix F). 22 Presently, tax parcel 10-00-40-3-1, totaling approximately 17.2 acres, has assessed value of $4,300 generating $3,816 annually in real property taxes. A property tax analysis was undertaken by the applicant in order to assess the difference in potential property taxes generated between the as-of-right development (50 units) and the proposed action (128 units). The analysis was prepared by Robert Scott, Town of Southold Assessor. This analysis presents the potential tax revenues to the Town of Southold for the proposed project and the as-of-right alternative in Southold. Projected tax revenues would be anticipated to be slightly higher at the time of development than indicated in the analysis. The following are estimates for the four types of condominium units proposed by the applicant. They are subject to change based upon visual inspection due to quality', changes in square footage, additions or deletions, the market, etc. The represented assessed values ("AVs") are based upon the suggested sales prices by the applicant, and use of the current Residential Assessment Ratio ("RAR") of 1.05 percent for the 2007-2008 tax roll. The first scenario, shown in Table 2, is based upon the premise that the property is annexed into the Village of Greenport.6 6 The Tax Assessor noted that there may be limitations of ownership based on affordability guidelines, when an affordable unit purchaser, upon resale, is allowed to recoup original investment, cost of living adjustments and additional appreciation. 23 Table 2-Potential Town Property Tax Under Annexation (Greenport) Type #of Units Unit Size Uniform Adjusted `Suggested' Ft. AV AV* Sales Price . Unit A Workforce 38 850 3,100 2,300 $215,000 Unit B Workforce 20 1,200 4,100 2,600 $250,000 Unit C Workforce 6 1,350 4,900 2,800 $265,000 Unit D Market 64 1,500 5,400 5,200 $495,000 # of Units Uuiforui AV' Total AV " Adjusted Total F77 AU* Adjusted AV Unit A 38 3,100 $11.7,800 2,300 $87,400 Unit B 20 4,100 $82,000 2,600 $52,000 Unit C 6 4,900 $29,400 2,800 $16,800 Unit D 64 5,400 $345,600 5,200 $332,800 TOTAL 128 $574,600 $489,000 * Subject to covenants and restrictions. The current (2007-2008) tax rate (Town portion) in the Village of Greenport is $809.356 per $1,000 of AV. Therefore, based upon the total adjusted AV, the proposed project would generate approximately$395,775 for the Town, upon annexation. In addition, the Village of Greenport, based on the current Village tax rate of 170.200 per$1,000 of Assessed Value, would receive $83,228 annually in property tax revenue from the proposed development, should the site be located within the Village of Greenport. The next table shows the property tax breakdown of units under the premise that the subject property remains under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and 50 condominium units would be built (see Table 3).. 24 Table 3—Potential Town Property Tax-No Annexation (Southold) Type' t.# of Units Unit Size Uniform; Adjusted Suggested :.(Sq.,Pt.) ;; AV AVS Sales ]Price Unit E Market 45 2,500 $8,700 $6,250 $595,000 Unit F Workforce 5 2,500 $8,700 $2,800 $265,000 # of Units Uniforlo AVTotal AV` Ad'usted AV* =Total AV Unit E 45 $8,700 $391,500 $6,250 $281,250 Unit F 5 $8,700 $43,500 $2,800 $14,000 TOTAL 50 $435,000 $291,250 *Subject to covenants and restrictions The current(2007-2008) tax rate in the Town of Southold is $909.267/$1,000 AV.'Therefore, the total property tax revenue to the town generated by the as-of-right development, based upon the adjusted AV would be $264,824. This represents $130,951 less than the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action would generate more taxes for the Town of Southold than development under the existing HD zoning, and would thus be a property tax benefit for the Town of Southold. Furthermore, although the Town of Southold will continue. to receive significant tax revenue from the proposed project, it would no longer have responsibility to provide municipal services. As the proposed project would occur in the Village of Greenport, the Village would provide the required services. However, these services are expected to be minimal, as the proposed project will be structured as a condominium operated by a homeowners association that would be responsible for all maintenance, roads, solid waste collection and landscaping within the proposed project area. 25 2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over three phases. Phase I would include installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, construction of 48 units and a substantial portion of the site work. Site improvements in the first phase would include the roads, utilities, drainage, and a portion of lighting and landscaping. It is expected that Phase I would last a total of 10 months. Phase II would continue with the construction of units and site improvements. An additional 40 units would be built, and work would continue on roads, drainage, utilities, and landscaping. Phase II is scheduled for seven months. The last phase, Phase III, would include the construction of the final 40 units and completion of the remaining site work, over approximately seven months. Site work in this final phase would be minimal, relating only to those units being constructed. Overall, construction is proposed to last a total of 24 months. All erosion and sediment control measures would be inspected weekly and after rainfall events. Necessary repairs would be made immediately. All erosion and sediment control measures would be maintained until all construction has been completed. 26 2.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS In order to implement the proposed action, the following permits and/or approvals are required to be obtained by the applicant. Permits/Approvals-Required Agency Proposed Annexation Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Town of Southold Application of Zoning District Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Site Plan/Subdivision Approval Village of Greenport Planning Board Water Supply and Means of Sanitary Waste Disposal Suffolk County Department of Health Services Sewer Connection Village of Greenport Sewer District Public Water Connection— Southold/Greenport Suffolk County Water Authority Referrals Suffolk County Planning Commission SPDES General Permit for Stormwater New York State Department of Environmental Discharge During Construction Activity; Conservation Determination of Non-Jurisdiction New York State Department of Environmental or Freshwater Wetland Permit Conservation Highway Work Permit New York State Department of Transportation 27 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 Geology Long Island is composed of a westward-dipping wedge of sediments overlying bedrock. According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989 (see Appendix K for a geologic cross-section); the following lithologic units underlie the subject property: The Upper Glacial aquifer—This Pleistocene-aged unit is approximately 200 feet thick in the vicinity of the site with its base occurring at approximately 400 feet below grade surface ("bgs"). The Upper Glacial aquifer is composed predominantly of coarsely- stratified sand and gravel of glacial outwash and morainal origins. Historically, groundwater had typically been removed from the unit for irrigation, air-conditioning cooling, potable and other water uses. However, this practice has been curtailed in this unit due to anthropogenic impacts, which range from nitrates due to the disposal of sanitary waste to petroleum impacts from releases of gasoline and fuel oil to halogenated solvents from industrial practices. The Magothyaquifer — The Cretaceous Magothy aquifer is composed of interbedded silts/clays (fine-grained units) and sands/gravels (coarse-grained units) of deltaic origin. Due to the presence of the overlying silts/clays which restrict the vertical migration of dissolved and free-phase contaminants, the sand and gravel units are not impacted by anthropogenic impacts and are thus the typical sources of potable water on Long Island and in the vicinity of the project site. According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989, the Magothy aquifer is approximately 400 feet thick in the vicinity of the project site with its base occurring at an estimated 450 feet bgs. 28 The Raritan Formation—According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989, the Raritan Formation is composed of a Raritan Clay member, an approximately 160-foot-thick clay unit of overlying the Lloyd sand member. The top of the Raritan Clay is estimated to occur at 450-500 feet bgs beneath the subject property. The approximately 100-foot-thick Lloyd and member, which occurs at an estimated 500 feet below the project site, has been protected from anthropogenic impacts by the silt/clay units present in the.overlying Upper Glacial aquifer, Magothy aquifer and Raritan Clay member. It is NYSDEC policy that the Lloyd Sand member can only be utilized for potable water uses by communities located along the South Shore of Long Island where the overlying aquifers have been impacted by salt-water intrusion. Bedrock — The top Paleozoic to Precambrian bedrock, consisting of schist, gneiss and granite is estimated to occur at 580-to-600 feet below the subject site. 3.1.2 Soils According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975) (hereinafter "Soil Survey"), soils are classified according to distinct characteristics and placed (according to these characteristics) into "series" and "mapping units." A "series" is a group of mapping units formed from particular disintegrated and partly weathered rocks which lie approximately parallel to the surface and which are similar in arrangement and differentiating characteristics such as color, structure, reaction, consistency, mineralogical composition and chemical composition. "Mapping units" differ from each other according to slope and may differ according to characteristics such as texture. 29 The soils on the subject property consist of several series including the Berryland, Canadice, Deerfield, Montauk, Plymouth, Raynham, Riverhead, and Muck, which are characterized by the. following mapping units Berryland mucky sand (`Bd,"), Canadice silt loam ("Ca"), Deerfield sand ("De"), Montauk fine sandy loam ("MM"), Plymouth loamy sand ("P113"), and Rayi-diam loam ("Ra") and Riverhead sandy loam RdB. Figure 4, compiled from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services' website, 11ttp://websoilsurve_y.nres.usda.gov, shows the approximate distribution of soils across the subject property. It should be noted that the Soil Survey and the aforesaid website provide general information regarding area soils. Site-specific test holes were performed, and the results are discussed later in this section. 30 > r '1T i i i j 6 i �a h 'r C1 o, rai3ANu1c sCnLa is Bonar' Barrett rl Van Weele,PC Civil Engin es 175A Cv,,,„ ,.D,. 1 Surveyors c w„ec.�sra.amx 11208 d71A35.1111 plonnars �6 .435A022 6b,v— Tax Map No,: bl$T,11000 SECT.40 BLK,3 LOT d i, i NURTF9'UW'IND VILLAGE VUAGE QR GRRFMR(JR70..Fowawre.coIHv USDA SOIL SURVEY'MAP WITH APPROXIMATE. PROPERTY BOUNDARY �rdw SG uxV NI n0001kR 22,2000 e I'_30° =—, e+a V' A 31 Figure The following subsection contains descriptions of the soil types-found on the subject property as summarized from the Soil Survey. Berryland Series The Berryland series consists of deep, very poorly drained, coarse-textured soils. These nearly level soils formed in deep sandy outwash deposits on low-lying wet areas adjacent to ponds, tidal creeks, and low gradient streams or between areas of tidal marsh and better drained uplands. This soil is mainly along the Peconic River. Native vegetation is red maple, black gum, highbush blueberry, and Sphagnum moss is common. In a representative profile, a dark reddish-brown and black layer of organic matter, about ten- inches thick, is on the surface. The upper two or three inches of this organic layer is black mucky sand, one-inch thick. It is underlaid by a subsurface layer of grayish-brown, loose soil, to a depth of about five-inches. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about ten-inches, consists of very dark grayish-brown, friable sand that contains large accumulations of organic matter. The lower part of the subsoil consists of brown to dark-brown loose sand to a depth of about 20 inches and grayish-brown sand to a depth of about 30 inches. The substratum, to a depth of 52 inches, is light olive-gray loose sand. Berryland soils have a high water table. The water table is at the surface or within six-inches of the surface most of the year. Permeability is rapid. If the water table is lowered by drainage, these soils have very low available moisture capacity. These soils are strongly acid to very strong acid throughout. Natural fertility is low. Rooting depth is limited mainly to the upper six-to- twelve-inches. 32 Berryland mucky sand(Bd) This is the only Berryland soil mapped in Suffolk County. This wet soil is throughout the County along the margins of tidal marshes, ponds, creeks, and streams. Areas of this soil generally are small and round or long and narrow. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Muck and Atsion and Wareham soils. Also included are a few areas of finer textured soils that are very poorly drained. Some of these included soils, especially along the Carmans River and Connetquot River, do not have a well-defined gray subsurface layer and subsoil that have a large accumulation of humus. Also included along the Peconic River are poorly drained cranberry bogs that are essentially Berryland soils that have had sand spread on the surface. The hazard erosion is slight in this Berryland soil. The very high water table in this soil severely limits it for both farm and nonfarm uses. A lack of suitable outlets makes this soil difficult to drain. Most areas can be used as habitat for some types of wildlife. None of this soil has been cleared. Most areas are in brush or trees, except along the shore in the southwest part of the county, where small areas have been filled to provide sites for homes. Only one commercial cranberry bog is in operation. The other bogs have been allowed to revert to their original condition and are growing up in water-tolerant grasses and shrubs. Canadice Series The Canadice series consists of deep, nearly level, poorly drained soils that have a medium- textured surface layer and a moderately fine textured to fine textured subsoil. These soils formed in reddish silty and clayey deposits. Most of these soils are north and west of Greenport in a nearly continuous area of about 450 acres. Isolated spots of these soils are on Gardiners Island and near Sag Harbor. Native vegetation consists of red maple, black gum, highbush blueberry, and a few oaks and beech. 33 In a representative profile, about four inches of black organic matter overlies a surface layer of dark-brown silt loam about four inches thick. A subsurface layer of gray or light-gray, slightly sticky silt loam extends to a depth of about 18 inches. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about 24 inches, is mottled, gray or light-gray, sticky clay loam. The lower part, to a depth of 50 inches, is reddish-brown, sticky silty clay that contains mottles of gray and strong brown. These soils have a seasonal high water table. Depth to the water table ranges from about six to 18 inches. Permeability is slow in the subsoil. If the water table is lowered by drainage, these soils can be used for crops. Reaction is strongly acid to medium acid in the surface layer and medium acid to slightly acid in the subsoil. Canadice soils have high available moisture capacity. Canadice silt loam(Ca) This is the only Canadice soil mapped in the county. It is mainly in one large continuous area near Greenport. Slope is three percent or less. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of moderately well drained, gently sloping soils that formed in the same kind of material as Canadice soil. Old clay pits are common because this soil provided an excellent source of clay for making bricks. The hazard of erosion is slight on this soil. The soil must be artificially drained for successful production of commonly grown crops, but a lack of suitable outlets makes artificial drainage difficult. Because of wetness, most areas of this soil have been left as woodland. Deerfield Series The Deerfield series consist of deep, moderately well drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in sand or loamy sand materials over deep layers of sand or sand and gravel. This nearly level soil is throughout the county in depressional areas, or it is adjacent to wetter soils that form the borders around lakes, ponds, or tidal marshes. It is primarily on outwash plain. Native vegetation is white pine,pitch pine, white oak, and red oak and huckleberry bushes. 34 A representative profile has a thin layer of black organic matter on the surface about thee-inches thick. Below this is a surface layer of gray sand about six-inches thick. The subsoil, to a depth of about 25 inches, is dark reddish-brown, friable sand in the upper two-inches. Below this it is olive-yellow and light yellowish-brown, very friable sand. The substratum, to a depth of 53 inches, is light-gray loose sand. Deerfield soils have very low available moisture capacity in the surface layer and upper part of the subsoil; however, deeper rooted plants can draw moisture from the water table. Permeability is rapid throughout the surface layer and subsoil. A seasonal high water table is at a depth of about 18 to 24-inches. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fertility is low. Deerfield sand(De) This is the only Deerfield soil mapped in the county. This soil is between areas of somewhat poorly drained or excessively drained soils at slightly higher elevations. Slopes are three percent or less and are slightly concave in places. Except for some areas along the south shore, most areas of this soil are small. Included with this soil in mapping are moderately well drained loamy sand or sand soils that lack a thick, gray subsurface horizon and a horizon of iron and humus accumulation. Also included are small areas of Carver and Atsion soils. Areas of Carver soil that have seasonal high water table at depths of 40 to 50 inches are included with this unit. The hazard of erosion is slight. This soil is fairly well suited to crops commonly grown in the county. It is seasonally.too wet or too dry in the root zone. Natural fertility is low. Small areas of Deerfield sand have been cleared for farming. Generally this soil has been left in woodland with adjoining areas of wetter soils; however, many areas in the southwestern part of the County have been filled and are used as sites for housing developments. In some places slab-type construction has been used without filling. 35 Montauk Series The Montauk Series consists of deep, well drained to moderately. well drained, moderately coarse textured to medium textured soils that formed in fine sandy loam or in a mantle of silt loam and loam. These soils have a fragipan over a compact firm glacial till. They are on terminal moraines and have the topography characteristic of this landfon-n. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent, but are generally from three to 15 percent. In many places, slopes are complex and are characterized by closed depressions. Native vegetation is white oak, red oak and scarlet oak. In a representative profile, in wooded areas, the surface layer is brown to dark brown fine sandy loam about two inches thick. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and a plow layer of brown to dark brown fine sandy' loam, about nine inches thick, is present. The subsoil is yellowish brown, friable to very friable fine sandy loam to a depth of about 27 inches. The lower part is a dark brown to reddish brown sandy loam fragipan to a depth of about 40 inches. It is firm and brittle and the content of gravel is five to 10 percent. The substratum, to a depth of about 60 inches, is reddish brown to dark brown loamy sand that is firm and brittle. Montauk soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid in the surface layer and in the upper part of the subsoil and moderately slow in the fragipan and underlying till. On lower slopes, the seasonal water table rises to within two or three feet of the surface. 36 Montauk fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (M This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. It is on moraines, and in many places slopes are complex or undulating. Most areas are of medium size. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Montauk soil. If this soil is used for crops, controlling runoff and erosion, providing suitable outlets for the removal of excess surface water, and providing adequate moisture supplies are the main concerns of management. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County. Where this soil is around the foot slopes of higher landforms, the seasonal high water table rises to within two to three feet of the surface. A few areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for farming. Plymouth Series The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level to steep soils are throughout the County on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Native vegetation consists of white oak, black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak. In a representative profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown loamy sand, about four- inches thick, in wooded areas. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with materials formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and there is a brown to dark-brown plow layer of loam about ten-inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown and brown, very friable and loose loamy sand to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum, to a depth of about 58 inches, is a yellowish- brown, loose gravelly coarse sand. 37 Plymouth soils have low to very low available moisture capacity. Natural fertility is low. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is fair. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout the profile of most of these soils, but it is strongly acid to medium acid in the lower substratum phase. The root zone is confined mainly to the upper 25 to 35 inches. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is rapid in all of these soils except in those of the silty substratum phase. Permeability is moderate in the silty layer of soils in the silty substratum phase. Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes ("PIB") This soil is on moraines and outwash plains. Slopes are undulating, or they are single along the sides of intermittent drainageways. The undulating areas generally are large. The areas along intermittent drainageways are narrow and long, and follow the course of the drainage channel. Included with this soil mapping are small areas of Riverhead soils that are marginal to loamy sand in texture. Also included are loamy sands that have profiles similar to those of soils in the Carver series. Other inclusions on moraines are Montauk loamy sand, sand variant soils that have weak fragipan or areas that are too small to map separately. These are intergrades between Plymouth loamy sand and Montauk loamy sand, sandy variant soils. Small gravelly areas less than about two acres in size are included. Included are few small areas, particularly on Fisher's Island, that are dominantly fine sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil. This soil tends to be droughty. This soil is fairly well suited to the crops commonly grown in the county. Some areas were formally used for farming,but most such areas are in brush or are idle. In the western part of the county, this soil is used mainly for housing developments. 38 Raynham Series The Raynham series consists of deep, poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soils that formed in loam, very fine sandy loam, or silt loam. This soil generally is around tidal marshes and creeks of the south shore and in areas around the headwaters of the Peconic River. Slopes are less than three-percent, and in many places, the areas are concave. Native vegetation consists of red maple and blackgum and highbush blueberry. Some white oak and pitch pines also grow. In a representative profile in a wooded area, a thin cover of organic matter overlies a surface layer of very dark grey loam about one-inch thick. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material from the upper part of the subsoil, forming a very dark grayish-brown plow layer of loam that is about eight-inches thick. The soil to a depth of about 10 inches is mottled gray or light gray, friable loam. Below, to a depth of about 40 inches, it is mottled light-gray to gray, friable silt loam. The substratum, to a depth of about 51 inches, is mottled greenish-gray, friable silt loam. These soils have seasonal high water table six to 18 inches below the surface. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and moderately slow in the substratum. Available moisture capacity is moderate to high in the root zone, which is restricted mainly to the upper 18 to 24-inches. Raynham Loam(Ra) This is the only Raynham soil mapped in the County. This nearly level soil is in low lying areas beside marshes and creeks. In many places it forms a transition between poorly drained and better drained areas on uplands. It is in outwash plains and moraines. Areas generally are small and irregular. Included with this soil in mapping are wet spots of Berryland soils and a very poorly drained silt loam soil. Also included are soils that have a water table at similar depth as Raynham soils, but they lack the gray color of Raynham soils, have a slightly coarser subsoil, and have sand and gravel below a depth of 30- inches. 39 The hazard of erosion is slight on this Raynharn soil. If this soil is used for fanning, artificial drainage is needed. This soil is not well suited to crops commonly grown in the county unless it is artificially drained. Because of its position on the landscape, it is difficult to locate adequate drainage outlets. This soil is better suited to woodland and recreational areas than to other uses. In some places, areas of this soil have been filled and used as homesites. As demand for building lots increases, more areas will be filled for use as building sites. Riverhead Series The Riverhead series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur throughout the County in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gently sloping areas on outwash plains. These soils range from nearly level to steep; however, they generally are nearly level to gently sloping. Native vegetation consists of black oak, white oak, red oak, and scrub oak. In a representative profile, the surface layer is brown to dark brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about 27 inches, is strong brown, friable sandy loam. The lower part of the subsoil is yellowish-brown, very friable loamy sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The substratum is very pale brown and brown loose sand and gravel or sand to a depth of 65 inches. Riverhead soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and in the subsoil and very rapid in the substratum. Natural fertility is low. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is good. The root zone is mainly in the upper 25-to-35 inches. In many places where these soils have been fanned, a plowpan is in the lower part of the surface layer and in the upper part of the subsoil. 40 Riverhead sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (RdB) This soil is on moraines and outwash plains. It generally is in the areas along shallow, intermittent drainageways. Slopes generally are moderately short, but large areas on moraines are undulating. The profile of this soil is similar to the one described as representative of the series, though in cultivated areas this soil is likely to be two-to-three-inches shallower to coarse sandy gravel, and the surface layer is likely to contain a slightly larger.amount of gravel. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Bridgehampton, Haven, and Plymouth soils in a complex pattern. The texture of these soils is marginal to sandy loam. Near Bridgehampton are included areas of Riverhead soils that have gray and strong- brown silt loam layers at a depth of 26-to-30 inches. Also included are narrow strips of Haven loam, thick surface layer, along drainageways, and soils that have a surface layer of loam or fine sandy loam and a subsoil of sandy loam. Included with this soil on moraines are Montauk soils that have very weak fragipan that formed in loose, sandy till. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Riverhead soil. The main concerns of management are controlling runoff and erosion and providing adequate moisture. The soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County, and it is used mainly for this purpose. Most areas in the western part•of the County; however, are used for housing developments and as industrial sites. The USDA NRCS website was also consulted for information on the potential limitations to development that each of the soils that may be present on-site. The constraints for these soils are summarized in Table 4. Information conveyed on the website is general data that is useful for preliminary assessments and guidelines as to the characteristics of soil to depths of approximately five feet. Due to the generalities and the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from both the Soil Survey and the website, actual on-site investigations were performed (see On- Site Test Holes). 41 Table 4—Soil]Engineering and ]Planning Limitations Symbol Mapping Unit Slopes Dwellings with Lawns and Local Roads Basements Landscaping Bd Berryland mucky sand N/A VL(A)(B) NR VL(A)(B) Ca Canadice silt loam N/A VL(B)(G) NR VL(A)(F) (G)(1-1) De Deerfield sand N/A SL(A) NR SL(A)(F) MfB Montauk fine sandy 3-8% SL(A) SL(A)(E) VL(A)(F) loam P113Plymouth loamy sand 3-8% NL VL(E) NL Ra. Raynham loam N/A VL(A) NR VL(A)(F) RdB Riverhead sandy loam 3-8% NL NL SL(F) Engineering,and Planning Limitation Rating: NR =Not rated VL=Very Limited SL =Somewhat Limited NL =Not Limited Reasons for Limitations: (A)Depth to Saturated Zone (B)Flooding (C)Ponding (D)Presence of Organic Matter> (E)Droughtiness (F)Frost Action . (G)Shrink-swell Low Strength Source: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov 42 On-Site Test Holes In order to provide more site specific information and to confirm the suitability of the soils for development, on-site test holes were performed by Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. on March 20, 2008. Paul A. Wingler, Consulting Engineer has provided a geotechnical evaluation associated with the test holes that were performed(see Appendix Q. The following is a summary of the report and the results of the test holes. Soil samples were recovered during the performance test and where evaluated and identified, and the ASTM Standard Penetration Test values were recorded. The specific methodology is described in detail in the report found in Appendix L of this DEIS. Five test holes, extending to 27± feet below grade were conducted to determine the depths and horizons of the various strata below the existing ground surface (see Figure 5 and Appendix L). The number, depth, and Iodation of borings were determined by reviewing the location of the proposed structures as shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G. The test holes revealed that in the area of the proposed buildings, there are quality soil conditions that are well-suited to standard construction procedures. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered a project issue. More specific information regarding each test hole is presented below. 43 On-Site Soil Loring Location Map d '00 l G . PP . ZZ, KEY MAP A B 33, u � � SCALD; 1" 600" .� PROPERTY ool KILANDS T GREENPORT WA TO�WN OF SO(MIOLD d " UP". '' COUNTY N. 40 sz. Aomos M u N r°.( fhd �i 9✓av�'7 YSB .w rRr� ura^ 0 x, ro sw aisml F n �i.ewr ru°5 ;niv �s� +wu m� f .. vyfJ.. iW 1rw �iisR IM'uvPoiry u'im,im oba, w�'✓art M ffG,'�`Yi G btu rv311} r •�+ 1'AWHMYJ F"LA�' �a eui W"N rWRO r ra e �n. „M tttfi�'eMJ N 1G p�N mJ AVNPD*Ijluwa r' ` , r.ga'P.AM4 fVF h u�crvc °,fa i;w,u d&W,104, '"drt Yo r9 gow"Xr�tl.r.lu,;w �'w":r w°?r l wy 21 • f7@x;Pm hDW kii!'wmw'0.ca,VYr ^1UYP'°M'm- .iW,Jf 7'/aL1 IV�3". )Z 7"7 ARRA=17.1891 ACRES IZOT 44 Figure 5 FREUDENTHAL&ELROWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A description of the results of the test holes follows. Test Hole#B-1 Location: Northwestern portion of the site near Building 5. Description: Fine reddish brown grey silty sand with traces of gravel were documented from zero-to-two feet below grade level ("bgl"). Reddish brown fine silty sands with traces of gravel were documented from two- to four feet bgl. Moist fine medium-to- fine/fine reddish brown silty sand with a trace of gravel was documented at four-lo-six feet bgl. At six-to ten feet bgl no classification was documented. Very fine grey clay was documented at ten-to-twelve feet bgl. From 12-to-15 feet bgl no classification was documented. From 15-to-17 feet bgl very fine grey clay was documented. No classification was documented from 17-to-20 feet bgl Fine wet tan/grey sand and very fine clay was documented at 20-to-22 feet bgl and groundwater was encountered at 20 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 22-to-25 feet bgI. Very fine grey clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 25-to-27 feet. Test Hole#B-2 Location: South-central portion of the site, in the roadway near proposed Buildings 8, 9 and 23. Description: Fine brown silty sand with traces of wood or roots was documented from zero-to-two feet bgl. Medium-to-fine moist light brown silty sand with a trace of gravel was documented at two-to-four feet bgl. At four-to-six feet bgl medium-to-fine reddish brown silty sand with traces of gravel was documented. From six-to-10 feet no classification was documented. Very fine reddish brown silty clay was documented from 10-to-12 feet bgl. From 12-to-15 feet no classification was documented. 45 Fine reddish brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 17-to-20 feet bgl. Fine reddish brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl. From 22-to-25 feet bgl no classification was documented. Groundwater was encountered at 25 feet bgl. Wet medium brown/tan sand with a trace of gravel was documented from 25-to-27 feet bgl. Test Hole#B-3 Location: East-central portion of the site in the area of proposed Building 16. Description: Fine to medium, damp/moist brown, sand was documented from zero-to- two feet bgl. Fine to medium damp moist brown silt/sand was documented from two-to- four feet bgl. From four-to-six feet bgl fine-to-medium wet brown sand/silt with five percent gravel was documented. Groundwater was encountered at five feet bgl. No classification was documented from six-to-ten feet bgl. Fine brown clay/silt was documented from ten-to-12-feet bgl. No classification was documented from 12-to-15 feet bgl. Fine brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 15-to-17 feet bgl. From 17-to-20 feet no classification was documented. Wet, medium-to-fine brown clay/sand was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 22-to-25 feet bgl. Fine wet brown clay/silt was documented between 25-to-27 feet bgl. . 46 Test Hole#B-4 Location: Northeastern portion of the site between proposed Buildings 19 and 20. Description: Fine brown sand with a trace of gravel and four inches of sand was documented from zero-to-two feet bgl. Dry-to-wet, medium-to-fine sand/silt was documented from two-to-six feet bgl. From six-to-10 feet bgl no classification was documented. Medium brown sand/ clay with five-percent gravel, was documented from ten-to-12 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 12-to-15 feet bgl. Fine brown clay was documented from 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 17- to-20 feet bgl. Coarse to fine wet sand was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl and groundwater was encountered at 20 bgl. From 22-to-25 feet bgl no classification was documented, and from 25-to-27 feet bgl fine brown clay was recorded. Test Hole#B-5 Location: North-central portion of the site in the vicinity of the proposed parking area between proposed Buildings 2 and 21. Description: Fine-to-coarse brown sand and a trace of gravel was documented from zero- to-two feet bgl. Fine-to-medium brown sand was documented from two-to-four feet bgl. From four-to-six feet bgl fine-to-medium brown clay/sand was documented. No classification was recorded from six-to-10 feet bgl. From 10-to-12 feet bgl, fine brown clay/sand was documented. From 12-to-15 feet bgl no classification was documented. Fine brown clay with a trace of gravel was documented from 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was recorded from 17-to-20 feet bgl. From 20-to-22 feet bgl fine grey clay with a trace of gravel was documented and groundwater was encountered at 20 feet bgl. No classification was recorded from 22-to-25 feet bgl and from 25-to-27 feet bgl fine grey clay sand with a trace of gravel was documented. 47 A review of the test hole data indicates that groundwater was encountered at 20.0± feet below grade. The moist soil condition in the upper 22 inches at the location of Test Hole #13-3 is representative of a perched or trapped water condition. A fluctuation of the subsurface water level could be expected through the year due to seasonal variations and weather events, tidal variations and other factors that may vary from the time the test holes were conducted. A surface fill condition was detected. The materials are related to clearing and grabbing, and are marginally consolidated. However, the soils are suitably graded and could be excavated, rendered free of such materials and replaced as engineered fill. The soils encountered are typical of the area, and are dense and moderately consolidated. Thus-, the soil bearing capacities of the soils in the anticipated construction area possess sufficient soil bearing value, as indicated in the soil report in Appendix L of this DEIS. 3.1.3 Topography According to the USGS Topographic Map-Southold Quadrangle (see Figure 6), the topography of the subject property is dominated by a relatively flat surface, which slopes slightly to the south-southeast. Topographic contours depicted on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, prepared by BBV (see Appendix G), indicates the existing elevation ranges from less than 10 feet above mean sea level ("amsl") at the southern portion of the property to approximately 35 feet amsl at the northern property boundary along C.R. 48. The most significant slopes on the subject site are located along C.R. 48. 48 According to the project engineer, the existing slopes on the subject property predominantly range from zero to 10-percent. A breakdown of the existing slopes is presented below in Table 5. Table 5—Existing Slopes on the Subject]Property Slopes Percent of Site 0 to 10 percent 96.0± 10 to 15 percent 3.3± 15 to 25 percent 0.5± Greater than 25 percent 0.2± 49 Excerpt of Topographic Map F E E 4",55 an P1 r ,A V eP7 tl " n + ♦ "., 54 2"�„� • is M s � n,. Pal Rock ray "" FQN� " * ¢ � Site Location a a '" pfra Av" ; IM i A .4wIMl *,. "' W tl� �M ll, dry:t '.r✓r H E 5f F ., �. s rive-if) ;` ,�4'. 11�' �� 3 Stu F� t#:tl , +" ya ; �pt1«� 1p' '� p AA ' V �' .. y,,, ,� .,t ,` � ��r N u �^A Mame:SOUTHOL0 Lncation 041"01322.1"' M 072"2'17.9'W' D ate;SM 2+103 Scak:1 Inch equals 1000 feet 040atl 5996,Favi u'& it,INC. Source: Earthvisions, Inc., 1996, "U.S.G..S. Topographic Map Brooklyn and Central Park Quadrangles Scale: 1. inch= 1,000 feet Figure 6 FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 50 3.2 WATER RESOURCES 3.2.1 Groundwater The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Manq�mnent Plan ("208 Study") In Suffolk and Nassau Counties, groundwater is present in the Upper Glacial aquifer, Magothy aquifer and the Lloyd Sand member. Water migrates down to the aquifer systems from surface precipitation (e.g., snow and rain), which, under the influence of gravity, migrates vertically through the unsaturated zone. At a certain depth(depending on location, local hydrogeology and precipitation rates), the sand and gravel units become saturated with water and become the aforementioned aquifer material. Precipitation migrates through all open ground surfaces on Long Island, however, as discussed in The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (hereinafter the "208 Study"), extensive research over the years has shown that the deeper aquifer zones (e.g., the Magothy aquifer) are recharged by infiltrating precipitation from along the elevated central east- west-trending topographic spine of Long Island. Groundwater tends to migrate horizontally away from the central spine of the island towards the north to the Long Island Sound and to the south to the Atlantic Ocean. This infiltration pattern has lead to the formation of a groundwater flow divide in Suffolk County from the Nassau/Suffolk border east to the Town of Riverhead which runs approximately under the Long Island Expressway("LIE"). In Suffolk County, west of Riverhead, groundwater present north of the LIE tends to migrate northward to the Long Island Sound while groundwater south of the LIE tends to migrate southward to the Atlantic Ocean. Further, due to potentiometric conditions, groundwater near the flow divide exhibits a downward flow component (resulting in recharge of the deeper aquifer units) while groundwater in two parallel bands midway between the LIE and the Long Island Sound to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the south exhibits a horizontal flow component. As groundwater migrates towards the north and south shores of Long Island, it exhibits an upward flow component where it eventually discharges to the Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean. 51 The ramifications of the aforementioned groundwater flow regime are that anthropogenic contaminants released in the deep recharge area located along the topographic spine of Long Island could eventually impact the deeper aquifers while contaminants injected near the shorelines will only likely impact the shallower aquifers. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") recognized the ramifications of the groundwater flow regime and has developed one of the Country's first groundwater management systems in which allowable industry types and population densities are based upon a sites' underlying groundwater conditions. As the subject site is located on North Fork of Long Island, it has been designated as being in SCDHS Groundwater Management Zone IV(see Figure 7). Hydrogeologic Zone rV comprises the North Fork and the eastern part of the South Fork. This area has unique groundwater conditions and special management alternatives apply to it. The groundwater reservoir on the North Fork consist of four principal freshwater flow systems referred to as the Long Island mainland, Cutchogue, Greenport, and Orient within a sequence of unconsolidated Pleistocene glacial and non-glacial deposit and Late Cretaceous Coastal Plan deposits. The aquifer underlying the North Fork is of locally marginal water quality, mainly in areas underlying farms. Due to the adjacent saltwater bodies to the north and south there is the potential for saltwater intrusion if pumping patterns are not carefully managed. Although the groundwater underlying the agricultural areas shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water. 52 Hydrogeologic Zone Map SUFFOLK COUNTY , NEW YORK Nock Island �uu�� �SN�.�man kR �w. Smithtown ay GairdMers Island s r� :�� and Ile, , Napeague "w.„ � 91 A/ '. Y ��' ✓� ��� ��„�: 1” ..:�'" „ ,, 4V� �',..ala °r. Bay IV � Cr � r f a�av Say 4 PecorOc V1 I s t ATLANTIC CCC'AN � U L. 0 G I w ; Great South Say l t � miles �e S "aaNCcxrcdEy f7�na�S�re�YgYFanv"a�g,s�ata"oGr�ry Ckaen�uooPdfits vl�as,d o�sw xa& 1�de£�y�a+tlma�t d�ranspr�raCian 0 2,5 5 75 10 dal Vss Jec Care r.Thi mapgw mtfaYx u�a��a�� wey� camv�'Xa �&�rd,os4oti pr cep �u . Source: Suffolk County Department of Planning, Suffolk County]Department of Health 'Services& New York Mate Department of Transportation Scale: As Shown Figure FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. The relevant highest priority area wide alternatives for Hydrogeologic Zone IV include selected structural and non-structural recommendations, as follows Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting, regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells; Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit/one or more acres), where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings; Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to surface and ground waters; and Provide for routine maintenance of on-site disposal systems. Depth and Flow Direction of Groundwater According to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") Contour Map of the Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk County (1999), the water table in the vicinity of the subject site is less than 10 feet above msl (see Figure 8). Given that the elevations at the subject site range from 10± feet-to-35± feet above msl, the depth to groundwater, based on published information, would typically range from approximately 0 feet-to-25 feet bgl. According to the on-site test holes (see Appendix L), the depth to water beneath the site was generally encountered at 20 feet bgl in the area of the test holes (where construction would occur). However, perched groundwater was found at five feet bgl in Test Hole #B-3 located in the area of proposed Building 14. Based upon the site topography and the SCDHS groundwater flow map, groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site exhibits a north-northeasterly flow direction. 54 Water Table Elevation Map 22' 30" 15! Z�i-� z IS" N 4R, -g- H TO g un 4-01-- -N 9,- Vill. -N-RR 72. P'N ig- 2 `2"n R% 3 W M Tp I-- MPG% gM gl- • "F f N v� M521yel- Sm MI? ffi- 08.707; Hill -1_51 NO sm -;Qr, 6167 gy 11709i III 287 OEM Ni. 'E r S i 17 p I I=0 I't �i5 Eli ga� "'.i�_mrov __j m Q-0-t -14 IM Zi7 POR 114 •"i--'='•r Ems. -OR, '10 S3 Q1 m 7 oj, i. H N", ..............6............. ....... . . ... g S57371 ff 5- IS 6720 -nt I A 515048- 6.060 YN m g7M 8.620 S. `1 0, _ !V1 Gfo , Z, •§ � . I 07A 586 -S_A "MA _Rm �Hl 7:�Y= 5.76 88843 MR, V 817 zi 4415"M-1 0 0 1 ZEN L NO 0 g .. i iti 7 Source: United States Geological Survey (2000) Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island- Scale slandScale 1" =2,000 feet Figure 8 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 55 The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan ("SGPA Plan") As identified in the Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (hereinafter "SGPA Plan"), SGPAs are significant, largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. They represent a unique final opportunity for comprehensive, preventative management to preclude or minimize land use activities that can have a deleterious impact on groundwater. Nine SGPAs are located on Long Island: North Hills; Oyster Bay; West Hills/Melville; Oak Brush Plains; South Setauket Woods; Central Suffolk; Southold; South Fork; and Hither Hills. According to the SGPA Plan, the subject property is not located within an SGPA (see Figure 9). Therefore,no further discussion of this issue is warranted. Suffolk County Sanitary Code ("SCSC") In order to protect the groundwater quality in Suffolk County, the SCDHS adopted Articles 6 and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6 is entitled "Realty Subdivisions, Developments and other Construction Projects." Provisions of this article relevant to this project are summarized below. § 760-607 of Article 6 identifies the sewage facility requirements for construction projects other than conventional single-family residential realty subdivisions and developments, and requires the following. 56 Special Grounwater Protection Areas (SGPA) Map Excerpt Site Location LONG ISLAND SOUND SOUTHOLD HITHER HILLS SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS BROOKHAVEN PILOT AREA, y v OYSTER DAY OAK BRUSH PLAINS OYSTER RAY PILOT AREA - SOUTH FORK R f ) NORTH HILLS , CENTRAL SUFFOLK CI'T'Y OF, ;k-~•, t �., 4 � NEW YORK • ATLANTIC Ir» OCEAN m WEST DILLS/MELVILLE DAM M-17-91 Source: The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan, 1992 57 Figure 9 FREUDENTHAL&EaLKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A community sewerage system method of sewage disposal is required for other construction projects when any of the following conditions are present: 1. The construction project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V VI, and the population density equivalent is greater than that of a realty subdivision or development or single-family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,0000 square feet; 2. The construction project is located outside Groundwater Management Zones III, V or VI, and the population density equivalent is greater than that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consists of an area of at least 20,000 square feet; 3. The construction project, or any portion thereof, is located within an existing sewer district... 4. The construction project is located in an area where the subsoil or groundwater conditions are not conducive to the proper functioning of individual or subsurface sewerage systems. Article 12 relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. The relevant aspects of Article 12 relate to the storage of fuel oil. in above ground or underground storage tanks. New underground storage tanks have to be "designed and constructed in a manner which will, in the opinion of the Commissioner [of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services] provide the maximum reasonable protection available against leakage or spillage from the facility to due corrosion,breakage, structural failure, or other means." 58 3.2.2 Water Usage As the site is currently undeveloped, there is no water usage. As indicated by the SCWA in Appendix M,public water service is located in an existing water main in C.R. 48. 3.2.3 Sanitary Flow As the site is currently undeveloped, no sewage effluent is generated. However, sewer infrastructure associated with the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the vicinity of the subject property within C.R. 48. As indicated in Appendix J, the Village of Greenport has the ability to provide service to the proposed development. The procedures associated with the connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant depend on the outcome of the annexation petition. If the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. As explained in detail in Section 2.3 of this DEIS, it is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion,it does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold. If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. There are currently no written procedures for applying for an out-of-district connection. However, as previously indicated and included Appendix J hereto, a letter from the District was issued by the Village's consultant (Cameron Engineering) indicating that the Village of Greenport has adequate capacity to service the proposed development. 59 3.2.4 Stormwater Runoff Existing Drainage There is no development on the subject property. Based upon the topography of the site, Stormwater currently flows from the north end of the site towards the south end, into the existing wetland area. Nonnoint Source Management Handbook("the Handbook") The Nonpoint Source Management Handbook(hereinafter the"Handbook"), which was prepared as part of the USEPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program, is divided into several elements: Land Use; Stormwater Runoff; On-site Systems; Highway Deicing; Fertilizer; Animal Waste; Wells-Water Supply; Boat Pollution; and .Site Plan Review and Ordinances. The Handbook makes a variety of recommendations for counties, municipalities, engineers, etc., to use in the control of non-point sources of groundwater contamination. Relevant recommendations from this study along with a review of the project's consistency therewith are included in Section 4.2.4 of this DEIS. Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ("NURP Study") Years of study, including various 208 studies, have provided conclusive evidence that in many areas pollutant loading contributed by non-point sources exceeds that contributed by point sources, and urban runoff is the most significant non-point source. With regard to stormwater runoff, the NURP Study (LIRPB, 1982) has made the following findings with regard to groundwater and surface water, that are relevant to the proposed development: 60 Groundwater ® Most of the runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain that falls directly on impervious surfaces, except during storms of high intensity, high volume and/or long duration; ® In general, with the exception of lead and chloride, the concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality; ® Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing-lead and probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. Although the NURP Study findings concerning chromium are not conclusive, data from a spill at Farmingdale indicate attenuation. Chloride is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on nitrogen is undetermined; ® Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through soil; ® Lead concentrations in runoff entering a recharge basin appear to be directly related to the extent and characteristics of the road network and the type and volume of traffic in the drainage area served by the basin; ® Plant growth on a basin floor enhances infiltration because the plant root system keeps the soil layer loose and permeable, and provides channels for infiltrating water. Removal of basin vegetation is not necessary, and may indeed decrease the infiltration rate. 61 Surface Water ® Any control of chemical constituents in runoff requires awareness of the year-round presence. The use of highway deicing salts in winter explains the high chloride concentrations found in runoff during that season; and • Stormwater is a major source of coliform loading to Long Island bays. Some of the bays in Suffolk County contain areas where impaired water quality exists for reasons other than storm*ater runoff(e.g., localized duck farm discharges). A consistency analysis of the proposed project with the NURP Study is included in Section 4.2 of this DEIS. 3.2.5 Surface Water,Wetlands and,Floodplains NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map No. 6 of 39 (the Southold Quadrangle) was reviewed for the potential presence of wetlands on or directly adjacent to the subject site (see Figure 10). The map indicates that the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland SO-1 is situated within the boundaries of the subject property. This wetland is locally known as Moore's Drain. Moore's Drain The freshwater wetlands located on the western, southern, and eastern margins of the project site are hydrologically connected to Moore's Drain, a permanent, slow-moving stream that flows from its headwaters at Silver Lake to Pipe's Cove. The stream is shallow (typically 1-2 feet in depth) and is largely contained within a steeply banked channel approximately 10-20 feet in width. Between Route 25 and Moore's Lane, the stream flows though Moore's Woods, which is composed of high quality, mature oak-tulip forests and forested wetlands. Moore's Drain, its surrounding wetlands, and Moore's Woods encompass approximately 300 acres consisting largely of protected lands owned by the Village of Greenport. Moore's Drain is listed as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the New York State Department of State- Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS, 2005). 62 However, Moore's Drain often exhibits elevated levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria especially following excessive (>6 inches) rainfall events (Town of Southold, 2004). Water quality monitoring of Moore's Drain between 1996 and 2007 by Suffolk County Department of Health Services found high levels of total coliform bacteria (ranging between 20 MPN/100mL 7 and 16,000 MPN/100m1) and fecal coliform bacteria (ranging between <20 MPN/100mL) (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 2009). The highest values for total coliform. (9,000-16,000 MPN/100 ml) and fecal coliform (5,000-16,000 MPN/100 mL) were typically observed prior to 2005. Since 2005, the highest values for total and fecal coliform observed were 2,200 and 500 MPN/100mL, respectively. The sampling point for this water quality data is located at the southern end of Moore's Drain where the stream flows through a culvert under Main Road at the intersection of Old Main Road.. Values for other ecologically-important water quality parameters between 1996 and 2007 include total phosphorus (0.018-0.205 mg/L), total nitrogen (0.16-2.00 mg/L), and nitrate (0.005-0.490 mg/L). Complete water quality records obtained from Suffolk County Department of Health are provided in Appendix M. A stormwater retention system and filtration facility consisting of a man-made wetland was constructed between Route 25 and Old Main Road to receive stormwater and reduce the discharge of contaminants to Pipe's Cove. At the headwaters of Moore's Drain located to the east of Moore's Lane, this freshwater wetland system consists mostly of deep emergent marshes, shrub swamps, and two small open water ponds (including Silver Lake). Between Route 25 and Moore's Lane, Moore's Drain is located largely within a distinct, steeply-banked stream channel. However, there are numerous ditches and perched wetlands, which drain into the main stream channel. In this portion of Moore's Drain, the wetland community types present include deep emergent marshes, shrub swamps, and ,mature red maple hardwood swamps. 7 MPN=Most Probable Number. This is a method of estimating quantitative data on concentrations of discrete items from positive or negative(incidence)data such as microbial populations in water or soil. mL=Milliliter. 63 The upland forests adjacent to Moore's Drain largely consist of mature oak-tulip forests. These woodlands are dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and various hickories (Carya glabra and Cwya ovata). Moore's Woods provide high-quality habitat for a wide diversity of plants and wildlife. Moore's Woods is bordered to the north by the KOA Campground and to the east by the Greenport sewage treatment plant.and athletic fields. The southern terminus of Moore's Drain flows into a culvert in a concrete headwall and under Route 25. On the southern side of Route 25, Moore's Drain discharges into a tidal high marsh associated with Pipe's Cove located between Route 25 and the Long Island Railroad tracks. Examination of the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Mapping (718-552) revealed that there are no tidal wetlands located within or contiguous to the subject property(see Figure 12). National Wetland Inventory ("NWI") Map No.822 was examined as to the potential presence of wetlands on or adjacent to the site (see Figure 11). The National Wetlands Inventory Map revealed that there are federally-designated wetlands identified within the subject property boundary. These wetlands are classified as Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanent ("PUBH"). A discussion of the ecological characteristics of the wetlands is included in Section 4.3 of this DEIS. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM"), panel map (36103C0157G), on which the subject site is located, indicates that the site is located outside the 500-year flood zone and, thus, is not located within a special flood hazard area (see Figure 13). There are no other surface waters situated on or directly adjacent to the subject property. 64 0 A NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map Number 6 of 39 lett - } \ " �7LL6 _i. _INLO _ POND o� w G •t , _ r o ti •ise `Rcck.�� i P V b W 1 d V. - i l r 1 ' l w J' 0S' -+ f08QMBf _ 1 Y� _ - _ lwJ•.r....w.�..f ♦ 1 _ t _ Gree� u t S _ _ v - s i c 1 ••a" 1 L'• 0 r ZS Y"a '4 1 ..,f 1 ��.y a �•J'.: 80 2 �1 •Y l Z. ` M _ yl• i fit/ ... Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Map No.6 of 39,Southold Quadrangle,1991 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP,INC. Figure 10 65 Excerpt of the National Wetlands Inventory Map JA 72-24.0 23-20 W 72-23-0 W V W 72-23-SFO W ) 9lFO1E � cb F a„ d- I k, LO TION r PF�71P nes oath W Ne K - r W , ti PUBF^ d PS81,F E2Pdu11Ptl d 72-24-0 W 72-23-40 W 72-23-20 W72-23-0 W Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish..and Wildlife Service, Wetlands Online Mapper Scale: 1:13,218 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 11 66 N Excerpt of Tidal Wetlands Map 11A [K �E. S Iy�t ih i i SITE r�. ` LOCATION 5 S { Y � Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands Map No. 7t8-552 Scale: Not to Scale I+REUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 12 67 Excerpt of Floodplain Map 9 z—a 2 5 Town ofyp4' APPROXIMATE SCALE Southold w� 506 0 Wo FEET y q_ r ra z 360813 �J a = tiq• s � ZONE x �hhM`M1ryt _y ( NATIONAL 8400 INSUM"CE PROCRAN c , O s 1 Site Locatl FIRM ROOD INSURANCE RATE MAP N ZONE X o �y SUFPOLR COUNTY, ZONE X NEW YORK v ka£L.✓'�:^,:x'.. � .: td G7 CALL (URISDiC77DTi5} r ��•� xy_ � � � 0�•9 w ••� PANEL 151 OF 1026 � y= �"" %" .. ..cc w.+•muu ron n,.vcu-Hor mrnca OWF -47 O � y r ,r c�uru•c r I MAP NUN9Rt 36193CM57 0 EFFECTIVE DATE.- MAY ATE=MAY Ar 1999 Town of Southold iliDNE X arm � red 4 Ememwcy M==mnt A¢cnc7 360813 y �,.' m.�n.n cnciai ccw wrMIT ccmdn cr n'.. w rcl,c.cna r a mm t i Q nar y _'qr urc omunn nu.na.,ckn.r,n:.dnci cnnnpn. nnx.d•nnrr.•,.nrn�r nn+�d,�.,rna..,..e>+ v of o ib a i rra "t' b=t h'x4 ° iMi+rCvrin•nCnrtlrlyrnntlnn.`a+el..mdcic tl� Gn�4lru.M F=4M ICN r•IJO�.Jnt s.mN�.m.4.>^ oQcv Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map, Suffolk County, New York, Panel 157 of 1026,Map No. 36103COI57 Q May 4, 1998 -Scale:As-Shown Figure 13 FREUADENTFIAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP,INC. 68 3.3 ECOLOGY The existing natural resources present on the Northwind Village site were assessed by William P. Bowman, Ph.D. (see Appendix N) between April 2007 and August 2008. Vegetation inventories, rare plant surveys, and avian surveys were conducted based on bi-weekly surveys conducted between April and September 2007. The herpetile community of the subject property was assessed using various sampling techniques including cover boards, pit-fall traps, call id6ntification, and dip-netting in areas of standing water. Herpetogical sampling occurred bi- weekly from late May through July 2007. 'Mr. Todd Gardner assisted with herpetological sampling and identification (see Appendix N). The small mammal community of the subject property was assessed using small mammal traps between July and September 2007. The invertebrate community of the subject property, specifically the presence of tiger beetles (Cicindela patruela consentanea) or suitable habitat for tiger beetles, was assessed by Dr. Jonathan Mawsdley(see Appendix N) on August 14, 2008. 3.3.1 Ecological Communities The ecological communities present at the subject property were characterized according to the Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke, 1990; Edinger et al., 2002). Several ecological communities were found to be present on the project site including red maple- hardwood swamps, successional southern hardwoods, and successional old fields. As shown in Table 6, successional southern hardwoods and successional old field were the dominant ecological communities present on the subject property. The red maple-hardwood swamps account for 3.9 acres (22.7 percent) of the subject property and are located along the western,, southern, and eastern property boundaries. As shown in Table 6, each of these communities is classified as either G5-S5 or G4-S4 (Edinger et al., 2002). G5-S5 and G4-S4 communities are defined as being demonstrably or apparently, -respectively, secure on both global and statewide scales (Reschke, 1990). A general description of each of the ecological communities, including the dominant plant species observed in each community, is presented below. 69 Table 6— Ecological Communities Present at Northwind Village Site Ecological Community Acres % of Subject Property) I Global/State Rank Successional.Old Field 2.3 (13.3) G4-S4 Successional Southern Hardwoods 11.0(64.0) G5-S5 Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp 3.9(22.7) G5-S4S5 Classifications from Ecological Communities of New York State(Edinger et al.,2002) In addition, a complete list of the more than 150 woody and herbaceous plant species observed on the subject property is presented in Appendix N. Successional Old Fields Approximately 2.3 acres (13.4 percent) of the subject property consist of areas that have been historically cleared and now feature dense stands of forbs, grasses, and sprawling vines. These dense meadows are dominated by various goldenrods (including Solidago altisshna, S. rugosa, S. canadensis, and S. gramnifolia), field thistle (Sonchorus arvensis), wild lettuce (Letuca canddensis), and various brambles (including Rubus flagellaris, R. ideaus, and R. occidentalis). There are several patches within these sucessional fields that are dominated by native grasses including purple-top (Triodia flava), redtop bentgrass (Agrostis alba), broomsedge and little blustems (Andropogon virginicus and A. scoparius), panicgrass (Panicum sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and purple lovegrass (Eragrostis spectabilis). The property's fields were interspersed with trees typical of early successional habitats including eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), bayberry (Morella pennsylvanica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and red oak (Quercus rubra). 70 Successional Southern Hardwoods This ecological community consists of young stands of various hardwood trees that have regenerated on previously cleared sites. This community exists on approximately 11.0 acres (64.0 percent) of the subject property. In the northeastern portion of the property, these forests stands are dominated by black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) with an understory consisting of various honeysuckles (including Lonicera villosa and L. tartarica), black cherry (P. serotina), and spicebush (L. benzoin). However, throughout the remainder of the property, these stands are dominated by red maple (A. rubrum) with quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), grey birch (Betula populifolia), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides) also present. Some of these A. rubrum-dominated successional stands have a relatively sparse shrub- and ground-layer while other stands have a well-developed shrub layer dominated by honeysuckles. The edges of these successional forests, particularly on the eastern portion of the property, feature'dense thickets of woody vines including common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), prickly dewberry (Rubus flageris), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orientalis), and wild grape (Vitis aestivalis and Vitis labrusca). Red Manle-Hardwood Swamps The wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are red maple-hardwood swamps and are located along the western, southern, and eastern property boundaries. This community type exists on approximately 3.9 acres (22.7 percent) of the subject property. These wetlands are connected hydrologically to a larger wetland complex to the south and east, Moore's Drain. As noted in Section 3.2.5, Moore's Drain is a NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetland (SO-1, Southold USGS Quadrangle) and is listed as a Class C surface water. Moore's Drain occurs within Moore's Woods, a large, diverse forest consisting of mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands which provides large areas of mature, high quality, and largely unspoiled habitat. The wetlands and surrounding forests associated with Moore's Woods provide habitat for a number of rare plant species including cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor) (Lamont and Fitzgerald, 2000), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and cat-tail sedge (Carex typhina). See the New York Natural Heritage ("NYNHP") correspondence dated September 4, 2006 and August 2, 2007 in Appendix N. 71 Within the red maple-hardwood swamp are small stands of trees, found on hummocks and the tops of banks, that are dominated by various upland species such as oaks (Quercus sp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickories (Carya glabra and Carya ovata), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). These stands are likely to be remnants of the oak-beech-tulip forest that is present in upland portions of Moore's Woods located to the south of the subject property. In addition, the Arshamonaque wetland complex is located less than one mile to the west of the project site on the.opposite side of Chapel Lane. Arshamonaque wetland is the largest complex of freshwater wetlands in the Town of Southold (Town of Southold, 2004) and is also known to contain habitat for rare plant species and ecological communities (see Appendix N). In the forested wetlands on the subject property, red maple (Acer rubrunz) is the dominant canopy tree with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) as the most common co-dominant tree species. The shrub layer is well-developed, particularly in the southern part of the property, and is dominated by spicebush (Lindera benzoin), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and Northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum). The herbaceous layer is dominated by ferns, including sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonzea), and New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis). Skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), royal fern (Osnzunda regalis), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.), and water willow (Decodon verticillatus) were also abundant in the mucic soils and mucky sands located on the property. The herbaceous layer in the hardwood swamps along the western property boundary tended to be sparser with jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) as the dominant ground cover and some starflower(Trientalis borealis)present. 72 I These wetlands typically possess a well-developed forest canopy; however, there are several sites located to the south of the subject property where gaps in the tree canopy exist over wetland swales. These swales feature a diverse herbaceous plant community dominated by Sphagnum moss, S. foetidus, blue-flag iris (Iris versicolor), and various sedges including Carex crinita, Carux hirida, Carex stricta, Carex vulpinoidea, and Carex stipata. The water level in these swales varies markedly throughout the growing season from approximately two-to-2.5 feet in the late spring and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. 3.3.2 Wildlife A diverse range of wildlife including birds, herpetiles, and mammals were observed on the subject property due both to the wide range of habitats present and the high-quality of the mature forested wetlands and hardwood forests located on and adjacent to the subject property. Birds As shown in Appendix N, 46 bird species were observed on the subject property with eighteen bird species expected to also utilize the site based upon records from Inlet Pond Park(North Fork Audubon Society, 2006). Many of these bird species are expected to breed on the subject property (NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, 2000), as shown in Appendix N. The mature red maple- hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods provide high-quality habitat for a variety of forest songbirds including American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), black-and-white warbler (Mniotitla varia), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), and northern parula (Parula americana). These forest- dwelling species were largely observed on the southern and southwestern portions of the property or on the adjacent property. 73 Dead trees, snags, and limbs in these forests provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds and woodpeckers including red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). In addition, the dense thickets of low shrubs and woody vines in both the black locust- and red maple-dominated successional hardwood stands provide excellent habitat for songbirds which prefer dense vegetation including yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis triches). Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) were the most commonly observed birds on the subject property and were present in the shrub layer in the hardwood swamps, the stands of Lonicera sbrubs located within the successional forests, and thickets of brambles (Rubus sp.) and woody vines at the margins of the successional fields. Bird species commonly observed. in the open fields and forest edges included eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalnzus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglotta), northern cardinal (Cardinal cardinal), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia, yellow-rumped warbler (Denroica coronata), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Due to the presence of successional fields and grass- dominated habitats surrounded by mature forest stands, the property provides suitable habitat for various raptors and owls which can forage for small mammals in the open areas from nearby trees. Several species of raptors and owls were observed including sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus), red-tailed hawk(Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo virginanus), and Eastern screech owl (Megascops asio). Her petiles High-quality habitats were observed for several types of aquatic and terrestrial herpetiles on or adjacent to the subject property. Various sampling techniques including cover boards, pit-fall traps;-call identification, and dip-netting in areas of standing water were employed and resulted in the observation of nine species of reptiles and amphibians (see Appendix N). 74 Four frog species and three salamander species were found to live and breed in the areas of standing water located in the wetlands on the western and southern portion of the property. Larval spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were observed in these wetlands while four-toed salamander(Hemidacty lium scutatunz) and red-backed salamander(Plethodon cinerus) were observed in the moist woods surrounding. these wetlands. Eastern garter snakes (Thaninophis sirtalis) and eastern box turtles (Terrapene caroling) were commonly observed on the subject property. Adult box turtles were observed in the successional hardwood stands and in open, sandy areas in the successional fields. In addition, two small clearings in the property's successional old fields were found that are utilized by box turtles as nesting areas. These areas are small (approximately 400 square feet in size), open clearings with sandy soil and sparse ground vegetation. Maninials The mammals observed at the subject property during the plant, avian, and herpetile surveys were commonplace species typical of suburban habitats including eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procryon lotor), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Small mammal traps were deployed in the late summer through early Fall of 2007 in successional field, succession southern hardwoods, and red maple-hardwood swamp communities. White-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) were found to be abundant in the property's successional fields. No small mammals were successfully collected in forested communities as the traps were always disturbed by raccoons. However, other small mammals expected to be found on the subject property include short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), masked shrew (Sorex cinerus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). For a complete list of all mammals observed or expected at the subject property (see Appendix N). 75 3.3.3 Endangered,Threatened, and Rare Species Correspondence from the NYNHP dated September 4, 2006 and August 2, 2007 (refer to Appendix N), indicates that there are records of historical and recent occurrences of rare or state- listed animals or plants and significant ecological communities in the vicinity of the subject property. None of these significant ecological resources were observed on the subject property. The following section lists the significant ecological resources indicated by the New York Natural Heritage Program and discusses the suitability of the habitats at the subject property for these rare, listed, or significant ecological resources. Red Manle-Sweetkum Swanny Red maple-sweetgum swamps are a rare ecosystem type known to occur at only 10-30 sites within New York State (NYNHP, 2007). Red maple and sweetgum dominate the canopy in this community with subdominant species including swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) and red oak (Quercus rubra). Red maple-sweetgum swamps are known to provide habitat for several rare plant species including swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). The closest known occurrence of a red maple-sweetgum swamp is within one mile of the subject property in Arshamonaque Wetland to the west of Chapel Lane. This rare.community type is not present on the subject property. Red maple is a dominant tree species at the subject property. However, sweet gum, although present sporadically, is not dominant or co-dominant on the subject property. Eastern Box Turtle Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina), a species of Special Concern, have been observed on the subject site and two small box turtle nesting sites have been identified. The box turtle inhabits moist woodlands, pastures, and marshy meadows from New England to northern Florida (Ernst et al. 1994) and is listed as a species of special concern in New York State. Eastern box turtles are in decline throughout the eastern United States with population reductions of 50-75 and Parker 1987; Hall et al. 1999 . percent since the 1940s-1950sn p (Williams( � ) I 76 Habitat fragmentation and the pet trade are the most significant contributors to box turtle population decline (Nazdrowicz et al. 2005; Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ["CTDEP"] 2008). The fragmentation of woodland habitats by roadways and residential development has resulted in increased turtle mortality from automobiles and lawnmowers. Road-killed turtles are often gravid females looking for nesting sites (CTDEP 2008). In addition, eastern box turtle populations are adversely impacted by the pet trade as poachers capture turtles and remove them from the breeding population. Due to the slow reproduction and late sexual maturity of box turtles, populations of box turtles in the eastern United States have not been able to overcome the loss of mature adult turtles due to automobile- and lawnmower-mortality and poaching. Eastern box turtles are long-lived, with some adults reaching 50-70 years in the wild, and typically inhabit very small home ranges (2.2 to 24,.4 acres) for many decades (Hall et al. 1999; Donaldson and Echtemact 2005). Box turtles inhabit moist woodlands, pastures, and marshy meadows and are known to soak in the shallow edges of marshes, small ponds, streams, and ditches to cool themselves during warm, dry periods in the summer (Donaldson and Echtemacht 2005). Box turtles have a diverse diet consisting of insects, worms slugs, berries, and mushrooms. During the winter months, box turtles burrow into the soil in wooded areas and hibernate just below the leaf litter (Claussen et al. 1991), they then emerge from hibernation in mid-March to April. Box turtles begin to breed in April and females typically nest in mid-May to late July (CTDEP 2008). Female box turtles deposit 4-5 eggs annually in sunlit areas with bare, exposed, well-drained soils (Flitz and Mullin 2006). Female turtles may migrate up to one mile in search of suitable nest. sites (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2007). During the summer months, box turtles are most active in the morning and evening and after precipitation events (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2007). Young turtles emerge from nests in September and then live within the leaf litter layer of woodlands for several years. Young box turtles do not begin to reproduce until they are—10 years of age (CTDEP 2008). 77 Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus) has been observed in the woodlands to the south of the subject property. Cooper's hawk (Acciptiter cooperii) is expected to be present based upon the suitability of the woodlands and nearby edge habitats for foraging and nesting of this species. These raptors inhabit various woodlands and forests throughout the United States and Canada and both are listed as species of special concern in New York State. The populations of both these species declined substantially between the 1940s and 1972 due to the adverse effects of DDT on reproduction and egg survivorship, but then rebounded after the use of DDT was banned. More recently, sharp-shinned hawk breeding occurrences have declined on Long Island between 1980-1985 and 2000-2005, while increasing in other portions of New York State (McGowan and Corwin 2008). In contrast, Cooper's hawk breeding has increased on both Long Island and throughout New York State (McGowan and Corwin, 2008). Sightings of sharp- shinned hawks have also declined during migration periods and may be the result declining productivity of breeding populations, loss of breeding habitat, and/or changes in migration patterns (Viverette et al. 1996). Cooper's hawk populations may be increasing across New York State due to both the increased availability of older forests stands suitable for nesting Cooper's hawks and the propensity of this species to hunt for birds at bird feeders and in residential areas (Corwin 2008). Both of these hawks prey largely on birds, but will occasionally take small mammals, lizards, insects, and frogs (Erlich et al. 1989). Both the sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks often prey on songbirds at residential bird feeders (Dunn and Tessaglia 1994). In suburban and urban areas, sharp-shinned hawks feed primarily on sparrow-sized birds, particularly house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and dark-eyed junco (Juncus hyemalis) and intermediate-sized birds, such as European. starling (Sternus vulgaris) and American robin (Turdus migratorius) (Roth et al. 2006). Cooper's hawks feed almost exclusively on intermediate-sized birds such as European starlings, American robins, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and rock doves (Columba livia) (Roth and Lima 2003). These hawk species both feed in a variety of habitats including woodlands, grassed areas, and residential settings although they tend to focus their hunting activity in forest edge habitats (Roth et al. 2008). 78 The project site and the surrounding woodlands and wetlands are expected to provide suitable hunting habitat for both sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks nest between April and June (McGowan and Corwin, 2008) in broad, flat nests adjacent to tree trunks constructed from sticks and twigs (Stokes and Stokes 1989). Sharp-shinned hawks tend to nest in young forest stands with a high density of smaller trees, while Cooper's hawks tend to use older stands with a lower density of tall tree's (Trexel et al. 1999). Sharp-shinned hawks tend to nest in coniferous trees, whereas Cooper's hawks tend to nest in broad-leaf trees (Trexel et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 2002). The absence of young stands of coniferous trees on the subject property or in nearby woodlands associated with Moore's Woods indicate that the area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for sharp-shinned hawk. However, the mature deciduous woodlands in Moore's Woods provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk and nesting of this species has been confirmed in the Greenport area (McGowan and Corwin, 2008). Cat-tail Sedw(Carex typhina) Cat-tail sedge is a small, clump-forming sedge typically found in wet meadows and open wet woodlands. C. typhina is typically found in association with Carex lurida, Carex vulpinoides, and Carex cr.inita (Mohlenbreck, 1998). Field inspection of the subject property indicated that several wetland areas on the southwestern portion of the property feature numerous areas dominated by sedges including known associates of C. typhia such as C. lurida and C. vulpinoides. However, C. typhina was not found at these locations. The NYNHP stated that a population of Carex typhina is located in the southern portion of Moore's Drain at the edge of a shrub swamp. The absence of C. typhina at the subject property may be due to the presence of shaded conditions resulting from the mature forest canopy instead of the sunny wet meadow or shrub swamp habitats typically preferred by C. typhina. However, due to the presence of its associates, it is concluded that suitable habitat for C. typhina is present in the red maple- hardwood swamps located on the southern and southwestern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. 79 Swamp Cottonwood(Populus heterophylla) Swamp cottonwood is a southern tree species occasionally found in bottomland hardwood swamps growing at the edge of muck soils (Burns and Honkala, 1990). This uncommon species is known to occur in approximately 20 extant and historical populations in New York State (NYNHP, 2007b) including a known occurrence in the hardwood swamps located in Moore's Drain. P. heterophylla is typically found in association with A. rubrum,F.pennsylvanica, and Q. bicolor (NYNHP, 2007b). As stated previously, the hardwood swamps located on and near the subject property are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The wetland areas located on the subject property were intensively surveyed for the presence of P. heterophylla. No specimens of this species were observed. However, suitable habitat for this species exists in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. Cranefly Orchid(Tipularia discolor) This small, rare orchid occurs in large tracts of mature forests dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red oak (Quercus rubra), swamp white oak(Quercus rubra), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Small stands of these trees were observed in hummocks and on the tops of banks within the red maple-hardwood swamps located on the subject property. No cranefly orchids were observed on the subject property during surveys conducted in the summer and winter months. It is concluded that small areas of suitable habitat for T. discolor are present in the red maple-hardwood swamps located on the southern and southeastern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. Northern Cricket Froz(Acris crepitans) The Northern Cricket Frog is a small tree-frog that inhabits the edges of sunny marshes, marshy ponds, impoundments, and slow-moving streams in open country (NYNHP, 2007c). Known populations of A. crepitans in New York State occur in Orange, Ulster, and Dutchess counties. 80 Historically, this species occurred on eastern Long Island. Intensive survey efforts to assess the herpetological community of the subject property did not indicate the presence of A. crepitans. However, as previously discussed, seven amphibian species were observed. The areas of standing water on the subject property are largely shaded by the surrounding mature forest canopy and do not appear to provide suitable habitat for A. crepitans which prefers more open, sunny habitats. Tiger Beetle(Cicindela patruela consentanea) This rare beetle species is historically known from Greenport (NYNHP, correspondence dated October 12, 2007, see Appendix N) and other locations on eastern Long Island including Port Jefferson, Riverhead, and Westhampton (Leonard, 1926). These tiger beetles inhabit pine-oak woodlands dominated by pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and various oak species, including scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), and post oak (Quercus stellata), with adult beetles typically found along sandy trails and firebreaks (Mawdsley, 2007). On August 14, 2008, Dr. Jonathan Mawdsley visited the 17.2-acre subject property, and investigated the entire property for microhabitat features that might provide suitable habitat for tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Based upon this habitat survey, the subject property does not contain suitable habitat for the tiger beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. This tiger beetle is closely associated with high-quality pine-oak barrens, an ecological community that is not present at the subject property. In pine-oak barrens, Cicindela patruela consentanea is often associated with white sandy substrates, or white sandy substrates with pebbles. These substrates are not present at the subject property. Neither adult tiger beetles,nor larval burrows of tiger beetles, were observed during the site visit. No adult bombyliid flies (parasites of larval tiger beetles often visible when neither adult larval nor larval tiger beetles are active) were observed during the site visit. The subject property contained several areas of potentially suitable habitat for two common species of tiger beetles. Both of these species (Cicindela punctulata Olivier, Cicindela sexguttata Fabricius) are common and widespread in New York State. 81 Both species have Natural Heritage Status Rand G5, meaning that they are demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. The complete report prepared by Dr. Mawdsley, as well as his qualifications and literature review, are contained in Appendix N of this DEIS. Marsh Straw Sed (Carex hormathodes) Marsh straw sedge is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs most commonly in and adjacent to salt or brackish coastal, or rarely slightly inland, tidal marshes. It can also occur in dune swales, fens, the margins of coastal wetlands, and wet forests adjacent to the coast (NYNHP, 2006; NYNHP, 2007d). This plant is typically found in association with common reed (Phragmites australis), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), seaside bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp. paludosus), and beach plum (Prunus -maritinia) (NYNHP, 2007d). No tidal marshes and coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for C horniathodes. Orange-fi*pzed Orchid(Mtanthera ciliaris) This New York State-Endangered orchid occurs in a variety of wetlands habitats including bogs, damp and sandy meadows, floodplain, seepage areas, and other sites with damp and sandy soils. Orange-fringed orchid was not observed during surveys of the wetlands on the site. However, due to the presence of large areas of wetlands with sandy soils, it is concluded that suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the southern and southeastern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. 82 Nuttall's Tick-Trefoil (Desmodium nuttallii) and Smooth Tick-Trefoil (Desrnodiurn laevigatunz) Both of these plants are endangered in New York State and known to inhabit dry, sandy soils in open habitats. Both species are known from historical records.to have occurred in the Greenport area. No Desinodiunas were observed on the subject property and it appears that the areas of suitable sandy soils are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Green Parrot's Feather(Myriophyllum pinnatuna) This native aquatic milfoil is endangered in New York State and is known from a 1919 report in a ditch in Greenport. M. pinnatuna is a submergent plant found in the shallow water and muddy banks of coastal ponds (Massachuesetts Natural Heritage Program, 2006). No coastal ponds are present on the subject property and the wetlands that are present do not contain a submergent plant community due to the shallow and variable water levels. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for M.pinnatuna. Cut-leaved Evening-Primrose(Oenothera laciniata) This New York State-Endangered plant is found in cultivated fields, sandy waste places, and roadsides (Clewis et al. 2007). O. laciniata was not observed on the subject property and it appears that the areas of suitable sandy soils, roadsides, and waste places are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Opelousa Smartweed Wolyzonurn hydropiperoides var. opelousa) This rare native sub-species of the commonplace Water Smartweed(P. hydropiperoides) inhabits wet, sandy to peaty soils near running water or in swales (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). Opelousa smartweed is known from various historical reports on Long Island, including a 1939 report in Greenport. P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa was not observed on the subject property; however, P. hydropiperoides was found in the areas of standing water on the southern portion of the property. 83 The two sub-species axe readily differentiated by leaf shape as P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa has linear-lanceolate leaves compared with the broadly lanceolate leaves of P. hydropiperoides (Mitchell and Dean, 1979). Although there are no areas of permanent running water on the subject property, the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site suggest that the abundant wet soils provide suitable habitat for P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa. Swamp Smartweed(Persicaria setaceunz) This New York State-Endangered smartweed inhabits shaded swampy forests and lake margins (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). Swamp smartweed was not observed during surveys of the red maple-hardwood swamps located on and adjacent to the site; however, the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site suggests that suitable habitat for P. setaceum is present. Red Pioweed(Chenopodium rubrum) Red pigweed is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs in salt marshes, saline soils, and sandy frontal dunes (Maine Department of Conservation, 2004; NYNHP, 2006). No tidal wetlands or coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for C. rubrum. Velvet Panic Grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) Velvet panic grass is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs in open or partially open, moist ditches and swales and sandy soils of adjacent woodlands (Gould and Clark, 1978). Velvet panic grass was not observed during surveys of the wetlands on the subject property. However, due to the presence of large areas of wetlands with ditches and sandy soils, it is concluded that suitable habitat for D. scoparium maybe present on or adjacent to the site. 84 Small-floweredPearlwort(Sagina decunibens) This diminutive plant is found in dry, sandy soils (Britton and Brown, 1913) in open areas in fields, pastures, and waste places. Open, sandy areas within the subject property's successional old fields were investigated for small-flowered pearlwort. No specimens of this species were observed. Maryland Milkwort Wolywala inariana) Maryland milkwort is found in wetland habitats, but is presumed to be extirpated from New York State (NYNHP, 2006). Accordingly, while wetland habitats exist on or adjacent to the site, Maryland milkwort is not expected to be found on the site nor was this species observed during surveys of the wetland habitats. 85 3.4 LAND USE . AND ZONING, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS/STUDIES 3.4.1 Land Use and Zoning The subject.property consists of 17.19 acres located on the south side of C.R. 48. Currently, the subject property is undeveloped, consisting of forested upland area and forested wetlands and is located within the Hamlet Density ("HD") Residential District, according to the Town of Southold New Zoning Map, Section 2 of 4, adopted by the Town Board on November 3, 2004 (see Figure 14). The HD zoning district permits the development of one-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple. dwellings, townhouses, or row or attached dwellings. Uses permitted by special exception from the Board of Appeals include accessory apartments in single-family homes, bed-and-breakfast uses and health care facilities. As community water and sewer would be available to the development,the bulls regulations for such condition have been included in Table 7. The bulk and dimensional regulations of the HD District are included in Table 7. 'fable 7—Bulk and Dimensional Regulations—HD District Parameter . Re uirement Minimum Lot Size—Multiple Dwellings/Townhouses Without Utilities 20,000 SF per Unit With Community Water 20,000 SF per Unit With Community Water and Sewer 10,000 SF per Unit Lot Width 60 Feet Lot Depth 80 Feet Front Yard 30 Feet Side Yard(Both Side Yards) 15 (30) Feet Rear Yard 30 Feet Livable Floor Area(SF per Dwelling Unit) 850 SF Lot Coverage 25% Height(Feet) 35 Feet Height(Stories) 21/2 Stories Potential development of the site under the existing HD zoning is discussed in Section 7.2 of this DEIS. 86 The land uses and zoning designations surrounding the subject property are as follows. Unless otherwise noted,the zoning is that of the Town of Southold: North: Properties to the north of the subject property, on the north side of C.R. 48, are developed with single-family residences and are situated within the R-80 Residential Low-Density ("R-80") District, although the existing development lots do not appear to be one acre in size, thus they do not conform to the density requirements of this zoning district. To the northwest of the subject 'property, along the north side of C.R. 48, the area is developed with a motel (Sunset Motel) and a .condominiuril complex (Cliffside Condominiums). These properties are situated within the RR—Resort Residential District. South: Land to the south of the subject property is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands (Moore's Woods) situated within the Village of Greenport and designated on the Village Zoning Map as PD—Park District. East: The land to the east of the subject property, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped woodland with some single-family residential development, and is designated, according to the Town zoning map, as R-80 District. The land to the east-southeast of this area is developed with the Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds (KOA), which is designated as RR—Resort Residential District, within the Town. Further along C.R. 48, immediately east of Moores Lane, is an existing residential development within the Affordable Housing District("AHD") West: The property to the west of the subject site, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped, wooded land within the boundaries of the Village of Greenport. This area is designated as PD-Park District. To the west of this property is a parcel developed with a nursing and rehabilitation center, which is situated within the HD District of the Town of Southold. 87 Zoning Map Excerpt --FF .e R40 R-8 AC R-46 IH w ••w a � ..• �� h Ra,��� ° F a ' RR J�_......,, ,.r... .,,- �' ..._ Yw Pu -_4.� "'"�9,." f we �y °'W, r ./ �� � .. " ; „d � ti6 ,.M y 1:, r U " v u lD . 80 ......., �.a �.a r AC ..p �^ 11 40 a M g� Mt mea R-80 P t S h w^ R- f AC .„ { r, ✓ Xsaa.a Muhl gaEfnrr / wN � Pd 40 Ntt liar rmf A rvn 4r amY�r"N C t R mvvult.lfmV1D11roNYF ° �'"�'�, w•„.,• e,, „”" va^"W „r'°" `, u4 ai d+e!«M quW,m twin oo,O."my H V,; 41F;9 i esu",.�aY;drtktl xrali,o 9y 4) oy � "+ � y . b�""w""s - �`M• �'� !'NBA AligaY t7 gY;4Ny H04AMR GoroGI NO ,,,,�" R s Y�N is amlar�ry,k , ",w �,� d' wN, u�aa 'krrnarem � ba ® �' avg „' ' W y ^"',. "M'";.q s" «r � A 4� Ip, � J Niu lakynC Atl o "Y 'f L�pE�d Lr 1 oa^'rrcf 1'oww n of Southold Section 2 of 4 `° h� 99, New Zoning, Map Adopted on November 3�, 20,04 as Local Law No. 23 of 2004 Figure 14 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 3.4.2 Community Character Character of the Community The character of the community is somewhat diverse with residential and lodging facilities interspersed among woodlands. The area surrounding the site to the north and east consists primarily of undeveloped woodland with some single-family residential dwellings. The land further east-southeast of this area is developed with the Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds. Properties to the northwest of the subject property, along the north side of C.R. 48, are developed with a motel and a condominium complex. Land to the south of the subject property is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands (Moore's Woods) situated within the Village of Greenport. The property to the west of the subject site, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped, wooded land within the boundaries of the Village of Greenport. Further west of this property is a parcel developed with the San Simeon Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation. Overall, the residential development and limited commercial uses among the wooded areas in the area surrounding the subject property creates a suburban atmosphere, with pockets of more intense development, especially along C.R. 48. Visual Resources In order to determine the visual characteristics of the subject site and surrounding area, site and area inspections were performed and photographs were taken to document the existing conditions. Photographs of the subject site and the surrounding area are'contained in Appendix O of this DEIS. 89 The subject site is currently undeveloped and contains forested upland area, close to the roadway, and forested wetlands, to the south. Views of the subject property from C.R. 48 and the residential properties to the north are of the existing on-site vegetation, which obscures the visibility of the property's interior, and the utility poles and overhead wires that traverse the roadway. There are no public roadways located directly west, south or east of the property: Therefore,visibility of the site is extremely limited. The appearance of the area to the north of the subject property, on the north side of C.R. 48, is similar to the subject site. These lands contain vegetation, which obstructs the view.of the existing residences, which are, for the most part, significantly setback from the roadway. This vegetation also obstructs many of the potential views of the Long Island Sound. However, some of the driveways associated with these residences provide intermittent views of the Long Island Sound,through narrow visual corridors. 3.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies The following is a brief summary of the comprehensive plans and studies that have been prepared for the area in which the subject property is located. The plans and studies are arranged from earliest to most recent. Town MasterPlan Update (1985) According to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), discussed in Section 3.4.4, in 1967, a Comprehensive Development Plan was prepared by Raymond and May Associates. The Town Board incorporated portions of this 1967 Plan into a Development Plan prepared by the Town in 1978. In the fall of 1982, the Town retained Raymond, Parish, Pine, and Weiner, Inc. ("RPPW" formerly Raymond and May Associates) to update the Town's Comprehensive Development Plan. In 1984, a series of background reports and maps prepared by RPPW that examined existing conditions including land use; natural resources; water supply; the local economy (emphasizing agricultural, fishing, and tourist industries); population; and housing community services and facilities; transportation; historic features; planning issues; and plarming goals and policies were incorporated into the Master Plan Update-Background Studies. 90 The Master Plan Update - Background Studies formed the basis of a Preliminary Plan. After a series of meetings for public review and discussion of the Preliminary Plan, the Southold Planning Board developed the Master Plan Update in 1985. The goals of the Master Plan Update were divided in to the following categories: overall planning; housing and residential development; economic development; waterfront; agricultural preservation; environment; cultural environment; community facilities/ utilities; and transportation. The overall goals are to provide a community of residential hamlets that provide a variety of housing opportunities, maximize the natural assets of the Town and achieve a land use pattern sensitive to the water supply and which would not degrade the subsurface water quality. In addition, the Master Plan Update sought to preserve the existing housing stock, while meeting the needs of a variety of resident at various ages, income levels and household compositions. In addition, the Master Plan Update seeks to preserve the Town's natural environment, including woodlands and wetlands, and to maintain its open space qualities. Also, one of the goals is to maintain and improve existing utility systems and determine where it is appropriate to expand them to support the desired level of development and protect a healthy living environment, a viable economic base and the natural environment. Four major hamlets were identified: Mattituck; Cutchogue; Southold and Orient. These were to continue to be the "residential-business-service centers" of the Town. New Suffolk, Laurel, Peconic, East Marion and Fishers Island were also considered to be hamlet center. For each hamlet, the plan was designed to provide for a range of housing for younger and older residents, with a range of income levels within the hamlet areas. Also, it recommended that residential densities be the highest in the hamlet centers and become lower as one moves away from the centers. Based on the work of its consultants and input from the public, the Southold Planning Board recommended the Master Plan �Update to the Town Board. However, the Town Board never adopted the Master Plan Update. 91 Town Affordable Housing Policies &Program (1993) The "Description and Evaluation" of Southold's Town Affordable Housing Policies &Programs (hereinafter "Evaluation') was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in October 1993. The purpose of the Evaluation was to determine whether or not the need for affordable housing within the township was being met. The Evaluation reviewed the Town's five approaches used since 1980 to meet the need for affordable housing. These approaches are: Financial Assistance; Accessory Apartments; Density Incentives; Direct Action; and Public Not-for-Profit Partnerships. The Financial Assistance Program The Program was designed "to assist low income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable by operating programs that will combat gentrification and discrimination; continue rehabilitation and construction of low cost housing; secure subsidies which could reduce shelter costs; stabilize and increase the number of low cost units for our target population; and utilize trainees in the rehabilitation program to curtail construction costs." According to the Evaluation, the Financial Assistance Program reached more than 500 households within the low to very low income bracket and concluded the program was working. Accessory Apartments Prior to 1986, accessory apartments in single-family residences were not permitted in Southold. According to the Evaluation, in 1986 Southold enacted the accessory apartment law with the intent "...to promote the fuller utilization of excess housing capacity in existing single-family dwellings: provide an increased opportunity for affordable housing; assist empty nest homeowners in the maintenance and security of their property and reduce the necessity for the construction of new subsidized housing for small households and the elderly..." 92 In order to obtain permission for an accessory apartment, the law specifies that a Special Exception from The Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals must be issued. However, from the enactment of the law in 1986 to 1992, only 15 applications for accessory apartments were made to the Town of Southold Zoning Board. According to the Evaluation, it is unclear whether the accessory apartment law failed to encourage the creation of accessory apartments or an ongoing lack of enforcement encouraged a lack of compliance. Density Incentives In 1985, a Housing Advisory Committee, created by the Town Board, considered various approaches to meeting the affordable housing needs of the Town. According to the Evaluation, the Committee recommended encouraging private developers to construct affordable housing by providing a density bonus. In 1986, the Town added an Affordable Housing District ("AHD") to its Zoning Code which adopted the Density Incentives approach. The legislative intent of this approach, as stated in the Zoning Code Article §280-24, is "to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income." It worth noting, although the AHD zone provides for a density bonus, all units must be affordable and connect to community water and sewer. The applicant respectfully submits that this creates a situation wherein it is financially infeasible to develop affordable housing without substantial subsidies. At the time of this study, forty-five houses in two subdivisions had been constructed under this program since 1986. Both subdivisions are located within the hamlet of Southold. According to the Evaluation, dissatisfaction with the AHD arose as each project progressed to completion due to the following: the Code does not expressly prohibit a developer from adding surcharges which would cause the total cost to the buyer to increase beyond the maximum allowed limits set by the Code; 93 0 the streamlining procedures built into the legislation did not work, as the length of time from the submission of a zone petition to subdivision approval took 22 months-, ® the maximum incomes and sales prices were too high to be truly-affordable to the average working family living and working in the Town of Southold; ® the land and the house can be sold out of the affordable range seven years after its creation, thus requiring an ongoing down-zoning of land by the Town in order to meet affordable housing needs; and ® the program's potential to compete with the private housing market. Direct Action In 1987, a total of approximately 13 acres of land from the County and the Town were committed to the program. The land was subdivided to create a total of 14 building lots, including nine in the hamlet of Southold, one in Peconic, and four in Mattituck. According to the Evaluation, three years elapsed between the acquisitions of the land to occupancy by the new homeowners. The Evaluation concluded that this time frame could have been shortened considerably had there been a clearer delegation of both responsibility and authority to,the Community Development Director. Public/Not-for-Profit Partnerships In 1992, the Town and Housing Alliance partnered with Habitat for Humanity, an independent not-for-profit agency specializing in mobilizing community resources to construct affordable housing quickly. According to the Evaluation, this program provided the most inexpensive single-family housing for the lowest possible income bracket. The Evaluation concluded that the mortgage payments were affordable and covered the loan, taxes and insurance. The Evaluation determined the following: 94 ® although the Town's financial assistance programs appear to be working well, they are insufficient to meet current needs of existing Town residents; ® the Town's accessory apartment law has failed to achieve its original objectives; • the focus of the Town's affordable housing zoning district AHD program is geared to providing new moderate-income housing even though the need for lower income housing appears to be greater; ® affordable housing is distributed disproportionately within the Town and there are no incentives built into the program to encourage otherwise; and ® there are insufficient incentives for developers to create new affordable rental stock or to renovate existing larger homes into affordable year round rental units. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994) The Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (hereinafter "Stewardship Study") was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in June 1994 by the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force"). The purpose of the Stewardship Study was to evaluate the recommendations of the 1991 report from the U.S./U.K. Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (hereinafter "U.S./U.K. Report"), an international group of planners who came to Southold, invited by the 1991 North Fork Planning Conference, to provide pro-bono consultant services to selected case study sites to address the issues of sustainable economic development and countryside stewardship. Based upon the evaluation of U.S.1U.K. Report, the Stewardship Study set forth a series of recommendations to the Town Board including: ® Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space; ® Sustainable Economic Development; 95 ® Water; ® Affordable Housing; and ® Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting. Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space According to the Stewardship Study, farmland and open space preservation was generally considered the most important issue of the Stewardship Task Force. The Stewardship Study recommended the best way to.preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of fanning and the most direct protection is large lot zoning (i.e., 25 acres or agricultural zones), in which non-agricultural activity is allowed. The Task Force recommended programs pioneered by the Town, Suffolk County, and State of New York, which have been helpful in preserving North Fork farmland and open space, be extended. In addition, the Task Force recommended other steps to improve economic opportunities for farmers, including the implementation of new programs, such as the transfer of development rights. Sustainable Economic Development In order to protect and improve the quality of life of the Town's residents, the Stewards Study recommended recognizing and enhancing the following strengths of the existing local economy: ® agriculture; ® marine activities; and ® tourism. Agriculture and Marine Activities According to the Stewardship Study, agriculture and marine activities could be encouraged by preserving the land and water on which they depend and through innovative farming techniques and diversity of crops, development of markets, and the adoption of beneficial governmental policy so that, these traditional industries would hopefully continue and thrive. 96 The Stewardship Study recommended the Town work with Greenport to fulfill its potential as a maritime center; carefully reviewing marina uses in light of the environmental limits of the local waters, as well as the economic potential they offer. Tourism While the current season runs from late spring to mid-fall, according to the Stewardship Study, the Task Force recommended the season be extended to a year-round basis through the scheduling of Town-wide seasonal festivals. In addition,the Stewardship Study also recommends series of measures to mitigate the serious traffic problems, which come with a flourishing tourist trade. Nater The quality of both surface waters and groundwater is of critical importance to Southold. The Stewardship Study recommends special steps should be taken to preserve and improve the quality of water within Southold. Specifically, the management of surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters is a priority including, protecting the quantity and quality of Southold's fresh groundwater. In addition, the Stewardship Sturdy indicates that due to the nature of the soil types in Southold, groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities and it is important to discourage over pumping, which could result in salt water intrusion. The Stewardship Study states "careful management of this resource is essential to secure the right of all Southold residents to high quality potable water without overly resorting to the extension of public water mains." The extension of public water should in no circumstance alone provide the basis for more dense development. 97 i Affordable Housing Southold residents in need of housing assistance are young families, the elderly, low wage earners, and the working poor. According to the Stewardship Study, the availability of affordable housing is critical to the overall health of the local economy. The Stewardship Study recommends a variety of initiatives and programs. Specifically, the successful cooperation between the Town and the North Fork Housing Alliance should continue as the basic administrative structure for affordable housing programs throughout Southold. The current affordable housing program, set forth by Section V of the Town of Southold Zoning Code, AHD Zones, involves granting developers increased housing densities beyond what is normally allowed in the area in exchange for a commitment that a certain portion of the proposed units would be affordable. The Town of Southold Zoning Code establishes housing costs and income limits, which define affordability based on initial values set by the Town Board in 1989 and then adjusted annually to reflect changes in cost of living. The Town of Southold Zoning Code also provides that cash subsidies provided at initial construction shall be entirely appropriated by the homeowner after seven years. In addition, the Stewardship Study recommends encouraging the rehabilitation of existing homes rather than the construction of new ones, encouraging more rental units, and that subsidies provided by the Southold should be recaptured and recycled. . Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold. Considered to be a desirable pattern of development, the Stewardship Study recommends allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. Specifically, a rural pedestrian oriented village quality consistent with Southold's history and traditional pattern of development should be fostered. 98 In addition, the Stewardship Study recommends the countryside should maintain its open rural atmosphere; vistas of fields, woodlands, and water should be preserved. Specifically, the "blurring of the distinction between hamlet and countryside should be avoided as a priority" and the consistency of new development in these areas, with the historic character of the landscape, should be carefully considered. Economic Development Plan,"Town of Southold(199 7) The Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold, 1997 was submitted to the Suffolk County Legislature as Southold's Industrial and Commercial Incentives Plan ("ICIP"). The Economic Development Plan indicates that the economy of the Town of Southold has had three base industries: agriculture, commercial fishing, and tourism and recreation. The current economic state and potential growth of each of these industries, as well as other industries, is detailed in the Economic Development Plan. The Economic Development Plan provides a "Vision of the Future," which makes recommendations for future economic growth within the hamlets of the Town "...while preserving and enhancing the surrounding rural areas." The Economic Development Plan recommends the following: ® encouraging existing local businesses in targeted industries to expand, upgrade or diversify in order to meet changing needs of the 21 St century; and ® encouraging new businesses in targeted industries to locate within Town to broaden the tax base and provide local employment. 99 Finally, the Economic Development Plan provides a "Strategy - How to achieve the Vision." This section states that the: "Town's goal or vision is to encourage economic growth and expansions within its hamlets. This is in keeping with its goal of conserving the countryside (agricultural industry) and consolidating its capital infrastructure investments within geographically-manageable boundaries." The Economic Development Plan identifies industries which the Town may consider targeting for tax incentives. These industries include: agricultural, maritime,tourism and other(i.e., affordable health care facilities and recreational facilities). Community Preservation Proiect Plan (1998) The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan, 1998-2001 (hereinafter the "CPPP"), was prepared July 1998. The CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act, which was enacted on June 22, 1998. According to the CPPP, this "...legislation created a mechanism whereby the Town of Southold may establish a fund financed solely by revenues from a real estate transfer tax to be levied on certain types of real estate transactions within the Town." Use of the fields is limited to implementing CPPP. The CPPP identifies how the Town intends to preserve or protect properties that are integral to the unique community character of Southold. The Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act specifically provides for the preservation and protection of specific types of land as follows: ® Open space and agricultural lands; ® Parks, nature preserves,recreation areas; ® Lands of exceptional scenic value; ® Fresh and salt water marshes,wetlands; ® Aquifer recharge areas; ® Undeveloped beachlands or shorelines; ® Wildlife refuges with significant biological diversity; ® Unique or threatened ecological areas; ® Natural free flowing rivers or river areas; 100 ® Historic places and properties whether listed on the New.York State Register of Historic Places or protected by municipal law; and m Any of the aforementioned types in the furtherance of a greenbelt. The CPPP explains how the Town developed the listing of properties that would be eligible to participate in the CPPP program, prioritizes the type of properties that should be preserved or protected, identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties, and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected the CPPP. As indicated in the CPPP, its purpose was intended to be a guide for interested land owners who voluntarily chose to work with the Town to preserve and protect privately-owned real estate assets in a way that benefits the community and as well as the land owner. The CPPP was only valid for three years beginning in November 1998. The 1998 CPPP lists the subject property as one of many parcels eligible for preservation. The 2006 update of the CPPP, discussed later in this section, continues to list the subject property. As of the time of this writing, the Town of Southold had not approached the applicant regarding the preservation of the subject property. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) The County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (hereinafter "the Corridor Study") was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in April 1999. The subject property is situated within the study area of the Corridor Study. The purpose of the Corridor Study "is to provide recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate land use and zoning within the corridor." The Corridor study is comprised of four steps including the identification of "the characteristics of the corridor and surrounding areas that the Town and its citizens believe are important and valuable," the analysis of the existing conditions along the corridor, an outline of "the outstanding needs of the corridor based on a comparison of the desirable characteristics of the Town to the existing conditions of the corridor," and, to "provide recommendations relative to satisfy outstanding needs." 101 Section N of the Corridor Study is entitled Existing Conditions and provides "the current zoning along the corridor and the existing land use that has developed." The study area, along the County Route 48 Corridor, was divided into six segments, which are identified by the hamlet in which the segment is located. The subject property is situated within the Greenport Hamlet segment, which is described as starting slightly east of Albertson Lane and extending approximately 2.7 miles to the west side of Manhasset Avenue. The Corridor Study provides a description of the zoning for the hamlet of Greenport segment. The area in which the subject property is located is described, in part, as the following: "The south side.of County Route 48 from the Greenport hamlet line east to Chapel Lane is zoned exclusively R-80. It is important to note that fitrther east of Chapel Lane and continuing east to Moore Lane, several parcels are located within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. The Village of Greenport parcels are not included in the scope of this study. However, the remaining parcels between these two roadways are in the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and are residentially zoned HD, R-80, RR and R-40. Many of these parcels contain freshwater wetland vegetation." The existing land uses within the Greenport Hamlet segment are described, in part, as the following: "Parcels to the north of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane are primarily developed for residential use. Many of these parcels front directly on Long Island Sound. Within this same area, two hotels and a condominium complex take advantage of the views of Long Island Sound. Some of the parcels within 1,000 feet to the south of County Route 48 are within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. These parcels are not within the scope of this study. Of the parcels to the south of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane that are not within the Village of Greenport, most are vacant or residential use. San Simeon nursing home and Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds are also located in this area. 102 It is important to note that many of the parcels south of County Route 48 and west of Moore Lane are zoned HD and contain freshwater wetlands vegetation. Due to the proximity to the wetlands, these parcels may be more appropriately zoned to lower density residential uses. " Section V of the Corridor Study is entitled Outstanding Needs, which provides goals for the Town. Some of the relevant goals enumerated in this section of the Corridor Study include the following: ® Provide for viable land use development at intensities sensitive to subsurface water quality and quantity; ® Provide for a variety of housing opportunities for citizens of different incomes and age levels; ® Ensure the efficient and safe movement of people and goods within the Town; ® Encourage appropriate land uses both inside and out of hamlet centers; and • Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands and woodlands. The final section of the Corridor Study is entitled "Recommendations and Opportunities. This section provides recommendations for future development within the study area. Some of the relevant recommendations include the following: ® Orient buildings to limit the interruption of scenic vistas and views; ® Cluster residential development away from the roadway; ® Require vegetated buffers between residential development and the roadway; ® Develop and implement the use of visual resource best management practices (Appendix B of the Corridor Study includes Visual Resources Best Management Practices) ® Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands and woodlands; 103 ® Modify the Town Code to limit curb cuts to one per site unless unusual circumstances exist; and ® Require that subdivided residential lots access side roads and not directly to County Route 48, where appropriate. Based upon the Corridor Study, the Town, on its own motion sought to change the zoning of the subject parcel from HD to R-80. Although an environmental review of this action was commenced, the rezoning has not occurred. The relevant recommendations will be addressed in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS. Southold Township:2000 Planning Initiative Numerous attempts were made to obtain a copy of this plan from the Town for review; however, the applicant was unsuccessful. The Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiative was summarized in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP'), which is discussed in Section 3.4.4. of this DEIS. A summary of the LWRP discussion follows. According to the L)AW, in 1997 "the Town unveiled a working strategy to initiate a more aggressive and concentrated long-term planning effort, within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan." This was done in response to increasing development pressure in the Town. The LWRP indicates that one of the purposes of the initiative "was to address certain issues that had been discussed in the Master Plan Update, but which were in need of more research and implementation: e.g., transportation, groundwater protection, and water supply management... This initiative drew on all planning studies and documents that had been undertaken by the Town since the 1980s because these documents collectively reflected the Town's vision for itself as articulated in the comprehensive plan studies." 104 The initiative accomplished: (1) the upgrading of the Town's geographic information system mapping capabilities, (2) the development of capital programming and budgeting to allow the Town to leverage financing to implement projects, (3) the completion of the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy, and (4) provided the basis for public water supply service and groundwater protection(see following subsection). Town Water Supply lMlanaeement& Watershed Protection Stratew (2000) The Town Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy ("WSM &WPS") for the Town of Southold was prepared to address the protection of the quality and quantity of Southold's groundwater supply and the maintenance of the community's rural agricultural character. Based on the analysis of Southold's geology and soil characteristics, surface and groundwater resources, land use, development characteristics, and demographic trends, the WSM & WPS proposes a number initiatives including the establishment of new zoning and special district designations, as well as coordinating the expansion of services. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the findings of the WSM &WPS is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary of the management strategy is presented herein. In 1997, the SCWA purchased the Greenport Water District. According to the WSM & WPS, as a significant percentage of agricultural properties are situated within Southold's two SGPAs and groundwater recharge areas located within the central area of the Town, the SCWA recognizes that the expansion of its public water main distribution system to this area as being a major determinate of future development activities. 105 The WSM & WPS advises limiting population density and controlling growth to the maximum extent possible, seeking a commitment from the SCWA to not extend public water lines to such areas, and coordinating future extensions in accordance with its watershed protection objectives. The WSM & WPS also recommends Southold explore Water Quality Treatment Districts ("WQTD"), a Critical Environmental Land ("CEL") ordinance that specifically recognizes land within the municipality determined to be environmentally sensitive, and the establishment of two Watershed Protection Zones ("WPZ"). The WSM &WPS recommends within WPZ's, Southold adopt a Conservation Subdivision Program ("CSP") to create a disincentive for landowners to propose traditional developments utilizing cluster or grid style designs and alternatively redirect their projects to more desirable locations within the Town. In addition, the WSM &WPS recommends that the Town consider the possibility of establishing an open space land preservation fund with fees collected from non-conforming lots that receive variances and increase public awareness of the importance of significant environmental areas. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) The Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (hereinafter "the Corridor Management Plan") was prepared for the Town of Southold in April 2001. The purpose of the Corridor Management Plan is to "...inventory the resources along proposed scenic byways, identify opportunities and constraints and, based upon the vision and goals articulated by the public and local stakeholders, define a set of implementation tools and policies that will help preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of the roads to be examined." A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the Plan is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS and a brief summary of the Plan is presented herein. Seven roads within the Town were chosen for study, including C.R. 48, State Route 25, Narrow River Road in Orient, Sound View Avenue in Southold, Main and North Bayview Road and Avenue in Hogneck, Oregon Road from Cutchogue to Mattituck, and New Suffolk Road and Avenue from Cutchogue to Mattituck. 106 Section 2 of the Corridor Management Plan is entitled Corridor Conditions: An Inventory and identifies "...the scenic resources of each road, the services and facilities that affect the user's experience, and the environmental, regulatory and land use issues that impact the future of each road. The purpose of the inventory is to assess existing conditions, to identify threats to preserving the scenic attributes of the Town and its roads, to recognize opportunities for improving the scenic and functional quality of the study roads, and to inform discussion of policy tools." In this section of the Plan, C.R. 48 is identified as being "...a by-pass, offering a higher-speed and more limited access alternative to Route 25." The Corridor Management Plan indicates "Route 48 *offers expansive, long views of farmland and vineyards.....emphasizing its rural agricultural ambiance, as opposed to its more commercial,aspects." From the northern edge of Greenport Village westward, Route 48 "follows a tree-lined route past mostly hidden residential enclaves with occasional glimpses of north shore sound views..." In Section 3 of the Plan entitled Recommended Byways Designation in Southold, the roles that both Route 25 and Route 48 play in defining Southold's visual heritage are identified as follows: • Route 25 embodies the Town's basic pattern of hamlets defined by open space, giving access to recreational facilities, rural and urban views, natural features from woodland to meadow to marshland to seascape, cultural landmarks, working farms and waterfi-onts and historic structures and complexes. ® Route 48 is characteristic of the Town's basic agricultural character -- wide expanses of farm fields defined by distant treebreaks, punctuated by intermittent views of the Long Island Sound or undeveloped woodlands. In this Section, the Plan recommends both roads "...should be designated in their entirety, not,as partial segments..." as scenic byways. 107 The methodology set forth in Section 4 of the Plan consists of two strategies, a stewardship strategy and an implementation strategy. The stewardship strategy "focuses on maintaining and enhancing Southold's scenic resources through partnership actions in hamlet development, transportation, and visual/design improvements." The implementation strategy "focuses on tools and techniques for scenic preservation policies for managing growth, encouraging limited and appropriate tourism, and sustaining the effort through administrative organization." North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment(2002) The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs:Assessment is a subcomponent needs analysis of the Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion, known as the LITP 2000 Study Subtask 7 (hereinafter the "LITP 2000"). The principal goal of this effort is to meet the future transportation needs of the community while maintaining or improving the rural quality of life on the North Fork. The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural,primarily recreational North Fork of Long Island. The study area included that portion located on the east end of Long Island beginning at the easterly terminus of the LIE north of the Peconic River in the Town of Riverhead and extending eastward to the Orient Point Terminal Facility for the Cross Sound Ferry in eastern Southold and Shelter Island. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary is presented herein. A Technical Advisory Group ("TAG"), consisting of representatives from the Towns of Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island, the Village of Greenport, the LIRR, Suffolk County Transit, and the NYSDOT provided input to the study. Suggested strategies for improvements to the local transportation system reflect input from the TAG and from the public through the Local Agency/Stakeholder Participation Program conducted for the study. 108 Recently the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council ("NYMTC") designated a consultant team to begin the Sustainable East End Development Strategies ("SEEDS") initiative, a consensus building process intended to link land use and transportation planning decisions for the five East End towns, including the North Fork Transportation Study area. The strategies for improvements to the local transportation system developed during the course of the North Fork Transportation Study served as input to the SEEDS process. The SEEDS process, administered by the East End Transportation Council ("EETC") and NYMTC would be provided with a comprehensive examination of the capacities demands and highway safety deficiencies of the transportation system on the North Fork. With the exception of Sound Avenue, which is a Town of Riverhead road, access management on the major State and County roadways falls under the purview of those municipalities. Typically, the State or County cannot deny access to an uncontrolled arterial if it is the sole access point to the property. A number of larger agricultural parcels still exist, many with frontage along or access to more than one road.. The North Fork Recreatio;2al Travel Needs Assessment recommends, when property owners or developers make application for subdivision of such parcels,parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors should have such access preserved during the subdivision review process. In addition, the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new, smaller properties are not created that only have access to arterials, thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. Site plans for the subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal roadways. Where practical, the residences in such subdivisions should be oriented so that they back on the arterial with a suitable buffer between the residences and the highway right of way. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads, access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point, providing combined access to affected parcels which would limit the number of potential conflict points on an arterial road. 109 Based on the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment, traffic volumes on the North Fork are expected to grow at rate of nearly two percent annually. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold,Final Report(July 2002) The Blue Ribbon Commission ("BRC") was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific recommendations for preserving operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the Town, which included issues of environmental quality, open space potential, population density, affordable housing, and public water. Specifically, the BRC was required to recommend specific preservation targets, feasible steps to achieve those targets, and seek a consensus in the Town regarding both the targets and the steps by June 30, 2002. The result is the BRC Final Report. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with .the findings of the BRC Final Report is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary is presented herein. The BRC Final Report identifies three preservation targets: ® The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected land currently in the Town's agricultural inventory, which consists of approximately 6,900 acres; ® The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected open space, which includes approximately 3,900 acres; and • A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 percent relative to what would be permitted with full build-out at current zoning. 110 I� In order to achieve the above goals,the BRC Final Report recommended the following: ® Conservation subdivisions, which give priority to preserving land rather than to the creation of house lots, must have a significant and permanent conservation preservation element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire acreage relative to current zoning; ® A new Planned Development District ("PDD"), referred to as a Rural Incentive District ("RID") to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space and maintain landowner equity; ® A modification to the Town's Purchase of Development Rights ("PDW') program to permit some of the development rights to be rejoined to the land under carefully constructed guidelines where the Town would issue a "Preservation Credit" for each unit of density reduction resulting from a specific PDR; ® No general up-zoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the RID to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density; ® The Planning Staff establish a detailed monitoring and quarterly reporting system providing a current breakdown of the preservation and development processes; and ® The Town Board review planning staff quarterly reports on a regular basis and consider possible zone changes on the basis of the reviews. According to the BRC Final Report, the BRC concluded that over a ten-year period, from 2002 to 2012, approximately 5,674 acres (82 percent) of farmland and 3,167 acres (81 percent) of open space would realistically be preserved. The recommendations of the BRC, cited above, were not formally adopted or implemented as policy by the Town of Southold. Town of Southold Housinz Needs Assessment June 2005 The Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment June 2005, (herein after the "Needs Assessment") "pertains to the specific housing needs of households whose incomes are considered "moderate". Due to the rising concern of the inability of local residents to obtain affordable housing, the Town of Southold has assumed responsibility for maintaining current information regarding the housing needs of its residents." According to the Needs Assessment, the lack of affordable housing is having many adverse effects within the Town as "employers struggle to hire and retain local employees at prevailing wages due to the limited availability of affordable housing." The Needs Assessment indicates that the Housing Assistance Council reported in February 2005 that gentrification in rural areas frequently means the loss of affordable housing. The Housing Assistance Council also stated "when wealthier households move to rural areas, developers focus on meeting the housing needs of the higher end market while ignoring the needs of the lower end." The Needs Assessment. found that the scarcity of vacant land on Long Island has limited opportunities for development, specifically affordable housing, and the Town's efforts to preserve open space has further limited the amount of raw land available for the development of new housing. In addition, the Needs Assessment indicates that development is further,curtailed by the lack of sewage treatment outside the Village of Greenport and the accessibility to public water. According to the Needs Assessment, the Town attempted to address the lack of affordable housing, however it did not anticipate that housing prices would increase exceedingly beyond inflation. As such, the Town did not see the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Thus, the Town no longer had an inventory of affordable housing. According to the Needs Assessment, as of April 30, 2005, approximately 114 housing applications had been received and pre-screened by the Town of Southold as meeting qualifications to receive housing assistance from the Town. The Needs Assessment indicates that Greenport provided Section 8 vouchers to 87 households and as of May 2005, Greenport reported 62 households were on a waiting list for rental assistance. 112 The Needs Assessment concluded that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities to do so without assistance. In addition, the Needs Assessment found that there are other distinct housing needs that are not addressed in the assessment such as seasonal housing to accommodate workers in the tourist industry and year-round laborers. Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The Town of Southold Hamlet Study (hereinafter "the Hamlet Study"), adopted in July 2005, provides an overview and a vision for the future of each of the eight hamlets within the Town of Southold. These hamlets are identified as the following: Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport West, East Marion, and Orient. The subject site is located within the hamlet of Greenport West, which is described as the area that surrounds the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The Hamlet Study indicates that the Incorporated Village of Greenport serves as the hamlet center for Greenport West, which is "essentially comprised of a series of residential neighborhoods," and includes businesses, marinas and restaurants on its western edge and to the north and east of the Village of Greenport limits. According to the Study, the hamlet includes notable features, such as preserved lands and wetlands,which"...serve to establish a distinctive character for the Hamlet." The vision for the future of Greenport West is as follows: • The Hamlet of Greenport West is comprised of a series of distinctive residential neighborhoods. While individually unique, collectively these neighborhoods establish the overall character of Greenport West. It is imperative that the individual integrity of the Hamlet's residential neighborhoods are [sic]preserved,- • Embrace a diversity of housing types, such as townhouses, attached single family dwellings, multi family dwellings, etc., within the overall context of the existing character of the Hamlet; 113 The creation of affordable "workforce"housing opportunities is a priority. A new HALO zone is recommended to facilitate this goal. The parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of up to '/ acre; ® If appropriate infrastructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to 1/8 acre within clustered subdivisions are acceptable; ® Accessory apartments are also viewed as an opportunity to meet housing need; ® In the Goldsmith's/Port of Egypt/Albertsons area where a number of traditional businesses operate, large scale commercial development would be clearly inconsistent, and should be prohibited. However, appropriately scaled, well designed traditional business enterprises are encouraged; and ® Greenport West has a unique "sense of place" that should be preserved, protected and reinforced. The aforementioned HALO zone is depicted on two maps, dated November 2004 and December 2004, respectively, and are included herewith as Figure 15 and Figure 16. According to the map entitled Halo Map, the subject property is situated within the Greenport West hamlet. According to the second map entitled HALO Non-Buildable Lands Map, the subject property is not designated as a protected land nor does it contain community facilities. In addition, the Town of Southold adopted the Greenport Halo zone map shown in Figure 17, on March 20, 2008. According to this map, the subject property is not situated within the Greenport HALO zone, which is contrary to the recommendations in the Hamlet Study. The Hamlet Study also provided recommendations for hamlet-wide specific improvements. These improvements were identified under sixteen headings. Of these sixteen headings, the following were determined to be relevant to the proposed project: Streetscape, Building Design, Vehicular Circulation, Infrastructure, Maintenance, Housing, and Open Space Preservation. 114 Halo Map November 2004 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1. 'i Protected I-Aarn& Fc7 CornmunitV Facilities Wettands .."., HAMLET AL NON- 1 rfmr " r r r d r LUN I I'' i i�. .. 'LANDS i �. r LEGE Dt m I � aft a�k3ndar"' Lot Lines " Dow 11 04 iµ„u w' Source. Tarr of Southold Halo Map, November 2004 Seale: Not to 'kale Figure 15 FREUDENTHAL& ELKO4 ITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC, Halo flap December 2004 ZA TOWN OF SOUTHOLD She Locatioll HAMLET t r i 1000 NJ � w n u; �.. I a HALO i l Sri ��Y1w I i r LEGEND:E ' : rM� t Lirles IIHAL' W)uRl14tl " m�»a rvu 12/04 Y p E NSAT.S i JiP Southold GIS Source: Town of Southold Halo Map, December 2004 116 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 16 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Adopted Greenport Hale Zone Map "NI �r r i a x" .rAO�m wd w �a � v n II � 0 h�S ry g"���� •� !rr ,, � 1l�OJl I " nro a h a � � re ,�P fig Source: Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas, 2001 Scale: 1 inch =2,000 feet Figure 17 p"REU:DENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING G (JP, INC. 117 Streetscape ® The recommendations of the Town Southold Scenic Corridor Plan should be implemented; Sidewalks (one side of the street) are encouraged to promote walking; ® Off-street parking should be setback from the road to allow for a substantial landscaped buffer. Parking should be placed behind front yard setback line next to buildings; ® Adequate parking should be provided in newly created residential and commercial areas; ® Part of Greenport West's charm are [sic] its scenic vistas. These vistas should be preserved and protected. In instances where activities encroach in the vistas, mitigation measures that involve new planting shall utilized native plants and tree; ® To promote the natural landscape, use natural/preserved buffers (75'-100) along the Hamlet's main roads (if they do not already exist). These buffers would be mandatory zoning setbacks, and would prevent any structures from be [sic] erected, or existing trees and/or vegetation from being removed. The exception would be to allow for a single curb cut and a driveway to traverse through the buffer zone. Non-compliance would result in a violation of the zoning code; and ® One of the attractive aspects of the Hamlet Center's streetscape are [sic] its street trees. Preserving these trees however, requires an on-going commitment. A street tree planting program is recommended that incorporates regular pruning and maintenance as well as the replacement of damaged or dead trees on a regular basis. 118 Duildinjz Design ® The Hamlet supports a diversity of housing types and styles, and this is viewed as a strength. Restricting housing design "types"is unnecessary; and ® Landscape planning is a [sic] integral element of good overall building design, and is an important concern. Natural/native plantings should be used for all new projects. Vehicular Circulation ® Roads in new developments should be integrated into the existing roadway network. Individual isolated cul-de-sacs should be avoided. Infrastructure ® Drainage and stormwater runoff should be handled by each site and not permitted to flow off the specific site onto public "right of ways," [sic] or towards protected/wetlands type properties. Drainage and stormwater runoff engineering shall be emphasized in site development and design and shall conform to NYSDEC Phase If requirements. Possibly consider natural and permeable surfaces for stormwater. Maintenance Greenport West's scenic vistas are one of the hamlets most important attributes. These vistas must be maintained. Litter must be removed, trees pruned,fences mended, etc. 119 Housini ® A new HALO zone is recommended that permits a variety of dwelling types as of right, including detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, townhouses, garden apartments, multi family dwellings, and accessory apartments; ® The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning up to 1/ acre (I dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area). To promote affordable housing, densities of up to 1/8 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available; • The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town; and ® One specific site has been identified for workforce housing in the Greenport West HALO zone as of this point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 and Main Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). Open Space Preservation ® The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries; ® Preservation of open spaces is a priority as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Handet; and The hamlet's sensitive wetland resources must be protected and reserved. 120 Community Preservation Proiect Plan 2006 Update) The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan, 2006 Update (hereinafter the "2006 CPPP") was adopted by the Town Board on January 31, 2006. As previously indicated, the CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Conunuriity Preservation Act, which was enacted on June 22, 1998. The 2006 CPPP provides an update to the List of Eligible Parcels (noted in the previously-discussed 1998 CPPP)which includes: ® The addition of 188 parcels, totaling approximately 350 acres, to the existing List of Eligible Parcels; ® The deletion of parcels that have been preserved using various preservation methods; • The deletion of parcels that have been developed; and ® Corrections, where applicable, of the Suffolk County Tax Map numbers for parcels included on the existing List of Eligible Parcels. As of January 2006, the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels contained 947 parcels totaling 17,900 acres. The Community Preservation Project Plan January 2006 Update Map shows 672 parcels totaling 9,551 acres as existing protected parcels. Since the adoption of the Community Preservation Fund (the two-percent real estate transfer tax), the Fund has been used to partially or totally fund 56 acquisitions, totaling over 950 acres. The land acquisition cost for these projects was approximately$20,500,000. Since its inception, the Community Preservation Fund has raised over$27,000,000 to date. The subject parcel is shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels. The 2006 CPPP classifies the subject property using Classification Code A and B (open space, including agricultural lands and parks,nature preserves, and recreation areas). 121 The 2006 CPPP explains the list of properties that will be eligible to participate in the CPPD program, prioritizes the type of properties that should be preserved or protected, identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties, and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected the CPPP. Housing Implementation Plan 2007 The Town of Southold Housing Implementation Plan (hereinafter "Implementation Plan") is to "ensure that an efficient, cost.effective and well-designed affordable housing supply is created and maintained to address the on-going housing needs of local citizens." According to the Implementation Plan, the Town, "is committed to supporting a socioeconomically and racially diverse population to enhance its vitality. The availability of affordable housing within the Town will benefit seniors, first-time homebuyers, low and,moderate-income residents and others struggling to remain in the Town." The Town's. Affordable Housing Program would provide housing assistance (rental apartments and homeownership opportunities) for local residents based upon level of income. According to the Implementation Plan, "due to the high cost of land, affordable housing will most likely result from clustered housing such as townhouses or through increased zoning density for single-family dwellings." This Implementation Plan was written based upon the findings of the Housing Need Assessment that was prepared in June 2005. The Implementation Plan indicates the median price of single family housing in 2004 was $440,000,which represents a 129.1 percent increase over a five-year period. The Implementation Plan indicates the median price of single-family housing in 2004 was $440,000, which represents a 129.1 percent increase over a five-year period. According to the Implementation Plan, Suffolk Research Service, Inc. reported the median sale price of single family housing within the Town of Southold in April 2006 was $540,000, which represent a 23 percent increase in 16 months. The Implementation Plan indicates the housing crisis is due to the limited land available for development coupled with a demand for housing from outside the Town of Southold. The Implementation Plan states that the median household income for the Town of Southold, according to the 2000 Census, was $49,898. 122 According to the finplernentation Plan, local residents in need of housing cannot compete with the second homeowners' wages and are priced out of the market due to the rise in housing costs outpacing the increase in their incomes. According to the Inaplenzentation Plan the Town "shall implement the Plan by accomplishing the following goals and objectives to ensure that affordable housing opportunities exist:": ® Promote a diversity of housing stock of rentals and home ownership to address the need for affordable housing throughout the Town of Southold. ® Identify potential locations for affordable housing sites within existing buildings and unimproved lots for new construction. ® Assess and monitor the need of affordable housing. ® Encourage the implementation of design standards for affordable housing that will foster energy efficiency. ® Ensure that a fare and transparent process determines the selection of qualified participants to avail affordable housing opportunities. ® Foster successful and stable housing tenure through education to landlords, tenants, and first-time homebuyers. ® Engender support of Town government and the community at large by soliciting input and feedback of proposed affordable housing sites through establishing dialogue with housing sponsors and the following: - Affordable Housing Welcoming Committee (Supervisor, Town Attorney, Planning Director and Special Projects Coordinator); - Planning Board; - Town Board; 123 - Hamlet stakeholders; - School Boards; - Communities where sites are proposed; and - Housing Advisory Committee ® Advance legislative initiatives to further affordable housing. • Ensure that all affordable housing remains perpetually affordable Consistency analyses of the proposed project with the plans discussed herein are included in Section 4.4.3. 3.4.4 Focal Waterfront Revitalization Plans Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan— Village of Greenport(1988) The Greenport Village Board of Trustees adopted the Village of Greenport Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("hereinafter the Greenport LWRP") on September 29, 1988. The Greenport LWRP "serves the Village of Greenport both as a statement of overall planning and development policy" consistent with the objectives of the New York State Coastal Management Program. The Greenport LWRP is a comprehensive revitalization effort designed to achieve a pattern of development and a mix of uses that are responsive to the needs of year-round residents, marine industries, seasonal or week-end residents, and tourists. The goals of the Greenport LWRP are as follows: ® To maintain and protect existing water-dependent uses and, where it is possible and, necessary encourage expansion of these uses; ® To redevelop the remaining underutilized or deteriorated waterfront properties for water- dependent uses; ® To strengthen Greenport's role as a commercial fishing seaport; 124 e To provide for continued and expanded public access to the waterfront; ® To enhance the Village's position as the commercial and business center of Southold Town; ® To conserve and enhance the strong residential character of established residential areas throughout the Village; ® To improve the Village's visual quality; and ® To provide necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate development proposals in the waterfront and Central Business District. As indicated in Section I of the Greenport LW-", the entire incorporated Village of Greenport is situated within the coastal area boundary as established by the New York State's Coastal Management Program. The coastal area boundary is coincident with the municipal boundary of the Incorporated Village of Greenport and the Village's legal jurisdiction extending out from the shoreline into Shelter Island Sound. The coastal policies are enumerated in Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS along with the proposed.action's consistency therewith. Local Watet*ynt Revitalization Plan— Town of outhold Mvember 2004), The Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (hereinafter "Southold L WRP acts as the Town's comprehensive plan, as it contains a complete inventory of the Town's resources and analyses of all existing land use conditions, and incorporates the goals of all existing planning studies and policies, as outlined in Section 11, which provides a history of planning policies,programs and documents. '125 A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant sections of this document is presented in Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS and a brief summary of the relevant sections are presented herein. The Southold LWRP follows the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies ("LISCMP") in outlining thirteen waterfront revitalization policies to specifically address the Town of Southold's resources, that will "determine the appropriate balance between economic development and preservation that will permit beneficial use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources."8 These thirteen policies have been categorized into Developed Coast Policies, Natural Coast Policies, Public Coast Policies, and Working Coast Policies. The LISCMP describes a specific goal for each Coast, and these goals are identified within the Planning Framework section of the Southold LWRP. The "Developed Coast" has the goal of "enhancing community character by improving the quality of existing development, promoting a sense of connection to the Sound, and focusing growth and investment to preserve the positive relationship between the built and natural landscapes and between existing and new development." The goal defined for the "Natural Coast" is to "reclaim the value and achieve sustainable use of the Sound's natural resources by improving the quality and function of ecological systems, respecting the dynamics of shoreline change, and providing high quality coastal waters." According to the LISCMP, the "Public Coast" should"connect people to the Sound and its public resources b improving visual and physical access and by providing a diversity of recreational Y p g opportunities." The goal defined for the "Working Coast" is to "reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront, its jobs and products, at appropriate locations by protecting uses dependent on the Sound, furnishing necessary infrastructure, providing business and marketing assistance, and promoting efficient harbor operations." 8 Town of Southold,LWRP III-1 126 Section III of the Southold LWPP outlines the thirteen central policies, categorized within Developed Coast, Natural Coast, Public Coast, and Working Coast headings, from which standards are derived, as indicated above. These policies implement the New York State Department of State's ("NYSDOS") 44 coastal policies, and represent a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies. These are listed within the Southold LWJRP as follows: Developed Coast Policies: 1. Foster a pattern of development in the.Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development; 2. Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold; and 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. Natural Coast Policies: 1. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion; 2. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold; 3. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem; 4. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold; and 5. Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. 127 Public Coast Policies: 1. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. Working Coast Policies: 1. Protect the Town of Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations; 2. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold; 3. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold; and 4. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. An analysis of the proposed action's consistency with these policies in included in Section 4.4.4. Inventory and Analysis The Southold L.WRP contains an inventory and analysis for the existing conditions of land use, zoning, and development within the Town. The inventory identifies the two dominant land uses with in the Town of Southold in 1995, as agriculture and residential. Residential development, which comprises approximately 30 percent of the land area, is concentrated in the Incorporated Village of Greenport, the Town's hamlet areas, and in the vicinity of the many creeks and inlets found along the Peconic Estuary shoreline. In 1999, roughly a third of the Town's land area, nearly 10,000 acres, were in active agricultural production. According to the Southold LWRP, based on the U.S. Census data between 1950 and 1990, the Town's housing stock grew at approximately 2,000 units per decade since the 1950s. However, this did not include homes occupied seasonally, and thus, was classified as vacant housing. 128 Reach Analysis The Southold LWRP divides the land within the Town into 10 distinct "Reaches" in order to appropriately organize inventories and analyses of existing conditions, and to develop proper goals, policies, and standards specific to the lands contained in each. The subject property is located within Reach 6, whose coastal boundaries extend from the western boundary of the Incorporated Village of Greenport to Founders' Landing in the hamlet of Southold, and whose inland boundary is S.R. 25 and C.R. 48. The predominant land uses within Reach 6 are medium-density residential uses followed by agricultural, resort residential, and vacant lands. The Southold LWRP identifies the greatest concentration of residential development to be located south of the LIRR track. Other uses include marine commercial uses, hamlet business resort, seasonal residential development, and institutional uses. The LIRR tracks run close to the waterfront in this Reach. The northern edge of Reach 6, where it borders Reach 3, also contains water. Together the two reaches combined contain the largest concentration of seasonal cabins and motels within the Town. The Southold LWRP identifies Reach 6 and 7 as containing the "bulk" of business within the hamlet of Southold. In addition to small retail businesses and professional business offices, a total of four small-to-medium sized motels, seven operational restaurants, one campground facility, a canvas manufacturing facility, two lumber supply companies, an asphalt plant, and a car dealer ship are located within Reach 6. According to the Southold LWRP, Reach 6 also contains over 300 acres of land in active agricultural production of which approximately nine percent is protected. 129 In the section Agricultural Protection, the analysis of Reach 6 identifies areas of existing agricultural land still in production and areas subject to development pressure. The Southold LWRP also indicates the land that had been cultivated or used for dairy or horse breeding farms within. the Reach has reverted to fields, meadows and woods. According to the Southold LW7?P, as some of this land is "on (or adjacent to) the waters of Hashomomuck Pond and Southold Bay, the potential for this land to be subdivided into residential communities is enormous." In addition, the Southold LWRP suggests that, although this land may be needed to absorb additional residential growth, this agricultural land has significant potential to act as a visual and physical boundary that buffers the hamlet of Southold from the marina operations to the east, as there are limited amounts of protected open space within Reach 6. Based on the Southold LWRP, development trends show a shift of land from agricultural use to residential development. The Master Plan Update proposed the future pattern of land use should encourage residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets. Further, the Master Plan Update proposed that lower residential densities should be located in the remainder of the Town, specifically in agricultural and coastal areas. The LWRP "seeks to advance these land use goals with particular emphasis on ensuring that local residents who work in the Town are not priced out of the housing market." 130 3.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.5.1 Public Schools The subject property is located in the Greenport Union Free School District("UFSD"), Since the property is -undeveloped, it generates no school-aged children. A discussion of the Greenport. UFSD as well as demographic trends follows. The Greenport UFSD operates an elementary school (grades kindergarten through six) and a secondary school (grades seven through twelve) located at 720 Front Street, in Greenport. . The. total enrollment and enrollment per grade for the years 1998-99 through 2006-07 is provided in Table 8 below: Table 8—Total Student Enrollment, 1998-99 to 2006-07 YEAR, Percent Difference Change. 1999 1998- - 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 1998/99- 1998/99- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006/07 2006/07 GRADE, Kindergarten,; 41 49 36 42 47 42 35 34 40 -1 -2.4% First. 64 49 60 1 48 41 59 1 45 53 55 -9 -14.1% Second 61 48 39 45 41 33 58 45 38 -23 -37.7% :Jhird 44 47 44 43 39 41 38 47 48 4 9.1% ]Fourth 36 43 51 43 42 41 39 38 45 9 25.0% Fifth 42 34 42 .50 41 49 38 41 39 -3 -7.1% :Si xth 39 38 35 41 50 46 50 38 35 -4 -10.3% Ungraded 13 12 0 -12 -100.0% graded.':: 12 15 14 16 14 6 ElementAry Seventh:_,:. 50 55 70 67 74 79 70 66 52 2 -4.00% Eighth`:. : 68 67 11 19.6% gh, 56 50 63 59 57 58 68 Ninth 44 60 49 54 55 1 66 56 70 78 34 77.3% Tenth 51 43 64 47 54 1 54 62 60 66 1 15 29.4% � Eleventh 48 44 43 53 43 53 63 58 45 -3 -6.3% Twelfth 35 51 48 44 54 35 42 50 53 18 51.4% -Ungraded 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 -3 -100.0% Secondary c ary, 4061 k-12: 626 628 658 652 651 668 679 676 661 35 5.6% Source:New York State Education Department, Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continued Education (AlYSED EMSQ 131 Total enrollment in year 2006-07 was 661, only 60.1 percent of the stated capacity of the school. Enrollment figures have been relatively stable in the six years between 1999-00 and 2006-07, with a total increase of 5.6 percent, or approximately 0.6 percent per year. This rate of growth is equivalent to only four new students per year, on average. Table 8 illustrates a dramatic decrease in enrollment in grades kindergarten through three, where enrollment in those four grades-has decreased by 29 students, or approximately 13.8 percent, over the course of the analysis period, as shown in Figure 18. 132 Total Enrollment Grades K-3 Total Enrollment,Grades K-3,Greenport School District 225- 200- 0 25200o TOTAL K-3 a� n E z 175- 150 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Source:New York State Education Department,Elementary,Middle, Secondary,and Continued Education(NYSED EMSC) Figure 18 FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 133 Conversely, consistent growth in enrollment has occurred only in grades seven through 12, with a majority of this increase taking place between the years 2003 and 2005. Much of the variation in enrollment during the previous eight years can be explained by changes in the demographics of the area, largely due to the lack of affordable workforce housing and the exodus of young families that has occurred as a result. Table 9 below summarizes the changes in the population under 45 years of age in the Town of Southold between 1990 and 2000. Table 9—Population Change Between 1990 and 2000 Southold Percent Southold Percent of Difference Percent 1990 of Total :2000 Total 1990-2000 Difference Total 19,836 20,599 - 763 3.8% Population Under 5 1,030 5.2% 1,051 5.1% 21 2.0% 5 to 9 1,074 5.4% 1,295 6.3% 221 20.6% 10 to 14 1,228 6.2% 1,343 6.5% 115 9.4% 15 to 19 1,091 5.5% 1,101 5.3% 10 0.9% 20 to 24 969 4.9% 700 3.4% -269 -27.8% 25 to 34 2,605 13.1% 1,828 8.9% -777 -29.8% 35 to 44 2,804 14.1% 3,068 14.9% 264 9.4% Under 35 7,997 40.3% 7,318 35.5% -679 -8.5% Under 45 10,801 L 54.5% 10,386 50.4% -415 -3.8% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S.Decennial Census 134 Table 9 highlights two trends that are relevant to the past, current, and future demands that would be placed on the school systems of the Town of Southold, including Greenport Union. First, in the ten years between 1990 and 2000, there has been a sharp decline in the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 34, decreasing by 29.3 percent. Comparatively, in New York State between 1990 and 2000, the same age cohort decreased in population by only 12.0 percent, while in Suffolk County the decrease was only 6.1 percent, indicating that the loss of persons between the ages of 20 and 34 was five times greater in Southold than in the County as a whole. This decrease in Southold's young population is exceptional and points to a major exodus by this important segment of Southold's community. It also suggests that the slow rate of increase of the population of children under the age of five is not an anomaly and is, in fact, a trend that will continue until the causes of the young family population out-migration are addressed and reversed. Second, there has been a pronounced spike in the population of five-to-nine year-olds in the ,Town of Southold, with the age group growing by more than 20.6 percent between 1990 and 2000. Compared to New York State, the Southold population of persons between the ages of five and nine grew by approximately six percent more. The increase can be attributed in part to the "Baby Boom Echo,"the increase in births due to the Baby Boom popula tion.9 This growth could have directly contributed to the increase in enrollment in grades seven through nine in the Greenport UFSD. According to the New York State Education Department ("NYSED") website (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/fara/documents/Masterfile—forweb.xls), per pupil expenditure for the Greenport UFSD in 2005-2006 was $18,951. 9 The Baby Boom Echo, 1996 Report,U.S.Department of Education, 1996. 135 3.5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service The subject property is currently located in, and served by, the Village of Greenport Fire Department, whose headquarters are located 236 Third Street, Greenport. According to its website,10 the Greenport Fire Department protects approximately 12,000 people living in an area of eight square miles. The department operates out of two stations that protect a primarily residential area. The Department has 109 volunteer members and responded to 749 calls in 2007, which is a 5.74 percent increase over 2006. The vast majority of the calls (70 percent) were ambulance calls. The Department consists of five Companies: Eagle Hose Company; Relief Hose Company; Star Hose Company; Standard Hose Company and Phenix Hook & Ladder Company. The department has a Rescue Squad complete with 2 ALS Ambulances, a Heavy Rescue Truck, Heavy Rescue/Engine and 2 Schwinn Rescue Bikes. The closest receiving Hospital for emergency care is the Eastern Long Island Hospital located at 201 Manor Place in Greenport. The Greenport Fire Department provides the following services: firefighting; Advance Life Support, emergency medical service; vehicle rescue (extrication); and search and rescue. There are two fire stations—236 Third Street and 514 Flint Street. According to the Greenport Fire Department's Annual Report-2007 (see Appendix Q), the Greenport Fire Department responded to 749 calls in 2007. This was 43 calls more than in the previous year (a 5.74 percent increase). Of the 149 calls, 312 originated in the Village and 399 were from the East/West Fire Protection District, in which the subject site is located. Of the 749 calls, 18.82 percent were from Peconic Landing (life-care retirement community) and 5.73 percent were from the San Simeon Nursing Home. 10 http://cms.firehouse.com/dept/GreenportNY 136 Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Cliff Harris on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Fire Department. Follow-up letters were sent on March 31, 2008 and July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Greenport Fire Department recording secretary responded for Chief Harris via e-mail to the applicant (see Appendix P). The response verified the number'of Department members, total number of calls responded to in 2007 and the receiving hospital for emergency care. 3.5.3 Police Protection The subject property is within the . jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department, with its headquarters located at 51505 State Route 25, Peconic, New York. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Carlisle Cochran on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Police Department. Follow-up letters were sent on March 31, 2008 and July 12, 2008. The Town of Southold Police Department has not yet responded(see Appendix P). 3.5.4 Water Supply J Currently, as the subject site is undeveloped, it does not generate a demand for water. However, there are SCWA water supply mains located in C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the site. 3.5.5 Sewage Disposal As the subject property is undeveloped, no sewage is generated. Village sewer lines are located in C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Based on a discussion with the Jack Naylor, a representative of the Village of Greenport Department of Utilities," the Village's sewage treatment plant has a total permitted capacity of 650,000 gpd and it currently receives approximately 325,000 gpd of sanitary waste. Telephone communication July 17,2008. 137 3.5.6. Solid Waste The subject property is currently undeveloped. Therefore, it does not generate solid waste. 3.5.7 Energy Suppliers As the subject property is undeveloped, it does not have any connections to energy suppliers. However,utility poles exist in front of the subject site along C.R. 48. 3.5.8 Recreation The site is undeveloped and privately-owned. The subject property does not currently provide any recreational facilities. The subject property is adjacent to 300+ acres of designated open space known as Moore's Woods. Moore's Woods is available to the public for passive recreation activities such as hiking. Furthermore, Arshamonaque Preserve is located just west of Chapel Lane, with a trailhead located along Chapel Lane. This large preserve, situated approximately one-half mile from the site, also provides passive recreational and open space features. Finally, the KOA campgrounds, which require a fee for use, are situated east of the subject property, along the south side of C.R. 48. 138 3.6 TRANSPORTATION A traffic impact study ("TIS") was prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "Dunn Engineering") (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). The TIS quantifies existing and projected traffic,conditions and compares changes in operating conditions with the proposed development. The purpose of the study is to determine any significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project and to evaluate and propose mitigation measures, if f required. The TIS presents the findings of the analysis, and summarizes the data collection process, traffic analysis procedures, and study conclusions. The study methodology and existing conditions are summarized herein. 3.6.1 Methodology As part of the preparation of the TIS, the following tasks were undertaken: I Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions; 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network; 3. An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ("SCDPW") and the files of Dunn Engineering; 4. Supplementary machine traffic counts and turning movement counts were collected as necessary to update the available volume counts; 5. An examination was made of the traffic flow on North Road, Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane in the vicinity of the subject site; 6. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing recent accident records obtained from the SCDPW; 7. The availability of police and fire protection services was examined; 139 8. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development; 9. Directional distribution analyses were made to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the surrounding street network; 10. Trip assignment analyses were performed to examine the composite traffic volumes that *would result due to the addition of the site-generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes, in order to determine the traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways; 11. Capacity analyses were performed at key intersections in order to examine their ability to accommodate the addition of the site-generated traffic; 12. A review of the access arrangements was made; 13. An evaluation of the available parking and on-site circulation was made in regard to traffic circulation, safety, maintenance, and ade quacy of layout; and 14. An evaluation of existing public transportation services in the project area and general vicinity. 3.6.2 Existing Roadway Network C.R. 48 (North Road) is a major east/west County highway facility located north of the site that will provide direct access to the site. In the vicinity of the proposed development, North Road consists of two lanes (one in each direction) with additional turning lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the site is 50 miles per hour. 140 Chapel Lane is a north/south roadway located west of the site. Chapel Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continues to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Chapel Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Chapel Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. Queen Street is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Queen Street has no pavement markings,but allows for two-way traffic onto and off North Road. Queen Street serves as access to the KOA campground located at its southern terminus. Moores Lane is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Its northern terminus is North Road and it continues to the south from that point. In the vicinity of the site, Moores Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted area speed limit on Moores Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. 3.6.3 Unsignalized Intersections In the vicinity of the site, the following unsignalized intersections were investigated: ® North Road at Chapel Lane; ® North Road at Queen Street; and ® North Road at Moores Lane. The lane configurations at the Unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Chapel Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A separate left-turn-lane and a through lane. 3. Northbound Chapel Lane Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. 141 i The lane configurations at the unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Queen Street consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A combined left-turn/through lane. 3. Northbound Queen Street Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. The lane configurations at the unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Moores Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A combined left-turn/through lane. 3. Northbound Moores Lane Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. 3.6.4 Traffic Volumes Available traffic flow information was obtained from the SCDPW and the files of Dunn Engineering. The available information consisted of automatic traffic recorder ("ATR") counts on C.R. 48. The Average Annual Daily Traffic ("AADT") in the vicinity of the site on North Road was 13,737 vehicles per day in 2005. This AADT was not utilized for analysis purposes but is presented for information only. The SCDPW data obtained can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "SCDPW Traffic Flow Data' (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). An examination of the traffic volume information reveals that the peak weekday traffic volumes occur between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M., respectively. The peak existing weekend traffic volumes occur. on Saturdayss between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. 142 Although the SCDPW data indicated that the midday traffic volumes during the weekday are generally higher than the morning traffic volumes, manual counts were collected for the weekday A.M. peak hours instead of the weekday midday peak hours because it is during the weekday A.M. commuting hours, not the weekday midday peak hours, when condominium communities generate more trips and any potential impacts will be found. During the week, condominium communities generate trips primarily during the weekday A.M. and P.M. commuting hours (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.,respectively). Hence, to obtain specific turning count information of the existing traffic during the peals hours of the proposed development, manual intersection turning movement counts for morning and evening peak hours were collected on weekdays at three intersections on C.R. 48 located within the study area. The three locations where the manual counts were performed are as follows: ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. The traffic counts at the above three locations were taken on a typical weekday in August from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. as well as on a typical Saturday from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. i The manual traffic volume counts performed can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts-Manual" (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). To supplement the August 2005 SCDPW traffic machine count data, additional ATR counts were collected for a full-week, including a weekend, during the month of August 2007 at several locations. The locations where the ATR counts were performed are as follows: 1. C.R. 48 west of Queen Street(in both the eastbound and westbound directions); 2. Chapel Lane south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions); 143 3. Queen Street south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions); and 4. Moore's Lane south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions). The automatic traffic recorders at the above four locations were installed on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 and continued to Friday,August 31, 2007 during the peak summer season. The supplemental ATR counts collected by Dunn Engineering on C.R. 48, Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane can be found in the section of Appendix Q, entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts—Supplemental ATR." 3.6.5 Accident Records Accident history data were obtained from the SCDPW concerning all the reportable and non- reportable accidents that have occurred on C.R. 48 within the study area. The data obtained from SCDPW consisted of accident history information from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006. This represents the latest full three-year period available from the County at the time of the writing of this study. A summary of the accidents on North Road within the study area by year, severity (property damage only["PDO"], injury ["INP], or fatal ["FAT"]) and location is shown in Table 10. As can be seen in Table 10, the intersection with the highest accident experience is North Road at Moore's Lane. This intersection experienced a total of 10 accidents in the three year study period, or an average of just over three per year. It is not unexpected that this is the highest location as this is the intersection that sees the highest level of side street traffic. 144 North Road at Chapel Lane experienced an average of between two and three accidents per year (total of seven) while North Road at Queen Street experienced an average of less than one accident per year(total of two). Existing Public Transportation Services ,Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, on the north fork this route travels on Main Road (NYS Route 25), which is south of the site through the Village of Greenport (see map for the S-92 bus route in the section of Appendix Q entitled "Public Transportation"). The distance from the site to the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile, measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane. As the generally accepted pedestrian walking limit distance is 0.25 mile, it is questionable that many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Discussions were held with representatives of Suffolk County Transit regarding whether there were any plans to expand the Suffolk County bus route to include service on North Road (C.R. 48). Suffolk County Transit confirmed that, due to the rural nature of this section of Greenport with some sections on North Road already developed and other properties remaining undeveloped, although the County is conducting a planning study of the general area, at this time it does not foresee that the'study would result in bus service being provided on or extended to C.R. 48. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. 145 CN O O "Zt � H M P� H O O O O N OG d' LnPiz O N N V O o o O o 0 � IIn N 0 � O O O O O O v V O O O N O N H C� N O O 'o Q U C8 Cd � � Cd P4 � � a b Z z Cj Z z c Z � I l 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.7.1 Introduction Between August 18 and September 24, 2007, TRACKER — Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase 1A documentary study and a Phase 113 archaeological survey (collectively known as the Phase I Study) at the subject property. This information is included in a report entitled Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (hereinafter "Phase I Report") (see Appendix R)., The methodology and results of the Phase I Report are summarized herein. The purpose of the Phase IA documentary study was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. It was implemented by reviewing past and current environmental data, archaeological site files and other archival literature, maps and documents. The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted using the resources of the New York State Historic Preservation Office ("NYSHPO") in Waterford, New York. Various historic and/or archaeological website were visited to review any pertinent site information. The purpose of the Phase 113 field survey was to provide physical evidence for the presence or absence of prehistoric or historic sites on the subject property. This was accomplished through subsurface testing and ground surface reconnaissance. Specific environmental conditions such as wetlands, geology, soils and topography, hydrology and vegetation are described and discussed in the Phase I Report (see Appendix R). 3.7.2 Prehistoric Potential A prehistoric site file search was conducted at the NYSHPO. The search included a one-mile radius around the subject property. The results indicate the following: 147 Freshwater wetlands are on the property. The site is located approximately 700 feet south of the Long Island Sound; ® ' The project area is comprised of level-to-moderately-sloped terrain with well- and poorly-drained soil; ® The subject property is located on a peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have shown these area as more desirable for prehistoric occupations (Cammisa, 1996); ® A prehistoric site was found near the subject property; and ® Indian trails were located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon this assessment, the study area has a higher than average potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small processing/procurement site. 3.7.3 Historic Potential Contact Period(17th Century) At the time of European contact and settlement, the study area was likely occupied by the Manttobaugs. These were probably branches or villages of the large Corchaug tribe. The previously-mentioned Indian trails were reported along the southern and north portions of the north fork. It may have been Town policy to keep the Indians grouped in the western portion of the Town, which was considered wilderness at this time. In 1664 it was voted that the Indians could plant in Hogs Neck if they had sufficient fencing. 148 18" Century Oyster Ponds, now called Orient, was connected with the rest of the Town by a low, sandy beach which was, at times, covered by water. This tract was called Poquatuck by the Indians which means tidal liver, cove, or creek. Previous to the American Revolution, there was a wharf near Stirling Creek where sloops from West India landed with nim and molasses. During the Revolutionary Period, there were six houses in the Village of Greeliport, five of which were along Stirling Street. The 1797 Town of Southold survey depicts Pipes Cove, Inlet Pond and Routes 25 and 48. No structures are on or adjacent to the project area. 19' Century The territory upon which Greenport was built, was sold by the heirs of Captain John Webb at auction to three neighbors in 1820. Greenport was founded circa 1827. Main Street was laid out during this same year, as well as the first set of marine railways. The first store was constructed by 1828, the first school house built in 1832, and the name of Greenport adopted in 1834. The 1836 Colton map shows that no structures are situated nearby the project area. The 1858 Chace map shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area. Finally, the 1896 Hyde atlas depicts no structures on or adjacent to the property. 2e Century The 1904 USGS map shows no structures on or adjacent to the subject property. In the late 19th century, fanning in the Town became highly specialized in areas such as potatoes, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, peas, beans and the like. An historic site file search was conducted at the NYSHPO. The search was based upon a one-mile radius from the subject site, and three sites were identified including Pipes Neck, Great Plains Swamp and Five Wigwams. 149 3.7.4 Field Methods for Phase IB Walkover Exposed ground services were walked over at approximately three-to-five meter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15 meter intervals for any aboveground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations that may be evidence of a prehistoric or historic site. Photographs were taken of the study area (see Appendix R of this DEIS). Shovel Tests Shovel tests ("STs") were conducted at 15 meter intervals across the subject property. Each ST pit measured approximately 30 to 40 centimeters ("cm") in diameter and was dug into the underlying B horizon (subsoil) to 10 to 20 cm, or more, where possible. All soils were screened through one-quarter-inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. Each ST was Ragged in the field. Any positive ST was double-flagged. All STs and any archaeological finds were mapped on the project are map. Soil stratigraphy (detailed in Section 3.7.5) was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre- printed field forms and in a notebook. 3.7.5 Field Results Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 125 STs across the subject property. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. Results for all 125 STs are included in Appendix 2 of the Phase I report (see Appendix R of this DEIS. 150 3.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Phase IA study determined the study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites, with a moderate-to-low potential for historic sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 125 STs. No prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered. Therefore, no further work was recommended. 151 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS,AND TOPOGRAPHY As the site is currently undeveloped, the proposed development would disturb soils that have previously been essentially undisturbed. Table 4 of this DEIS, provides a breakdown of the soil engineering and planning limitations, based upon general soil data found on the USDA NRCS website. An analysis of the proposed projects compliance follows. Based upon a review of the proposed development and the soil map, no development is expected to occur in either the Be or Ca soils, which have the most development limitations. In addition, as much of the wetland area is comprised of Ra soils (which are also very limited), no development would occur in these areas. The majority of development is proposed to occur within the RdB, MfB and PIB soils. These mapping units have few, if any, limitations to development that cannot be easily overcome. One of the predominant soil groups on the site, PIB, is described as having slight erosion potential. The slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential and detailed erosion and sediment control plans would be an integral part of the final development plans. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") prepared for compliance with Phase 11 Stormwater Regulations will address measures necessary to meet water quality standards for runoff and safe accommodation of flows from extreme storm events. Erosion and sediment control measures will include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties, which will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2.4 of this DEIS. 152 As indicated in Figure 4 of this DEIS, the potential engineering limitations for the establishment and maintenance of lawns and landscaping on PIB soils are noted as being potentially severe due to a sandy surface layer. However, in developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped, the grade will have a maximum slope ratio of 1:3. Slopes created due to construction would be minimal. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas that are proposed to remain. Due to the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from those shown on the Soil Survey, actual on-site investigations were performed, as described in Section 3.1.2.. The on-site test borings revealed that there was some surficial fill conditions on the site. Overall, the test-hole exploration revealed quality soil conditions that were judged well-suited for standard construction practices. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered an issue. Therefore, the soils appear suitable for development, and no significant adverse impact is anticipated. The nature and scope of the development would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas, building areas and drainage and sanitary facilities. As the site is currently undeveloped, particular care would be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed would be, protected from development. The soils that constitute the wetland areas of the site would not be disturbed by the proposed development. The following measures would be incorporated into the development of the subject property to minimize impacts: ® the limit of disturbance would encompass the areas landward of the wetlands and their associated 100-foot buffers; ® silt fence would be installed at the limit of disturbance to protect existing vegetation; 0 clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the extent of open areas and limit the time areas are open; and ® a stabilized construction entrance would be installed; 153 Based upon the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (see Appendix G of this DEIS), the project engineer has prepared an analysis of proposed cut and fill for the development. Table 11 assumes that none of the units would have basements: Table 11 — Proposed Earthwork(in Cubic Yards) Source ` Cut l ill . Net(Cut) .Site Grading 9,075 8,517 558 Drainage Structures 2,396 - 2,396 TOTAL 11,471 8,517 2,954 154 4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 Groundwater The Long-Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Manamlent Plan ("208 Study") In order to ensure the protection of groundwater, the proposed project will comply with the relevant recommendations of the "Highest Priority Areawide Alternatives" of the 208 Study regarding Hydrogeologic Zone IV, as described below. Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting, regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells. No irrigation is proposed as part of this action. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not require the permitting, regulation or monitoring of irrigation wells. Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit/one or more acres), where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings; and The proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to existing municipal water and sewer facilities. Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. ® Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to surface and ground waters. 155 As shown on the Prelhninary SWPPP and the Preliminary Utility Plan (see Appendix G), storrnwater runoff would be recharged on-site through the use of drywells. In addition, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be implemented both during construction and post development. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the above criterion. Suffolk County Sanitai-y Code ("SCSC") Suffolk County has promulgated various regulations and standards that are designed to protect the water resources of Long Island. Article 6 of the SCSC specifically governs sanitary wastewater discharges. The regulations contained in Article 6 protect water resources by limiting the "population density equivalent" within specific Groundwater Management Zones. The subject property is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, and therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the SCSC, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 600 gpd per acre or approximately 10,314± gpd,based upon 17.19 acres. As the proposed development includes the connection to municipal sewer system, and there would not be any on-site sanitary discharge, this limitation does not apply. As the proposed development would comply with Article 6, no significant adverse impacts to water resources associated with increased sanitary flow on site would be expected. See Section 4.2.3, below for a more detailed discussion of sewage disposal. 156 Article 12 relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. The relevant aspects of Article 12 relate to the storage of fuel oil in above ground or underground storage tanks. New underground storage tanks have to be "designed and constructed in a manner which will, in the opinion of the Commissioner [of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services] provide the maximum reasonable protection available against leakage or spillage from the facility due to corrosion, breakage, structural failure, or other means." As no above ground or underground storage tanks are proposed, there would be no adverse impacts to water resources. 4.2.2 Water Usage Potable water would be supplied by the SCWA through an existing main located under C.R. 48. According to the project engineer, as domestic water for the 128 units is calculated using the SCDHS design flow rates for sewage generation, which is 225 gpd/unit for housing units between 601-1200 square feet and 300 gpd/unit for housing units greater than 1200 square feet, the proposed development is estimated to use 34,050 gallons of potable water per day. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action(see Appendix M). As SCWA has sufficient capacity to serve the subject development, no significant adverse impacts to water supply are anticipated. 4.2.3 Sanitary Flow As described above, the total projected sewage flow would be 34,050 gpd, based upon Suffolk County sewage flow standards, as calculated by the project engineer. The proposed development will be connected to the Village of Greenport sewer system through a sewer main located under C.R. 48. Due to the topography of the property and the location of the sewer lines within C.R. 48, a small pump station is proposed to be constructed in the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to the emergency access (see Appendix G). 157 Based upon a discussion with Jack Naylor (see Section 3.2.3), a representative of the Village of Greenport Department of Utilities,12 and correspondence from Cameron Engineering, dated November 16, 2006 (see Appendix J), the Village's sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development (34,050 gpd). In addition, Mr. Naylor indicated that the sewage treatment plant is also undergoing an upgrade. As such, no significant adverse impacts associated with the projected increase in sanitary flow would be expected. 4.2.4 Stormwater Runoff The proposed stormwater management system for the Northwind Village would be designed according to the local requirement to store the runoff from a two-inch rainfall over the developed portion of the subject site. According tothe project engineer, storage of stormwater will be accomplished using drywells placed throughout the subject site. General calculations for the storage volume required,based on proposed area coverage, are included in Table 12. Table 12—Stormwater Runoff Storage Volume AreaStorm Event :Runoff Sto rime Volume ::: .:: Surface, Factor red (Square Feet) . Coefficient Required : (Inches) (Cubic Feet) Building 81,582 x 2/12 1.0 13,597.05 Road 86,799 x 2/12 1.0 14,466.45 Pavement 12,147 x 2/12 1.0 2,024.44 Landscaping 109,299 x.- 2/12 0.3 5,464.95 TOTAL 35,552.89 Stormwater runoff generated on the site will be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, and will be transported by subsurface piping to a system of drywells throughout the site. The system would include 23 drywells, 12 feet in diameter placed at 11 feet in depth for a storage capacity of 25,522.64 cubic feet, and 10 drywells, 12 feet in diameter placed at a depth of 10 feet, for a capacity of 10,088 cubic feet. Therefore, total storage would be 35,610.64 cubic feet,thus exceeding the required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. 12 Telephone communication July 17,2008. 158 Required maintenance of the stormwater storage systems is expected to be minimal. When designed properly, most sediment can be trapped in the catch basins, making cleaning of the system more efficient and localized. Subsurface leaching structures (drywells) are typically fitted with cast iron covers to provide for access and cleaning, as necessary. If appropriate sediment control measures are employed during construction, leaching structures should not require maintenance more often than every 10 to 15 years. It should be noted that each of the development units or phases proposed for construction will require the submission of detailed site plans to the Village, including detailed plans for grading, drainage and erosion control. The Village will review each section or phase for compliance with local drainage requirements, thereby ensuring that the storage criteria are met. As a result of the studies conducted under the NURP, stormwater discharge from construction activities disturbing more than one acre requires a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). In order to implement the regulations, the NYSDEC has issued General Pen-nit GP-0-08-001 for stormwater discharge from construction activities, under which the applicant for this project will be required to obtain coverage. In order to obtain coverage, the necessary SWPPP will be developed, and a Notice of Intent ("NOF) will be filed with the NYSDEC. Under the criteria set forth by the Village Engineer, the project will be required to provide storage and recharge of runoff from a two-inch rainfall. Under the provisions of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, which is the primary NYSDEC reference used for compliance with the Phase 11 regulations, the SWPPP will demonstrate that Water Quality Control and WaterQuantity Control goals are met through the use of various Best Management Practices to control stormwater runoff. In this case, the storage of two-inch of runoff ensures that the Water Quality Control goals are met in that the storage volume exceeds the calculated Water Quality Runoff Volume (which only requires storage of the runoff from a 1.3-inch storm). Water Quantity Controls are not required since there would not be any discharge to a stream. 159 The Narrative Report and Plans to be prepared in conjunction with the filing of the NOI will provide the necessary background information for the project and will fully detail required erosion control measures, compliance with Water Quality Control requirements, and compliance with Water Quantity Control requirements using Best Management Practices ("BMPs") developed for the NYSDEC. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix -G). The following is a summary of the pollution control measures proposed for the Northwind Village development: ® Existing vegetation to remain will be protected by installation of a construction fence (or other approved means) and will remain undisturbed; ® Clearing and grading will be scheduled so as to minimize the extent of exposed area and the length of time that areas are exposed. A maximum of five acres will be disturbed at one time unless written permission is received from the NYSDEC; ® Grading and stripped areas will be stabilized through the use of temporary seeding, as required; ® Bare soils will be seeded within 14 days of exposure, unless construction will begin within 21 days, as sections are completed, or if construction on an area is suspended, the area will be seeded immediately; ® The length and steepness of cleared slopes will be minimized in order to reduce runoff velocities. Runoff will be diverted away from cleared slopes; ® Sediment will be trapped on site and not permitted to enter adjacent properties, public, roadways, drainage systems or water bodies; ® Sediment barriers will be installed along the limits of disturbance prior to the start of construction and will be maintained until construction is complete; ® A stabilized construction entrance will be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads. Any sediment tracked onto public roads will be removed or cleaned on a daily basis; 160 © All runoff will be retained on-site, in accordance with local regulations. Drainage inlets installed on-site will be protected from sediment build-up through the use of appropriate inlet protection; 0 Appropriate means will be use to control dust during construction; and ® Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures will remain in place until upland disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Following permanent stabilization, paved areas will be cleaned of soil and debris and drainage systems will be cleaned and Rushed, as necessary. Based on the preparation of the SVVPPP, no significant adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development would be anticipated. 4.2.5 Surface Water,Wetlands and Floodplains The proposed development has been designed and modified to ensure there is no infringement into the 100-foot freshwater wetland setback area. There will be no disturbance to the wetland setback area during construction, as the proposed development has been modified to provide a minimum of 10 feet between the buildings and the 100-foot wetland setback. As such, the applicant has submitted a request to the NYSDEC for a letter of non jurisdiction as explained in Section 2.7 of this DEIS. As stated in Section 3.2.5, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. These wetlands exhibit large fluctuations in water level with approximately 2.0-to-2.5 feet of water in the late spring and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. Periodic drying allows germination of seeds of emergent plants that survive high water periods as buried seeds (Schneider 1994). 161 Development in the watersheds of wetlands has the potential to adversely impact the existing hydrology due to increases in impervious surfaces, import of municipal water supplies, and construction of storinwater collection systems (Paul and Meyer 2001; WI-lite and Greer 2006). However, in this instance, the proposed residential units will be served by municipal water supply and sewer systems. Fuitherinore, recharge will occur wholly on the subject property. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition or removal of water to the adjacent wetlands from those sources. In order to help minimize impacts associated with clearing, grading and the installation of impervious surfaces and landscaping, all of which contribute to the alteration of existing site hydrology (as the site is undeveloped), the stoirnwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to accommodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stormwater drainage system will prevent the transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Precipitation events greater than two inches in magnitude will result in surface runoff from impervious surfaces to landscaped areas and subsequently infiltration into the ground. In conjunction with the preliminary drainage design, soil borings were taken at five locations throughout the subject property. The borings show groundwater generally located at 20-to-25 feet bgs, which will not interfere with the installation or operation of the proposed drainage system. The drywells installed as part of the drainage system for recharge of runoff will only extend to a depth of two feet above groundwater elevations, and may require excavation and backfill of unsuitable materials to facilitate leaching. Where excavation is not practical, other methods (such as the use of deeper diffusion wells) have been used in this area to facilitate groundwater recharge. One of the borings (in the vicinity of Building 16) (formerly Building 14) does indicate perched water at approximately five feet bgs. However, this is considered a localized condition likely due to poor soils. As the proposed buildings do not have basements, any dewatering required for the footings and foundations would be minimal. 162 Dewatering of trenches for footings would be limited to intermittent pumping of the trenches, as necessary; it is unlikely that dewatering will be required to the extent that well points, permits, etc. would be necessary. In addition, excavation of drywells installed in this area may serve to lower the perched water level by puncturing strata of iulsuitable materials. As demonstrated above, the project has been designed to be protective of both groundwater and surface water resources. The development will conform to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study and the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Furthermore the site will be served by public water and the municipal sewer system, both of which agencies indicated their ability to serve the proposed multi-family development. Stormwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon water resources. 163 4.3 ECOLOGY 4.3.1 Ecological Communities The proposed action will result in the elimination of 2.0 acres of successional old field habitats and 4.6 acres of successional southern hardwood forests. Approximately 10.54 acres of existing red maple-hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods, old fields, and successional southern hardwood forests will be preserved under the proposed action. The loss of 6.65 acres of old fields and successional hardwood forests will be associated with permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals, herpetiles, and songbirds which utilize thickets, shrublands, forest edges, and/or open habitats, including northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglotta), grey catbird (Dwnetella carolinensis), song sparrow (Melospiza nielodia), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalnius), and common yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas). Successional old fields and successional southern hardwood forests are common habitats and are classified as "demonstrably" or "apparently" secure, respectively, in New York State indicating that these habitats are abundant throughout the State (Edinger et al. 2002). Field observations and correspondence from the NYNHP (Appendix N) indicate that the subject property does not provide habitat for any endangered or threatened species of wildlife. Two species listed by New York State as species of special concern, the eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroliniana) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), were observed on the subject property. Populations of many songbirds are declining throughout North America (Bohning-Gaese et al. 1993). However, the populations of the commonplace species inhabiting the old fields, successional forests, and edge habitats of the subject property are largely considered to be stable by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology(www.birds.cgmell.edu). Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of old field and successional forest habitats, the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor as no sensitive species will be impacted and the effected ecological communities are abundant. 164 Nesting sites for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) were observed within the successional old fields of the subject property. These nesting sites consist of open, sandy areas (approximately 400 square feet in size) located in the northwestern portion of the property. One of the nesting sites will be destroyed during construction, the other site is located within the dirt access road on the western side of the property and will not be destroyed. Eastern box turtles are recognized to be declining due to loss of habitat from development and mortality on roadways (Williams and Parker 1987;Nazdrowicz et al. 2008). Accordingly, this potential impact to Eastern box turtle populations is expected to be insignificant.in magnitude; however' the loss of the nesting site could be easily mitigated by providing additional habitat(see Section 5.3 of this DEIS). Approximately 4.6 acres of forest will be cleared as a result of the proposed project. As stated previously, these are early successional forests dominated by red maple (Acer rubruin) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). These successional hardwood forests are re-growth stands and are I likely to have resulted from the abandonment of historical agricultural activities on the property. These stands are contiguous with the mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands associated with Moore's Woods. The adjacent upland areas of Moore"s Woods feature various oaks (Quercus sp), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipefera), hickories (Carya glabra and Carya ovata), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). Small remnants of this oak-beech-tulip forest type are present on the subject property. These unique habitats are found within the boundaries of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or occur as a narrow band surrounding its landward margin. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 400-foot buffer area. 165 Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat(4.6± acres), the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e., oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). The clearing of 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests adjacent to the mature forest communities associated with Moore's Woods has the potential to degrade the quality of forest habitat provided by these forests. For example, removal of these areas of successional hardwood stands will result in the creation of a new forest edge. Forest edges exhibit differences in microclimate, plant composition, plant density, and habitat quality than forest interiors and, accordingly, forest edges and forest interiors are often utilized by different wildlife species. The new forest edge will result in higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, wind speed, and lower relative humidity and soil moisture (Chen et al. 1995; Gehlhausen et al. 2000) in adjacent areas of forest. Studies have found that changes in microclimate in forests (i.e. ambient light, air and soil temperatures, wind speed, relative humidity, etc.) occur up to 240' from the forest edge (Gehlhausen et al. 2000). These changes in forest microclimate near the edge of the forest have been found to be more pronounced in south- and east-facing edges than north- and west-facing edges (Fraver, 1994). The forest edges to be created by the proposed project will be west-, north-, and east-facing. The proposed project will result in a new forest edge and, accordingly, result in changes in microclimate that will penetrate up to 240± feet into the existing forests associated with Moore's Woods. The altered microclimate, particularly increased light levels, associated with the new forest edge created by the proposed project is likely to result in colonization and increased growth of invasive plant species (Brothers and Spingarin 1992), within the 100-foot-Wide buffer area. Invasive plants expected to increase in abundance include honeysuckles (Lonicera tartarica and Lonicera japonica)aponica) shrubs, and various invasive and native woody vines including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus occidentalis), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and brambles (Rubus sp.). 166 The habitat quality for nesting songbirds in surrounding forests may also be degraded by the proposed project due to presence of lights in parking areas and buildings, increased levels of noise and disturbance resulting from human activities, and increased abundance of predators and invasive competitors. For example, increased numbers of feral and pet cats and native predators (such as red fox, raccoons, skunks, and opossums) resulting from increased food supplies from garbage dumpsters and pet food may adversely effect resident songbirds due to increased predation of eggs, chicks, and adults (Terborgh 1989)..In addition, the proposed project will result in increased numbers of invasive birds, such as European starling (Sternus vulgaris), house sparrow (Panus domesticus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), as these birds thrive in habitats created by humans and often nest on or in buildings. Starlings compete with native birds for nest sites in the cavities of trees, often resulting in a decline in abundance of native cavity nesters such as woodpeckers and flycatchers (Koenig 2000). Cowbirds are nest parasites and may have similar adverse impacts on native birds. The magnitude of the adverse impact associated with alteration of the forest edge or, microclimate and abundance of invasive plant and wildlife species is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted and the high- quality oak-tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within 240± feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). In addition, the magnitude of these impacts can be mitigated as described in Section 5.3 of this DEIS. As stated in Section 3.3, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. These wetlands exhibit large fluctuations in water level with 2.0-to-2.5 feet of water in the late spring ISI and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. Periodic drying allows germination of seeds of emergent plants that survive high water periods as buried seeds (Schneider 1994). 167 Development in the watersheds of wetlands has the potential to adversely impact the existing hydrology due to increases in impervious surfaces, import of municipal water supplies, and construction of stormwater collection systems (Paul and Meyer 2001; White and Greer 2006). As stated in Section 2.0 (Description of Proposed Action), the proposed residential units will be serviced by a municipal water supply and sewer systems. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition of water to the hydrological budget of the adjacent wetlands resulting from the discharge of wastewater from septic systems into the wetland's watershed. Under natural conditions, precipitation falling on the project site percolates into the ground uniformly across the project site. Under the proposed site conditions, precipitation which falls on impervious surfaces will be collected, concentrated, and discharged into drywells located under the proposed roadway. Accordingly, the proposed project will result in a perturbation to the existing pathways by which precipitation falls on the site, drains through the site's soils, and discharges through the site's wetlands. It is likely that this perturbation will not impact the surrounding wetlands uniformly as some wetland areas may receive greater water supply from nearby uplands, while other areas receive less. In addition to potential impacts on the discharge of groundwater to the surrounding wetlands, the proposed project has the potential to alter the chemistry of water flowing towards the wetlands. The chemical composition . of water flowing through soils reflects the biogeochemical characteristics of those soils. The conversion of successional field or forests habitats to landscaped lawn will alter the underlying soil conditions, therefore altering the chemical composition of water infiltrating through these soils. The human activity associated with the proposed project has the potential to result in increased flow of petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and other contaminants to the surrounding wetlands. 168 However, significant impacts to water quality in the wetlands associated with Moore's Woods are not likely to occur due to the installation of the proposed stormwater collection system, establishment of a 100-foot-wide buffer area, and implementation of other mitigation measures, as described in Section 5.3 of this DEIS. 4.3.2 -Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species A discussion of potential adverse impacts to the endangered, threatened or rare species identified in Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS follows. Red Maple-Sweetguni Swanip This rare community type is not present on the subject property. The closest known occurrence of a red maple-sweetgum swamp is within one mile of the subject property in Arshamonaque Wetland to the—w.est--of -Chapel Lane. According-Ly.,..adverse impacts to red maple-sweetgutin- swamps will not result from the proposed project. Eastern Box Turtle The woodlands, open fields, and wetlands are known to provide habitat for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) and two small areas on the subject property have been identified as box turtle nesting sites. The proposed action would result in the loss of 2.0 acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forest that are used as foraging habitat for box turtles. As previously described, the proposed action would result in the loss of one box turtle nesting site. Another observed box turtle nesting site is located within the 100-foot wetland buffer area and would not be impacted by the proposed development. However, the proposed action may result in increased mortality of adult box turtles when box turtles travel into the proposed development. As described in the Section 5.3. (Mitigation - Ecology), a box turtle nesting area will be created on the western portion of the property in order to mitigate for any potential adverse impact to box turtle reproduction(see Appendix N). 169 Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks The woodlands, open fields, and forest edges are suitable hunting habitat for the Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Under the proposed action, 2.0 acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forests will be converted to residential buildings, parking areas, and landscaped areas. Both Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks are known to be adaptable to urban and suburban habitats and hunt at bird feeders and in woodland edges located in residential areas (Roth et al. 2008). Large residential developments and subdivisions often result in a proliferation of invasive songbirds, such as house sparrow (Passer donzesticus) and European starling(Sternus vulgaris), which nest under the eaves of buildings. Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks are known to prey upon these species in urban and suburban settings (Roth et al. 2003; Roth et al. 2006). Accordingly, the proposed action is not anticipated to adversely impact prey availability for Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Sharp-shinned hawks typically nest in dense stands of young conifer trees (Trexel et al. 1999). The project site does not contain any stands of young conifer trees; accordingly, the proposed action is not expected to adversely impact the availability of nesting habitat for Sharp-shinned hawks. Cooper's hawks tend to nest in mature deciduous forests (Trexel et al. 1999). Therefore, the mature oak-tulip forests and red maple hardwood swamps located in Moore's Woods are likely to provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk. The proposed action will result in the loss of 4.6 acres of red maple-dominated successional hardwood stands. It is expected that the trees present in the areas of oak-tulip forest on and surrounding the project site provide better nesting habitat than the successional hardwood stands, due to the increased age of the trees in these oak-tulip stands. Therefore, the high-quality nesting habitat available for Cooper's hawks in Moore's Woods will not be adversely impacted by the proposed action and no reduction in the availability of nesting habitat for Cooper's hawks is expected. 170 Cat-tail Sedae (Carex tpphina) Carex typhina was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for C typhina is present in the Red Maple-Hardwood swamps located on the southern and southwestern portion of the property and on the adjacent properties. Due to the absence of C. typhina and preservation of on-site wetland habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Swamp Cottonwood(Populus heterophylla) Swamp cottonwood was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. heterophylla is present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. Due to the absence of P. heterophylla and preservation of on-site wetland habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Cranefly Orchid(Ti pularia discolor) Cranefly orchid was not observed at the subject property during the summer or winter months; however, suitable habitat for T discolor is present on hummocks and the tops of banks in the wetland areas located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Woods. Due to the absence of T. discolor and preservation of its potential habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Opelousa Smartweed(Tol wonum hydropiperoides var. opelousa) Opelousa Smartweed was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa may be present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Threatened species will result from the proposed project. 171 Swamp Smartweed(Persicaria setaceurn) Swamp Smartweed was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. setaceuni may be present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P. setaceurn and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Oranke-fi•inged Orchid(Platanthera ciliaris) Orange-fringed orchid was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the wetland areas located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P.ciliaris and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Velvet Panic Grass (Dichantheliuni scopariurn) Velvet panic grass was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the ditches and sandy wetlands located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of D. scopariurn and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Maryland Milhwort(PolyRala mariana) Maryland milkwort was not observed on the site and is presumed to be extirpated in New York suitable habitat for this wetland-dependent species State. However, ma be p P Y present on the site. Due to the absence of P.mariana and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. 172 Small-flowered Pearlwort(Saa na decumbens) Small-flowered Pearlwort was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for S. decumbens may be present in the property's successional fields. Due to the absence of S. decumbens, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Cut-leaved Evening Primrose(®enothera laciniata) Cut-leaved evening primrose was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for O. laciniata may be present in the property's roadsides and waste places. Due to the absence of O. laciniata, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Northern Cricket Froz (Acris crepitans), Tiger Beetle (Ci ciradela patruela conserrtaraea), N_uttall's Tick-Trefoil (Desrnodiunz nuttallii) and Smooth Tick-Trefoil 60esmodiuna laevigatuna), Green Parrot's Feather (Myriophyllum pinnatum), Marsh Straw Sedae (Carex hormathodes),Red Pikweed(Chenopodium rubrum) These protected and special status species were not observed on the subject property. For a specific discussion of the potential for impacts to tiger beetle, please refer to report prepared by Dr. Jonathan Mawdsley (See Appendix N). Furthermore, suitable habitat for these species is not present on the subject property. Accordingly, no adverse impacts to these species will result from the proposed project. Overall, the proposed action is not expected to substantially affect ecological resources, including species diversity and carrying capacity. 173 4.4 LAND USE AND ZONING, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS/STUDIES 4.4.1 Lancs Use, Zoning and Community Character The subject property is currently a vacant, unimproved parcel. The proposed action includes the annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into Village of Greenport and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be "workforce"units, as described in Section 2.5 of this DEIS. Given the configuration of the subject property, with wetlands surrounding on three sides, the proposed development has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. Twenty-three buildings containing the 128 dwelling units.are proposed to be developed on the property. Each building would be two stories in height and would contain from four to eight units. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,500 square feet in size. All of the one- and two- bedroom units and six .of the three-bedroom units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate units. Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access drive along North Road (C.R. 48), and a proposed emergency access from North Road would be constructed at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. The development would be connected to the Village sewer system and the municipal water system. Stormwater runoff would be collected and recharged on site. 174 As previously noted, the proposed action involves aimexation from Southold into Greenport. Upon annexation, the applicant would apply to Greenport for inclusion in the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 district permits the development of one- and two-family dwelling units. A variance would be required to permit the development of more than two units in a building. The bulk and dimensional requirements for the R-2 district and the proposed development's compliance with such are included in Table 13. 'fable 13—Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District Parameter Required/Permitted Proposed Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 300 feet N/A Side Yard Setback 25 feet N/A Building Lot Coverage 35% 10.9% Building Height 2r/2 stories/35 feet 2 stories While residential units could be developed on the site under the Town of Southold HD zoning district, the annexation to Greenport and the R-2 zoning would permit the development a greater number of workforce units (64 versus five) than would be permitted by the Town's HD zoning district. This is due to the location within the Village, which would allow for sewer connection. Therefore, although greater density would be permitted in Greenport than in Southold, the specific land use — residential development — would be permitted within either municipality. Furthermore, the annexation of the subject property into the Village would allow for an internal subsidy of the workforce housing units. The greater overall density would allow the price of the workforce units to be absorbed into the market-rate dwellings, thus requiring no external subsidy to maintain the affordability of the units. Therefore, the annexation would create no significant impact on the land use of the property, although the specific zoning of the property would change from HD to R-2. 175 The proposed development incorporates Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission,13 which guide many aspects of the proposed development. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the adopted Smart Growth principles, including: ® Direct development to strengthen existing communities; • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; ® Provide a variety of transportation choices; ® Create pleasant environments* and attractive communities; and ® Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention will be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the US Green Building Council ("USGBC"), as previously described.14 To earn certification under LEED for Homes, a building must meet performance credits. On average, "green" buildings save approximately 40 percent in water use, 30-50 percent in energy use, 35 percent in carbon dioxide emissions, and saves approximately 70 percent of construction and demolition waste from being disposed in landfills. 13 Sinart Growth Through Smart Connnunities:Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and Villages, Suffolk County Planning Commission,March,2000. 14 USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development,("ND"). LEED-ND is currently only a pilot program that has specifically enrolled projects. 176 ® The proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED- Neighborhood Development certification. These include: ® Site location.within a half mile of existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure; There are water and sewer lines located in C.R. 48, in the vicinity of the subject property. ® Site within a quarter mile of community resources; The site is within walking and bicycling distance to downtown Greenport, which contains shops, restaurants, and recreational facilities. * Site within a half mile of green spaces; The subject property is located adjacent to Moore's Woods and campgrounds, and is within one-mile of Arshamonaque Pond. ® Compact development; Compact development would be achieved by allowing an increase in density on the subject property. The notion of compact development would provide two specific benefits. It would allow the preservation of natural resources, while also permitting a greater number of workforce housing units to be constructed on the site. ® Minimization of disturbed area of the site; Disturbance would be limited to an area within a 100-foot-wide buffer around the existing wetlands. A limit of disturbance will be established and maintained during the construction period through the use of silt fencing. Once construction is complete, no disturbance would occur within 100 feet of the existing wetlands. 177 ® Erosion control during construction; A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared and is discussed in Section 4.2 of this DEIS. Upon approval and prior to construction a formal SWPPP and NOI for construction would be submitted to the NYSDEC. The SWPPP would ensure that no stormwater runoff during both construction and operation of the proposed project would encroach on neighboring properties (including the adjacent wetlands) and roadways. ® Meeting Energy Star for Homes requirements; Energy Star appliances would be specified for the proposed residential units. Also, as noted below, the buildings would be sufficiently insulated and energy-efficient windows would be specified. ® Conservation of wetlands areas; The site contains approximately 3.93 acres of wetlands. All of these wetlands, as well as a 100-foot-wide buffer around that would be preserved. No disturbance would occur seaward of the 100-foot-wide wetland boundary. See section 4.3 of this DEIS for additional details. * Providing a diversity of housing types; and The development would include a ranging of housing sizes — from approximately 850 square feet to 1,500 square feet. One-half of the units (64) would be designated as workforce units, which would be affordable to many of those working in the Village and in the Town. Providing affordable housing. See previous bullet. 178 Iii addition, the following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:15 ® Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; ® Save existing mature trees on site, where possible; ® Where possible, provide usable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; ® Use patios, front yards, porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; ® Provide for alternative transportation, e.g.,bilce paths and storage, pedestrian links, car shares; ® Prioritize pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; ® Provide a well-insulated building that minimizes heat gain and loss; ® Specify energy-efficient windows; ® Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use; and ® Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner or tenant for use. Overall, as the proposed action would result in the development of a vacant and undeveloped property and would incorporate LEED building elements for environmental sustainability, no significant adverse land use impacts would be expected to result upon implementation of the proposed action. 15 Affordable Green Guidelines,American Institute of Architects. 179 4.4.2 Community Character Although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. Therefore, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. The proposed development would continue this pattern. The proposed development would remove a portion of the on-site vegetation along North Road and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to the north,would increase. However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. Appendix S contains architectural renderings of the typical architectural styles being considered for use within the proposed development as well as a rendering of the proposed entry sign at C.R. 48. The architectural design of the residential units will be harmonious with the local vernacular, following the architectural styles of those found in the surrounding houses and Greenport Village. A blend of traditional architectural style with contemporary material and finishes will provide low-maintenance, high-value homes. The workforce housing units will be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in architectural appearance. Hardiplank cement board siding is proposed to be used. This material provides an attractive shingle or clapboard appearance, while being maintenance-free and fire resistive. All the materials will be of the highest quality. Multiple front and side gables, varying roof heights and styles as well as the different styles of architecture would add visual interest to the community. 180 The variety of housing sizes will provide a residential setting that meets the needs of various populations. According to the applicant, the goal is to design the landscaping and homes within this community to be contextual with the surrounding architecture and environment of the Village of Greenport, as noted above. Some design elements will include: G Well-landscaped public areas and preservation of mature vegetation; a Integration of walkways and bike paths to encourage pedestrian access; ® Homes with front porches, situated close to the street, to encourage community interaction and to maximize public safety; , 0 A mixture of housing types to meet community,nee ds, and Q A variety of home design and styles instead of uniform suburban sprawl. While changing the property from an undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, such development would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. 4.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies Town Master Plan (1985) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, based on the work of its consultants and input from the public, the Southold Planning Board recommended the Master Plan Update to the Town Board. However, although adopted by the Southold Planning Board, the Southold Town Board never adopted the Master Plan Update. As such, the Town of Southold LW" acts as the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, a consistency analysis of the proposed action with the 1985 Town Master Plan was not prepared. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant sections of the Town's LWRP is presented in the Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS. 181 Town Affordable Housinz Policies &Program (1993) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Evaluation prepared by the Southold Town Board evaluated Southold's five policy approaches used since 1980 to meet the need of affordable housing. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with these approaches follows: Financial Assistance As noted in Section 3.4.3, the policy of the financial assistance approach is "to assist low income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable..." According to the Evaluation, this policy is aimed at giving those who have nowhere else to turn a chance to help themselves obtain decent housing through the programs that have been developed by the Town/ North Fork Housing Alliance ("NFHA") partnership. Implementation of the proposed action would provide 64 workforce units in which the Village of Greenport would be responsible for determining occupant eligibility. As such, the proposed action would be in keeping with this policy. However, should the subject property not be annexed into Greenport the proposed development density would not be permissible. Thus, the n-Lunber of workforce units would be lower than proposed(five verses 64), due to financial feasibility. Accessory Apartments As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the accessory apartment policy is aimed "...to promote the fuller utilization of excess housing capacity in existing single, family dwellings..." The proposed action does not include accessory apartments, thus this policy is not applicable. 182 Density Incentives As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the intent of the density incentive policy is "to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income" and to encourage developers to construct the same. As such, the Town adopted the Affordable Housing District ("AHD"), which gives the Planning Board the authority to reduce or amend yard setback requirements, etc. Although the subject site is not located within the AHD, it would provide 64 workforce units within a multi-family development located within a R-2 Zoning District. Direct Action As indicated in Section 3.4.3, approximately thirteen acres of land from the County and the Town were committed to the program. This approach required the Town obtain the land and construct the homes. The subject site is privately-owned and proposed to be privately- developed, while still providing 64 units of workforce housing. The proposed project involves no subsidy or dedication of land for development. Public/Not-for-Profit Partnerships As previously indicated, this approach involved a partnership between the Town and Housing alliance with Habitat for Humanity which resulted in the most inexpensive single-family housing for the lowest possible income bracket. Although the housing program may be administered by a public or not-for-profit agency, such agency would not be involved in either building or subsidizing the development. Overall, the proposed project fits within the policy approaches established in the Town Affordable Housing Policies and Programs document. 183 Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Study'sets forth a series of recommendations to the Town Board. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with each recommendation follows: Preservation of Farm Land and ®pen Space As previously indicated, the Stewardship Study recommended that the best way to preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of farming and the most direct protection is large lot zoning (i.e., 25 acres or agricultural zones) in which non-agricultural activity is allowed. In addition, the Stewardship Study explored the uses to which preserved open space can be put and recommended that "the land need not be totally idle, but would best serve the needs of residents if uses consistent with the character of open space could evolve in a "partnership with the land." The subject site is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes. The property is privately-owned zoned for residential use and proposed to be privately developed. Therefore, as indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the proposed development involves situating the dwelling units such that they would preserve the greatest amount of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland(see Appendix G). Sustainable:Economic Development As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Study recommended recognizing and enhancing the strengths of the existing local economy. ® agriculture; ® marine activities; and ® tourism. 184 Implementation of the proposed action would not directly enhance the local economy as . suggested as the site is not and has not been used for agricultural purposes, is not located adjacent to marine waters and would not enhance or promote tourist activities, as the subject parcel is zoned for residential purposes. A brief consistency analysis with other sections of the Stewardship Study follows: Water As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Study recommends specifically, the management of surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters. In addition, the Study indicates that due to the nature of the soil types in Southold groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities and it is important to discourage over pumping which could result in salt water intrusion. The SCWA has provided a letter of water availability for the proposed development. In addition, the development would be connected to the rnimicipal sewer system, which has the capacity to serve the site. Furthermore, storinwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Thus, the proposed development would not have significant adverse impact on water resources and would, thus, be consistent with this recommendation. Affordable Housing Southold residents in need of housing assistance include young families, the elderly, low-wage earners, and the working poor. Implementation of the proposed action would contribute to the availability of affordable housing by providing 64 workforce housing units. Character of Handets and Rural Setting As previously indicated, the hamlets have been the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold and the Stewardship Study recommends allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. The proposed development would occur within a HALO Zone identified in the Southold Hanilet Study but not within a historic district. 185. As demonstrated above, the subject site and proposed development is in an area that includes higher density residential and residential type (lodging, nursing home) facilities. Thus, the proposed development would fit with the character of the community. Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold(199 7) The crux of the Economic Development Plan is to encourage economic growth and expansion in and around the hamlets within the Town. While the proposed development is residential, it will bring more people into the downtown area and will allow people of varying incomes to contribute to the local economy. Community Preservation Proiect Plan 0998) The 1998 CPPP, prepared July 1998, identifies how the Town intends to preserve or protect properties that are integral to the unique community character of Southold. The CPPP's purpose was intended to be a guide for interested landowners who voluntarily chose to work with the Town to preserve and protect privately=owned real estate assets in a way that benefits the community and as well as the landowner. According to the CPPP, the subject parcel has been listed as an eligible parcel for preservation. However, at the time of this writing, the Town of Southold has not approached the landowner regarding preservation. It the intention of the landowner to develop the subject parcel with multi- family residences. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) The purpose of the Corridor Study, "...is to provide recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate land use and zoning within the corridor" by identifying the characteristics of the corridor..." As previously indicated, the C.R. 48 study area was divided into six segments, which are identified by hamlet. The subject property is situated within the Greenport Hamlet segment. 186 Although this Section of the Corridor Study recommends lowering the density of the subject property, the proposed development meets the needs criteria that have been identified and that are discussed below. A Consistency Analysis with the Outstanding Needs section of the Corridor Study follows: Provide for viable land use development at intensities sensitive to subsurface water quality and quantity The proposed action would require an increase in housing density on the subject parcel. Implementation of the proposed action involves connection to municipal sewer and water. The SCWA (water) and the Village (sewer) have indicated sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development. Furthermore, stormwater will be captured and recharged on-site. As such, significant impact to subsurface water quality and quantity would be minimized. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is in keeping with this criterion. Provide for a variety of housing opportunities for citizens of different incomes and age levels; As previously indicated, the proposed action involves the development of 128 residential units of which 64 would be designated as workforce units, available to citizens of different incomes. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is consistent with this goal. Ensure the efficient and safe movement of people and goods within the Town; The Traffic Impact Study indicates a minimal increase in the traffic volumes along C.R. 48 as a result of the proposed action. As such, the safe movement of people and goods would be maintained. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this criterion. 187 ® Preserve visual quality of hamlet centers; The proposed development is located along C.R. 48 and, thus, would be visible from the surrounding roadway. However, the frontage of the development, with the exception of the access drive and the emergency access drive, would be landscaped with screening vegetation. Thus,the implementation of the proposed action is in keeping with this goal. ® Encourage appropriate land uses both inside and out of hamlet centers; and The proposed action includes the development of residential units within an existing residentially-zoned and developed area. As such, the proposed development blends with the existing land use pattern in the area. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this goal. ® Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands and woodlands. As shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan in Appendix G of this DEIS, the limit of disturbance of the proposed development would not encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer. In addition, the proposed on-site drainage would accommodate stormwater runoff. As such, implementation of the proposed action would preserve a significant portion of the existing vegetation and minimize any significant impact to the freshwater wetlands. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with this criterion. Southold Township Plan:2000 Plannninz Initiatives As indicated in Section 3.4.3, this plan was unavailable for review, although attempts,through telephone contacts, were made with several Town departments, including the Town Clerk and the Planning Department. 188 Town Nater Supply Manoyment& Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the WSM & WPS for the Town of Southold was prepared to address the protection of the quality and quantity of Southold's groundwater supply and the maintenance of the community's rural agricultural character. The WSM & WPS proposes a number initiatives including the establishment of new zoning and special district designations as well as coordinating expansion of services. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the findings of the WSM &WPS, follows: ® The WSM & WPS advises limiting population density and controlling growth to the maximum extent possible, seeping a commitment from the SCWA to not extend public water lines to such areas, and coordinating future extensions in accordance with its watershed protection objectives. The SCWA has provided a letter of water availability for the proposed development. ® The WSM& WPS also recommends Southold explore Water Quality Treatment Districts ("WQTD"), a Critical Environmental Land ("CEL') ordinance that specifically recognizes land within the municipality determined to be environmentally sensitive, and the establishment of two Watershed Protection Zones ("WPZ'). This recommendation is directed to the Town of Southold. At the time of this DEIS, it is the applicant's understanding that the Town has not adopted WQTDs, CELs or WPZs. ® The WSM & WPS recommends within WPZ s, Southold adopt a Conservation Subdivision Program ("CSP') to create a disincentive for landowners to propose traditional developments utilizing cluster or grid style designs and alternatively redirect Jects o theirP t more desirable locations within the Town. ro 189 As noted above, it is the applicant's understanding that the Town has not adopted any WPZs. Scenic Southold Corridor Managentent flan (2001) The Scenic Southold CMP evaluated seven roads within in the Town, which included C.R. 48. Section 3 of the Scenic Southold CMP entitled Recommended Byways Designation in Southold, recommends that C.R. 48 should be designated in its entirety as a scenic byway.16 Preserving the distinct essence of hamlet areas through urban design is vital to Town character. General urban design principles address not only the existing prominent scenic routes, but also in other parts of the hamlets where new development or change to existing areas is being contemplated within the Town. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the Planning and Design Guidelines for Hamlet areas as recommended in the Scenic Southold CMP follows: ® Maintenance of urban rural distinction ensuring that edges of hamlets are defined by adjacent open space and scenic views; As the shown on the proposed Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, development would be directed toward the center of the site maintaining a buffer around the edges of the property. This buffer contains both forested area and wetlands that will be preserved with the exception of the access and emergency access, the frontage of the property would be landscaped. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be in keeping with this recommendation. 16 According to hgp:HbMa}s_org, (National Scenic Byways Online)only Route 25 in the Town of Southold is considered part of the North Fork Trail Scenic Byway. 190 ® Patterns of new development where possible consolidating new development close to hamlet centers with small lots mixed-uses, interconnected streets and dense walkable neighborhoods to maintain the vitality and affordability that is lost to large-lot suburbia; As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action would increase the density of housing on the subject parcel, which would allow a significant number of workforce housing units to be provided. In addition, according to the Southold Hamlet Study, the subject parcel is located within the Greenport West Halo Zone. As such the proposed development is situated proximate to the hamlet center of Greenport. Thus, the implementation of the proposed action would comport with this recommendation. e LandmarIcs--designed and positioned in central and visible locations such as the ends of streets,public destinations, or congregation points within the hamlet,- The amlet,The proposed action does not involve the creation of any landmarks. Thus, this recommendation would not be applicable to the implementation of the proposed action. ® Sidewalks-- wheelchair accessible and a minimum of five feet in width, and tree lined with optional seating (benches) or planters. Specific character or stylistic elements can be delineated by hamlet to provide further visual continuity to a streetscape; As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action would provide an internal sidewalk system as the subject property is not located within a downtown area. i 191 © New street patterns and widths wherever possible creating redundancy and interconnection with clear direct and understandable patterns. Streets should accommodate emergency vehicles and on street parallel parking but generally be as narrow as possible to encourage pedestrian use and slow traffic; As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action involves the construction of a single dual-access driveway, capable of accommodating emergency vehicles. Thus, the proposed development would comport with this criterion. ® Building alignment facades parallel to the street and adhering to setback lines that define an edge to the public space along hamlet streets; The development would occur within the Greenport West HALO Zone not within the Hamlet Center or downtown area. Thus,this recommendation would not be applicable. ® Fences and landscape screening-use native grasses or landscape materials wherever possible to buffer parking. Use street trees sited and sized to work with utility wires in the short to medium term. Fences should be shorter than four feet and colored/shaped according to established character of village context; The proposed frontage of the development, with the exception of the access drive and the emergency access 'drive, would be landscaped with screening vegetation. Thus, the implementation of the proposed action is in keeping with this goal. 192 ® Parking lots located to the rear of buildings or where not possible on the side screened from the street Parking lots on corner lots should be strongly discouraged as these areas should be designed with an emphasis on pedestrian use. They should be designed with permeable surfaces wherever possible eventually a goal of the Planning Board in granting any site plan approval; and As indicated above, proposed parking would be situated toward the interior of the site and behind the structures proposed closest to North Road. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this recommendation. ® Residential garages built behind houses or Inept to the rear of the lot where possible garage doors should never dominate the facade of a building This is imperative in Southold where the integrity of older historic buildings may be jeopardized where the automobile taxes prominence; As shown on the proposed Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G of this DEIS, residential garages are not proposed. Thus, this recommendation would not be applicable to the implementation of the proposed action. North Fork Travel Needs Assessment(2002) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural primarily recreational North Fork of Long Island. II 193 A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the North Fork Travel Needs Assessment follows: According to the LITP, C.R. 58 was originally constructed to serve as a bypass route around downtown Riverhead where the main road, Route 25, had become congested. However,the LITP indicates considerable development has occin-red along C.R. 58 in recent years and traffic volumes now exceed those found on either Route 25 or C.R. 48. As the proposed development would be situated on C.R. 48 North Road, the incremental increase of additional traffic would not substantially increase the traffic volume on C.R. 58. As.a number of larger parcels of farmland still exist, many with frontage along or access to more than one road, the LITP recommends, when property owners or developers make application for subdivision of such parcels, parcels having access to side roads as Well as arterials and collectors should have such access preserved during the subdivision review process and the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new smaller properties are not created that only have access to arterials thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. The subject property only has access to C.R. 48. 194 According to the LITP site plans for subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal roadways. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point providing combined access to affected parcels which would limit the number of potential conflict points on an arterial road. As the only access to the subject property is along C.R. 48 North Road and the proposed development does not require the subdivision of land, the proposed development would include the construction of a single dual-access driveway from C.R. 48 and off-street parking. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with this recommendation. Blue Ribbon Commission for.Rural Southold,Final Report(Aly 20" The BRC was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific and detailed recommendations for preserving operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the Town, which includes issues of environmental quality, open space potential, population density, affordable housing, and public water. Although these recommendations were never formally adopted or implemented, a consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant findings of this study follows: Conservation subdivisions, which give priority to preserving land rather than to creation of house lots, must have a significant and permanent conservation preservation element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire acreage relative to current zoning,- Although not a typical conservation subdivision, as defined above, due to the shape and configuration of the subject site, the proposed units would be oriented toward the center of the parcel, thereby preserving approximately 10.5 acres of existing red maple swamp, old fields and southern hardwood forests. By developing multifamily units on the property instead of single-family units across the entire site, it allows for large contiguous natural areas to be preserved as common open space, which is one of the principle objectives of conservation subdivisions. 195 ® Southold proposed anew planned development district ("PDD'), referred to as a Rural Incentive District ("RID') to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space and maintain landowner equity; At the time of this DEIS, a RID zoning district has not been established. Thus,no fiirther analysis is required. ® That there be no general up-zoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the RID to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density; At the time of this DEIS, a RID zoning district has not been established. Thus, no further analysis is warranted. Town of Southold Housinz Needs Assessment June 2005 As noted in Section 3.4.3, the Needs Assessment found that the scarcity of vacant land on Long Island has limited opportunities for development, specifically affordable housing, and the Town's efforts to preserve open space has further limited the amount of raw land available for the development of new housing. In addition, the Needs Assessment indicates that development is further curtailed by the lack of sewage treatment outside the Village of Greenport and the lack of accessibility to public water. According to the Needs Assessment, the Town attempted to address the lack of affordable housing, however the Town did not anticipate that housing prices would increase exceedingly beyond inflation. As such, the Town did not see the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Thus, the Town no longer has an inventory of affordable housing. The Needs Assessment concludes that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities to do so without assistance. 196 The proposed action would provide 64 affordable workforce housing units and involve the connection to the Village of Greenport's municipal sewer system. As described earlier, the Village has the capability and capacity to provide disposal and treatment for sewage effluent generated by the proposed project. Moreover, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property with municipal water. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would help fulfill the need for workforce housing as identified in the Needs Assessment. Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The Southold Hamlet Study notes that the subject site is located within the hamlet of Greenport West, which is described as the area that surrounds the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The Southold Hamlet Study indicates that the Village of Greenport serves as the hamlet center for Greenport West. Greenport West includes notable features, such as preserved lands and wetlands,which"...serve to establish a distinctive character for the Hamlet." A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant hamlet vision recommendations for the future of Greenport West follows: ® The Hamlet of Greenport West is comprised of a series of distinctive residential neighborhoods. While individually unique, collectively these neighborhoods establish the overall character of Greenport West. It is imperative that the individual integrity of the Hamlet's residential neighborhoods are (sic)preserved. The proposed action involves the annexation of a 17.19 -acre property from the Town of Southold into Greenport, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property into a multi-family residential community consisting of 128 dwelling units. As such, the annexation and development of the subject parcel as a multi-family residential neighborhood would not jeopardize the individual integrity of the Hamlet's other residential neighborhoods. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is consistent with this recommendation. 197 ® Einbrace a diversity of housing types, such as townhouses, attached single fainily dwellings, multi family dwellings, etc., within the overall context of the existing character of the Hamlet. The proposed development includes one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate as well as workforce housing units. Northwind Village will provide for diverse housing within the Greenport West area in compliance with this criterion. The creation of affordable "workforce"housing opportunities is a priority. A new HALO zone is recommended to facilitate this goal. The parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of Lip to '/ acre. (I dwelling/10,000 square feet of lot area). The Greenport HALO zone was adopted in early 2008. See the following bulleted item for further discussion. ® If appropriate infrastructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to 118 acre within clustered subdivisions are acceptable. The subject property is not located in the adopted Greenport HALO zone. However, at the time of the writing of this plan, the subject property was located within this proposed HALO zone. The multi-family development is proposed to be connected to the municipal sewer system. The proposed density is approximately 7.4 units per acre, less than that recommended herein (8.0 units per acre). The proposed development (which would contain 64 units of workforce housing) would be clustered around an internal roadway, wetlands. Therefore the proposed such that the design maximizes the distance from thew p p development would comply with this recommendation. 198 Accessory apartments are also viewed as an opportunity to meet housing needs. The proposed development does not include the construction of accessory apartments,but does provide 64 workforce housing units. Greenport West has a unique "sense ofplace" that should be preserved, protected and reinforced. The architecture of the proposed units will reflect architecture found in the Greenport area see photographs in Appendix 0 and renderings of typical architecture in Appendix S). The aforementioned HALO zone is depicted on three maps, dated November 2004 and December 2004, and March 20, 2008 respectively, and are included herewith as Figure 15 , Figure 16, and Figure 17 of this DEIS. According to the map entitled HALO Map, at the time of the Hamlet Study, the subject property was situated within the Greenport West hamlet HALO zone. According to the second map entitled HALO Non-=Buildable Lands Map, the subject property is not a protected land nor does it contain community facilities. However, according to the adopted HALO map for Greenport, in contradiction of the recommendation in the Hamlet Study, the subject property is not within the Greenport HALO zone. The Southold Hamlet Study also provides recommendations for hamlet-wide specific improvements. These improvements were identified under sixteen headings. Of these sixteen headings, the following*were determined to be relevant to the proposed project: Streetscape, Building Design, Vehicular Circulation, Infrastructure, Maintenance, Housing, Open Space Preservation. An analysis of the proposed action with the relevant recommendations under these headings follows: 199 Streetscape ® Sidewalks (one side of the street) are encouraged to promote walking. As the subject property is not located within a downtown area, the proposed action involves the construction of sidewalks only within the proposed development, in order to minimize clearing along the road frontage. a Off-street parking should be setback from the road to allow for a substantial landscaped buffer. Parking should be placed behind front yard setback line next to buildings. Off-street parking will be provided behind the front yard setback and proposed dwelling -units toward the interior of the site. As such, the proposed off-street parking allows for a substantial landscaped buffer along the road frontage. Thus, the propose action would be consistent with this recommendation. ® Adequate parking should be provided in newly created residential and commercial areas. The Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G depicts off-street parking located on-site. As such, adequate off-street parking would be provided to accommodate the newly created residential use. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be in keeping with this recommendation. ® To promote the natural landscape, use natural/preserved buffers (75'-100) along.the Hamlet's main roads (if they do not already exist). These buffers would be mandatory zoning setbacks, and would prevent any structures from be (sic) erected, or existing trees and/or vegetation from being removed. The exception would be to allow for a single curb cut and a driveway to traverse through the buffer zone. Non-compliance would result in a violation of the zoning code. 200 As the proposed action involves the annexation of the subject property, the proposed development has been designed to meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning district of Greenport, and not the Town's requirement. Given this, and the fact that the development has been designed to preserve the wetlands, the proposed dwelling units are located at a minimum of 30 feet from the front yard property boundary, in compliance with Greenport's R-2 zoning district. Thus, a natural landscape buffer of 75 feet to 100 feet would not be maintained. ® One of the attractive aspects of the Hamlet Center's streetscape are (sic) its street trees. Preserving these,trees however, requires an on-going commitment. A street tree planting program is recommended that incorporates regular pruning and maintenance as well as the replacement of damaged or dead trees on a regular basis. As the subject property is not located within a downtown area, the proposed development does not involve the installation of street trees. As such a street tree planting program would not be required. However, the proposed development will include a landscape buffer along the road frontage, landscaping within the development and retention of existing wooded vegetation with the property boundaries. ]Building Design ® The Hamlet supports a diversity of housing types and styles, and this is viewed as a strength. Restricting housing design "types" is unnecessary. The proposed Northwind Village community would provide a variety of housing sizes (from 850 square feet to 1,500 square feet) and will provide both workforce and market- rate dwelling units. The workforce units would be architecturally indistinguishable from the market-rate units. The style of homes would be in harmony with those in the surrounding community. i 201 Landscape planning is a [sic] integral element of good overall building design, and is an important concern. Natural/native plantings should be used for all new projects. The nature and scope of the development will necessitate substantial regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As such, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed will be protected. This includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property. In addition, in areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. All disturbed areas that are not planried to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Parks, yards and other softscape areas will be landscaped with native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native materials and tree species to re-establish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site, thereby complying with this recommendation. Vehicular Circulation ® Roads in new developments should be integrated into the existing roadway network. Individual isolated cul-de-sacs should be avoided. The development would provide a single dual-access drive from North Road and an internal private driveway with a circular traffic pattern. An emergency access would also be provided to North Road. Thus, the proposed development would comply with this recommendation. 202 Infrastructure 0 Drainage and stormwater runoff should be handled by each site and not permitted to flow off the specific site onto public "right of ways,"[sic] or towards protected/wetlands type properties. Drainage and stormwater runoff engineering shall be emphasized in site development and design and shall conform to NYSDEC Phase II requirements. Possibly consider natural and permeable surfaces for stormwater. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. The two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. Furthermore, runoff is not anticipated to flow off-site onto public-rights-of-way or wetlands. Maintenance ® Greenport West's scenic vistas are one of the hamlets most important attributes. These vistas must be maintained. Litter must be removed, trees pruned,fences mended, etc. The subject property is located along C.R. 48, which is the only area where views are publicly available. The area of this site has not been designated as a scenic vista. With the exception of the access and emergency access drives, the frontage of the property will be landscaped. Any litter currently encountered along the property frontage will be removed, and, upon development, the entire Northwind Village community will be properly maintained by a homeowners association. Housing ® A new HALO zone is recommended that permits a variety of dwelling types as of right, including detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, townhouses, garden apartments, multi fancily dwellings, and accessory apartments. 203 The subject property is zoned HD and, at the time of the Hamlet Plan's adoption, was shown as being located within the Greenport West HALO Zone. However, the adopted HALO Zone does not include the subject property. Therefore, the Town of Southold did not follow its own recommendation since it did not place the subject property within the Greenport HALO zone. The proposed development involves the construction of a 128- unit multi-family development, 64 of which would be workforce units. The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning tip to '/ acre (I dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area). To promote affordable housing, densities of zip to 118 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available. As noted above, the subject site has not been included in the adopted Greenport HALO Zone, although recommendation for such inclusion was made in the Hamlet Study. However, the proposal was developed at the time the site was included with the proposed Greenport West HALO Zone. The proposed development involves the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units of which 64 will be designated as workforce units. A density of up to one-eighth acre would allow for approximately 137 units to be constructed on the 17.19:L-acre parcel. As such, the construction of 128 units, of which 64 would be affordable, would be consistent with this recommendation. The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town. The proposed development will provide a mix of market-rate and workforce housing units. As, such, the proposed development will contribute to the addition of affordable housing stock within Greenport, one of the hamlets included in the study. One specific site has been identified for worl�fbrce housing in the Greenport West HALO zone as of this point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 and Main Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). 204 The aforementioned 4.7-acre property has not been developed with any housing. The subject property is approximate 17.19± acres and, at the time of the Hamlet Plan's publication, was located within the Greenport West HALO zone, along the south side of C.R. 48. The proposal provides an alternative property along C.R. 48 capable of accommodating workforce housing units. Open Space Preservation ® The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries. Although not within the Greenport HALO Zone, even though this area was recommended for such designation in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study, the proposed multi-family residential development on the subject property would provide residential development while promoting the preservation of open space, by clustering the units away from the wetlands and some of the forested area on the property. ® Preservation of open spaces is a priority as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Hamlet. The proposed development will preserve approximately 10.54 acres of land adjacent to Moore's Woods,including 3.93 acres of inland wetland. ® The hamlet's sensitive wetland resources must be protected and preserved. The proposed development would preserve the entire 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands, including the area within 100-feet of any wetland which would remain undisturbed. As such,the development will protect wetland resources. 205 Community Preservation Prosect Plan (2006 Update) The 2006 CPPP, adopted by the Town Board on January 31, 2006, provides an update to the List of Eligible Parcels known as the January 31, 2006 List of Eligible Parcels. The list replaced the 2003 and March 2005 Updates. The 2006 CPPP indicates the text remains as originally adopted with the exception of the January 31, 2006 List of Eligible Parcels, etc. The subject parcel is shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels and classified under Classification Code A and B (open space, including agricultural lands and parks, nature preserves, recreation areas). The Town of Southold has not approached the landowner to discuss preservation of the subject parcel. It is the intention of the landowner to develop the subject property as proposed. Housing Implementation Plan 2007 An analysis of the proposed development with the relevant goals of the Implementation Plan, follows: ® Promote a diversity of housing stock of rentals and home ownership to address the need for affordable housing throughout the Town of Southold. The proposed development would provide 64 workforce housing units as well as 64 market-rate available f6r homeownership. The workforce units will contain from one-to- three bedrooms, and range in size from 850 square feet to 1,350 square feet. Thus, the proposed project complies with this goal. • Identify potential locations for affordable housing sites within existing buildings and unimproved lots for new construction. N6 The subject property is a vacant, unimproved lot located along a County road, which contains both sewer and water infrastructure. Due to its location and its existing infrastructure, the subject property is an appropriate location for the creation of affordable housing units. ® Assess and monitor the need of affordable housing. As previously noted, the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment June 2005, identifies the need for affordable housing within the Town of Southold. In order to fulfill a portion of this need, the proposed development would provide 64 workforce housing units. ® Encourage the implementation of design standards for affordable housing that will foster energy efficiency. Several sustainable design elements would be integrated into to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. Energy Star appliances would be specified for the proposed residential units. Also, the buildings would be sufficiently insulated, and energy-efficient windows would be specified. In addition, the proposed development includes Smart Growth aspects such as compact building sizes, a range of housing opportunities. The design of the development also preserves open space and natural resources. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEER-Neighborhood Development certification from the USGBC.1 As indicated in Section 4.4.1 of this DEIS, the proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED-Neighborhood Development certification. 17 USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development,("ND"). LEED-ND is currently only a pilot program that has specifically enrolled projects. 207 ® Ensure that a fair and transparent process determines the selection of qualified participants to avail affordable housing opportunities. As indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the Village of Greenport would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce unit in the development. Applications for the purchase of a unit by eligible individuals or families would be selected by lottery. However, it is understood by the applicant that priority may be determined based on the following or similar criteria, at the discretion of the Village, and subject to prevailing regulations: 1. Live in the Greenport UFSD and work in the Town or the Village, and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village, or work as a uniformed police office in the Town of Southold Police Department; 2 Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 3. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport; 4. Live in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 5. Work in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; or 6. Have previously lived in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport. Furthermore, it is understood by the applicant that eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following or similar guidelines: 1. Meet income guidelines of less than 80 percent or 120 percent of the HUD AMI for the current year; 208 2. Able to secure a mortgage; 3. Agree to occupy the unit as a principal residence; 4. Be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent U.S. Resident; and 5. Agree to credit history and criminal background checks. ® Faster successful and stable housing tenure through education to landlords, tenants, and first-time homebuyers. As noted above, the Village would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce tout in the development and would inform them of opport ui ties and responsibilities of homeownership. ® Ensure that all affordable housing remains perpetually affordable. While the 64 workforce housing units would remain perpetually affordable, these units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions." As indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, these restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on priority and qualification requirements. 209 Summar v The comprehensive plans examined in this section have two major themes: (1) the preservation of open space/natural resources and the character of the area, and (2) the overwhelming need to provide housing.that is affordable to existing North Fork residents so that they can remain in the area. These two goals appear to be at odds, but the careful siting and planning of appropriate development can address both these objectives. It is the applicant's opinion that the location and design of the proposed development, which provides 64 workforce units meets both of the goals that have been expressed in the comprehensive plans that have been reviewed. The site's location on a major road that already contains some higher density residential development and lodging, its direct access to infrastructure (including municipal water and sewer facilities), and its proximity to the downtown area and the community's clustered layout, which has been designed to keep development away from the wetlands and forest areas, can achieve the disparate goals expressed throughout the aforementioned comprehensive plans. 4.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization flans Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan— Village of Greenport(1988) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Greenport LWRP "serves the Village of Greenport both as a statement of overall planning and development policy" consistent with the objectives of the New York State Coastal Management Program. The existing land use pattern within the Village contains five general land use categories; marine commercial, retail commercial, general commercial, open space; and residential which, "have been established for sometime" and to ensure the compatibility of future development with the existing land use i pattern, the proposed land use plan presented in the LWRP will continue to follow the existing land use pattern within the Village. Although the subject site is currently not located within the Village, should annexation occur, the property would be located within the Village's coastal zone. Analysis assuming this condition is provided herein. 210 Inventory and Analysis The inventory divides the Villages waterfront into three waterfront areas (Waterfront Areas 1, 2, and 3) as shown on Map 4 of the LWR_P and identifies the land uses within each Waterfront Area. Although located inland from the three waterfront areas, north of Moore's Woods, the subject property is zoned HD. As previously indicated, annexation of the subject property and development as proposed would requires the property's zoning designation change from Southold's HD to R-2. As such, the proposed action would most closely follow the land use pattern in the Waterfront Area 3, which includes two high-density residential uses. With the exception of Moore'sWoods, which divides the subject property from the R-2 Zoning District, implementation of the proposed action would continue to follow the, zoning pattern within Greenport. In addition, the Greenport LWR_P indicates that non-water dependent uses, such as retail shops and high-density residential uses, are competing for the limited waterfront property. The Greenport LW-U states "there is little vacant land that is privately owned suitable for new commercial or residential development." The proposed action would utilize a privately-owned vacant property, not located along the waterfront, for residential development. As such, the proposed action would not cause competition between water-dependent use's and high-density residential uses. Section III of the LWU outlines the forty-four waterfront revitalization program policies, which support the land use plan for the Village as presented in Section IV of the Greenport LWU. A consistency analysis with the policies from Section III of the Greenport LWRP follows: Development Policies Policy I- Restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial and industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible uses. 211 Policy 1,4- Revitalize Greenport's Waterfront Area by redeveloping deteriorated/underutilized properties and buildings for appropriate commercial and recreational uses. As the proposed development is not located within a Waterfront Area, the above policies are not applicable to the proposed development. Fish and Wildlife Policies Policy 8 - Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which, bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. The proposed residential development is not located along the coast. Nevertheless it is not expected to produce hazardous waste or other pollutants. Flooding and Erosion Policies Policy 11- Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. As the subject property is not located with a flood hazard area, the above criterion would not be applicable to the proposed development. However, a Preliminary SWPP has been developed (and a Final SWPP will be prepared) to address potential erosion concerns. In addition, a Stormwater Management System has been designed to handle and recharge stormwater runoff on-site. Furthermore, as the subject property is not located with a Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zones V4, V5 and V7) the criterion associated with development in such areas would not be applicable to the proposed development. 212 Policy 12 - Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and bluffs. Primary dunes will be protected from all encroachments that could impair their natural protective capacity. The Greenport LWRP delineates the coastal area as coincident with the inland municipal boundary of the Village. As previously noted, since the subject property is not currently within the Village of Greenport, it is not within the Greenport coastal area. If the requested annexation were to occur, the property would be situated within the Greenport coastal area. The proposed development will preserve approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands, which would remain undisturbed along with the 100-foot adjacent area. In addition, the subject property is located inland from the waterfront and natural resources such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and bluffs, and is separated from such by C.R. 48 and development to the north of this roadway. See the discussion under Policy 11 regarding erosion control and stormwater management. Overall, the proposed development would conform to this policy regarding minimization of damage to natural resources and property. Policy 14 - Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in Erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. In order to reduce losses from flooding and erosion all development and laud use activity in the Village of Greenport shall: --not pose a threat to the public's health safety, and welfare by having the potential to increase damage caused by flooding and/or erosion. -- not significantly alter coastal hazard areas or alter coastal hazard areas or alter beach areas, tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, water courses, and drainage swales found in the Village's waterfront areas so that their ability to accommodate and channel storm water runoff and flood waters is decreased; 213 --fill, grade or dredge, to any extent which may increase flood damage; or -- create flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or increase flood hazards in other areas. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. In addition, the two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. A Preliminary SWPPP indicating the use of erosion and sedimentation control measures is included in Appendix G of this MIS and discussion in Section 4.2. Furthermore, the proposed development will preserve the approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands. Based upon the proposed project's compliance with the Phase II requirements and the design of the stormwater system, which includes on-site recharge, flooding is not anticipated to occur both during and after construction. Thus, the proposed development complies with this policy. General Policy Policy 18- To safeguard the vital ecologic, social and environmental interest of the state and its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give fidl consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the state has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas. The proposed residential development involves the installation of an on-site drainage system to contain the runoff from two-inch rain event or ten-year storm. In addition, the development preserves the approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands and adjacent area and additional forested land adjacent to Moore's Woods. In addition, by providing 128 residential units, 64 of which would be workforce units, the proposed development achieves the goal of protecting the social interest of the area by providing affordable housing for area residents. 214 Overall, the proposed project, by providing affordable housing, while protecting the site's wetlands and forested areas, complies with the goals of safeguarding the ecological, environmental and social interests of the area's citizens. Historic and Scenic Resources Policies Policy 23- Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of the State, its communities or the Nation. As indicated in Section 3.7.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered on the site. Furthermore, there are no adjacent structures, districts, areas or sites that have been identified as having cultural significance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on historic and scenic resources. Water and Air Resources Policies Policy 33- Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two inches, through the use of dlywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. In addition, the two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared and a Final SWPPP will be development in order to address stormwater runoff. i No stormwater would run off into coastal waters and no combined sewers are proposed for this site, thereby complying with this policy. 215 Policy 37- Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters. The predominant soil groups on the site, are described as having only slight erosion potential. In addition, the slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential, and detailed SWPPP will be an integral part of the final development plans. Erosion and sediment control measures will include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Based upon the characteristics of the existing soil and the proposed implementation of erosion and sediment control measures,the potential for eroded soils to occur is minimal. In addition, sanitary sewage effluent would not be discharged on-site. Sewage will be pumped to the sewer mains within C.R. 48. This sewage effluent will be conveyed to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant, where it will be treated before release into coastal waters, as permitted by the NYSDEC. Finally, since there would be no direct discharge of either stormwater runoff or sewage effluent to coastal water from the subject property, the proposed development would comply with this policy. Policy 38- The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. As previously discussed, stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on- site. As such, the site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. The two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. In addition,the proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to the existing municipal water and sewer facilities. 216 Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. Further, no irrigation is proposed as part of the action. Thus, irnplementation of the proposed action would not require the pennitting,regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells. Moreover, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be implemented both during and construction and post development. Minimal use of fertilizers to maintain vegetation is expected. Therefore, based upon the design of the project, the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater supplies would be protected. Policy 39- The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes,particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources. Solid waste generated by the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by private carters to licensed facilities. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with applicable requirements..' The proposed action would.be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Furthermore, the disposal of hazardous wastes within this residential development is not anticipated. As such, no significant impacts on groundwater and surface water supplies, sigiuficant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with this policy. 217 Policy 43- Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursor: nitrates and sulfates. The proposed development involves the connection to the municipal sewer system. As such, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. In addition, the development would result in the controlled application of turf fertilizers. Best management practices would be followed in the application of fertilizers and pesticides, which would be used only if determined necessary. As such, the proposed development would not result in the generation of significant.amounts of nitrates and sulfates. Policy 44-Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The site contains approximately 3.93 acres of freshwater wetlands. The proposed development has been designed with the dwelling units located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. All of the wetlands,as well as a 100-foot-wide buffer around the wetlands, would be preserved. No disturbance would occur seaward of the 100-foot-wide wetland boundary. In addition, the stormwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to acconnnodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stonnwater drainage system will prevent the transport of storinwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Therefore, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property, and the benefits derived from such wetlands, would be protected based upon the design of the proposed development. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the Greenport LWRP. Local Waterfront Revitalization.flan— Town offouthold As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, The subject property is located in a developed coast area. Section III of the Southold LWRP outlines three central policies, under the Developed Coast category, from which standards are derived. These policies implement the New York State Department of State coastal policies, and represent a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies. 218 A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the policies of Southold's Developed Coast category follows: Developed Coast Policies: 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, malces beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. . The proposed action includes the development of a vacant, residentially-zoned, privately-owned property. As indicated in Section 3.4 of this DEIS, the subject site is not located directly in a coastal area, it is separated from coastal waters by both development and C.R. 48. The proposed layout maintains 6.61± acres of the existing native vegetation and protects the 3.93 acres of wetlands on the site, as well as the 100-foot adjacent area. In total, 10.54 acres of land would remain undisturbed of which 7.54 acres are located adjacent to Moore's Woods. In addition, another, 2.51 acres of vegetation would be planted. As such, native vegetation would be preserved and native species replanted. Thus, the proposed action would generally maintain the ecological character and preserve a significant amount of open space. Infrastructure for the proposed development is located proximate to the subject site. The SCWA has confirmed water mains in the surrounding roadways and the available to supply the projected volumes of water. Also, the Greenport Sewer District has sewer mains in C.R. 48 that are proposed to serve the site. Greenport has expressed its ability to collect and treat sewage effluent generated by this site. Thus, the proposed action makes efficient use of the existing infrastructure. As the subject property is residentially zoned, the proposed action would make beneficial use of the existing property by providing both market-rate and affordable workforce housing. As the site is not located directly on the coast, it would not hinder development of water-dependent or water-enhanced uses. 219 Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with the above policy. 2. Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. As indicated in the Southold LWRP, there are no properties listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places in Reach 6, in which the subject property is located. A more detailed discussion of Reach 6 is contained below. Furthermore, a site specific survey found no historic or prehistoric resources. As such, the proposed action would have no affect on historic resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this criterion. 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. The proposed development would be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the front yard property boundary and screened by landscaping. The proposed parking would be screened from view by the proposed residences. The proposed on-site vegetation is expected to include native species to preserve the natural wooded appearance, while enhancing the site's appearance with varied landscaping treatments. In addition, 10.54± acres of natural woodland vegetation and wetlands would be maintained, in order to retain existing scenic resources. The scenic quality of the subject property would change upon the residential development of the property whether under the existing HD Zoning within Southold or under the proposed R-2 zoning within Greenport. 220 Given the location of the site on North Road, the proposed development of the site would impact the visual quality of the site. However, installation of landscaping, appropriate siting of structures and retention of much of the natural vegetation and wetlands on site will preserve some of the existing character, while providing much needed housing (especially workforce housing) in the area. Reach Analysis As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Town of Southold LWRP has divided the lands within the Town into 10 distinct "Reaches." The subject property is located within Reach 6, whose coastal boundaries are from the Village of Greenport's western border at Fanning Point southward to Town Creek Pipes Cove, Southold Bay and Shelter Island Sound. The northern extent of Reach 6 nuns along C. R. 48 with land to the north of this road located in Reach 3. The eastern boundary of Reach 6 runs from Famling Point north along the Town's border with the Village of Greenport's to North Street where the boundary line shifts to the west along North Street to its junction with Moore's Lane. At Moore's Lane, the boundary shifts to the north to the Lane's junction with C.R. 48 whereupon it runs in a westerly direction to Youngs Avenue in Southold. The western boundary of Reach runs south along Youngs (Railroad) Avenue from its intersection with C.R. 48 south to S.R. 25, then east along S.R. 25 to Hobart Road, then south along Hobart Road out to Southold Bay. The Southold LW" identifies the predominant land uses within Reach 6 as being medium density residential uses, followed by agricultural, resort residential, and vacant lands. Other uses include marine commercial uses, hamlet business resort, seasonal residential development and institutional uses. 221 In the section Agricultural Protection, the Reach 6 analysis identifies areas of existing agricultural land still in production and areas subject to development pressure. The Southold LWRP also indicates the land that had been cultivated or used for dairy or horse breeding farms within the Reach has reverted to fields, meadows and woods. According to the Southold LWRP, as some of this land is "on (or adjacent to) the waters of Hashomomuck Pond and Southold Bay, the potential for this land to be subdivided into residential communities is enormous." hi addition, the Southold LWRP suggests that although this land may be needed to absorb additional residential growth, this agricultural land has significant potential to act as a visual and physical boundary that buffers the hamlet of Southold from the marina operations to the east as there is limited amounts of protected open space within Reach 6. The subject site is not used for agricultural purposes. As indicated in Section 4.5.4 of this DEIS, the SCWA has confirmed the availability of water, and Cameron Engineering has confirmed the available capacity of the municipal sewer infrastructure and the sewage treatment plant to accommodate the proposed development (see Appendices J and M). According to the Southold LWRP, development trends show a shift of land from agricultural use to residential development. The Master Plan Update, cited within the LWRP,proposes the future pattern of land use encourage residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets. Further, the Master Plan Update proposed lower residential densities in the remainder of the Town, specifically in agricultural and coastal areas. The LWRP "seeks to advance these land use goals with particular emphasis on ensuring that local residents who work in the Town are not priced out of the housing market." 222 As noted in Section 4.4.4, above, the Southold LVYrRP recognizes the competing goals of maintaining open space and rural character, while providing affordable housing for Town residents. However, reducing residential densities cam-lot advance the goal of providing and maintaining affordable housing. Concentrating multi-family developments on a few parcels, while preserving the open space and natural resource characteristics of these parcels would assist in providing a compromise in meeting these disparate, but equally important, goals. The proposed Northwind Village residential development strives to achieve these objectives. 223 4.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.5.1 Public Schools The intended market of the proposed development is current and previous residents of the Town and the Village, particularly working individuals and families who have been forced to move away or live in inadequate conditions due to rising home prices and the insufficient supply and variety of housing. As noted, 50 percent of units in the proposed development would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project will be young individuals or families looking for their first home. It is anticipated that the limited size of the units would constrain potential household size and, thus, the number of school-age children generated. Furthermore, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living within the Greenport UFSD. As previously noted, the subject site lies within the Greenport UFSD. The proposed annexation would not change this status. The following school-aged children projections assume 100 percent enrollment in the public school system,representing a worst-case scenario. 224 School-Aff,ed Children Projections Given the composition of the unit types, sizes, intended market, and purchase restrictions, an estimate of the number of school-age children generated by the project can be developed. To estimate the potential impact of the proposed project on the Greenport UFSD, coefficients for the number of school-age children generated by housing of different prices, types, and sizes were determined using three sources. The first set of estimates was developed using a 2006 report of residential demographic multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University (the "Rutgers Study). The multipliers created by the Rutgers Study are widely-accepted and utilized in school,impact analyses. The second source is actual enrollment statistics from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ("NCES") for the Greenport UFSD. Custom multipliers were generated using actual enrollment, demographic, and housing statistics for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000. The third source for estimating school-age children generated by the proposed development are multipliers utilized by the Town of Southold in its own calculations included in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("CIS/FGEIS"), dated August 2003. For buildings of five or more units, the Rutgers Study found that a one-bedroom unit selling between $164,500 and $269,500 generated 0.19 school-age children per -unit. Similarly, the Rutgers Study found 0.19 school-age children per unit for each two-bedroom unit in buildings of five or more units selling for between $135,000 and $329,500 per unit. Three-bedroom units in buildings with five or more units produced 0.59 school-age children per unit. Finally, four- bedroom attached single-family homes generated 1.19 school-age children per unit.18 18 The Rutgers Study includes all prices ranges for three-bedroom units in buildings of five or more units and for four-bedroom attached single-family homes in its school-age children multiplier estimates. 225 The NCES data for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000 (latest available) indicates a total enrollment of 620 students from 2,500 housing units within the District boundaries. Therefore, the overall number of school-age children generated per housing unit in the Greenport UFSD was 0.25. Disaggregating the data by number of bedrooms per housing unit, the NCES.data indicate that a one-bedroom unit generated 0.11 school-age children, a two-bedroom unit generated 0.17 school-age children, a three-bedroom unit generated 0.27 school-age children, and a four-bedroom unit generated 0.49 school-age children. In the Town of Southold CIS/FGEIS (August 2003), the Town utilized multipliers for school-age children generated per housing unit based on number of bedrooms and unit type (single-family, townhouse, or apartment). The number of school-age children generated per unit in townhouses is 0.033 for one-bedroom units, 0.168 for two-bedroom units, and 0.532 for three-bedroom units. For comparison, the number of school-age children generated by a four-bedroom single-family home is 1.328. The three sets of multipliers utilized for this analysis (The Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold CIS/FGEIS) are summarized in Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 below: Table 14-Rutgers Study Demographic Multipliers School"Age .,No. of Sales Prke No. of UnitsCh.ildiren:. Bedrooms Range of:Unit. in Building Generated Per.Unit $164,500 to 5+ 0.19 $269,500 2 $135,000 to 5+ 0.19 $329,500 3 All 5+ :E 0.59 4 All Attached Single-Family 1 1.19 Source: Burchell, Robert W. et al. 2006. Residential Demographic Multipliers Estimates of the Occupants of New Housing - New York New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 226 Table 15—NCES Demographic Multipliers No, of School-Age Children Bedrooms, Generated Per Unit 1 0.11 2 0.17 3 0.27 4 0.49 Source:U.S.Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics,Greenport School District; Author's calculations. 'fable 16—Tow of Southold Demographic Multipliers No. of Type of School-Age;Children bedrooms Unit Generated Per Unit 1 Townhouse 0.033 2 Townhouse 0.168 3 Townhouse 0.532 4 Single-Family 1.328 Source:Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement,August 2003. The estimated number of school-age children generated by the proposed development, based on the multipliers from the Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold is 52, 26, and 42, respectively. Therefore, the average estimate of school-age children generated by the proposed project based on all the three sources is 40 students. All of these figures assume that 100 percent of the school children generated would attend public schools. 227 It is important to compare the impact of the proposed project with what could be built on the site as-of-right under current zoning. The parcel is currently zoned Hamlet Density in the Town of Southold which allows a residential density of four units per acre. This density translates to an allowable as-of-right yield of 50 units, as will be discussed.in Section 7.3 of this DEIS. It can be assumed that the lower density of the as-of-right project would facilitate the development of four-bedroom detached single-family homes. Using the above analysis techniques, the Hamlet Density as-of-right project would generate between 25 and 66 school-age children, based on the three sources of multipliers. A comparison of the estimated school-age children generated by the proposed project, the alternative 108-unit project (see discussion in Section 7.2 of this DEIS), and the 50-unit, as-of-right project is provided in Table 17 below: Table 17—Estimates of School-Aged Children Generated . LACES RutgersTown of Greenport Southold Average, Alternative Study ' UFSD Cl/FGE1S Proposed Project 52 26 42 40 108-Unit 51 25 44 40 Alternative 50-Unit As-of- 60 25 66 50 Right Alternative The results presented in Table 17 indicate that the proposed development will generate fewer school-age children than if the site were developed according to its current, as-of-right zoning. According to the Rutgers Study multipliers, the proposed development would produce 52 school- age children, while the as-of-right alternative would generate 60 school-age children. Using the NOES data multipliers, the proposed project would generate 26 school-aged children and the as- of-right alternative project would generate 25 school-aged children. Applying the standards utilized by the Town of Southold in its CIS/FGEIS the proposed project would generate 42 school aged-children and the as-of-right alternative project would produce 66 school-aged children. 228 Capacity There has been some question as to the current functional capacity of the Greenport UFSD. Although the stated capacity is 1,100 students, current New York State Education Department ("NYSED") regulations may have reduced the functional capacity of the school. However, given the stated capacity and 2006-07 total enrollment figures, the school is currently under- utilized as defined by NYSED. Based. on these figures, the school could accommodate an additional 439 students. To begin to gauge the impact of potential additional enrollment, Table 18 presents several figures for the actual capacity of the school and room for additional enrollment: Table 18—Greenport School Capacity vs. Enrollment Current Enrollment (06-07) 661 661 1661 661 Capacity(functional) 1,100 990 880 770 Stated Capacity Adjustment 100% 90% 80% 70% Potential Additional Students 439 329 219 109 Source:NYSED EMSC Based upon Table 18, the figures suggest that even if the actual current functional capacity of the school were only 770 students, fully 30 percent less than the stated capacity of 1,100, the school would still be able to accommodate 109 new students. At the stated capacity, the school is able to accommodate 439 new students before reaching its capacity. In a conversation between the applicant and the Greenport Superintendent of Schools Dr. Charles Kozora on August 22, 2005, Dr. Kozora acknowledged that Greenport School has physical capacity for the proposed project. In fact, he noted that several secondary school classrooms are unused due to insufficient enrollment. 229 The analysis conducted above projects that between 26 and 52 school-age children may be generated by the proposed development. Using the highest value of this range and the 2006/07 student enrollment, the Greenport UFSD would have a total enrollment of only 713 students after the phased completion of the proposed project, which.is only 64.8 percent of the stated capacity of the District. Therefore, the Greenport School District has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the highest possible number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project. 4.5.2 Fire Protection The subject property is located within the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Cliff Harrison February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Fire Department. A follow-up letter was sent on July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Greenport -Fire Department recording secretary responded for Chief Harris via e-mail to the applicant (see Appendix P). The response verified the number of Department members, total number of calls responded to in 2007 and the receiving hospital for emergency care. The proposed annexation would not have an impact on fire, protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service. Furthermore, the Fire District would receive the increased property taxes generated by Northwind Village, which would be slightly higher than under the as-of—right development (see Section 2.5 of this DEIS, which indicates that higher overall taxes would be generated by the proposed action as compared to the as-of-right subdivision) . 230 To minimize the potential impacts to the Greenport Fire Department, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. All internal driveways would be designed for proper turning radii for all emergency service vehicles and an emergency access driveway will be constructed at the northeast corner of the subject property. All hallways and stairways would be of adequate width to accommodate emergency persomlel. Additionally, as indicated earlier in this DEIS, in correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA-confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action(see Appendix M). Overall, the proposed action (including annexation and development) is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. 4.5.3 Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Carlisle Cochran on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Police Department. Additional correspondence was submitted on July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Town of Southold Police Department has not provided information in response to the request. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Similar to the Fire District, the Police Department would receive increased property taxes to be generated by Northwind Village. Such taxes would be slightly higher than those produced by the as-of-right development (see Section 2.5 of this DEIS, which indicates that higher overall taxes would be generated by the proposed action as compared to the as-of-right subdivision) . 231 In order to mitigate the potential demand for police services, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. The design of the community is such that structures are located proximate to one another, which provides "de-facto" security for the proposed development. In addition, site lighting would be installed to adequately illuminate parking areas. As such, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. 4.5.4 Water Supply A water main traverses C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed development would be served by connecting to the water main, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCWA. As noted in Section-4-.2-of this DEIS, the proposed-development is expected to generate a demand for approximately 34,050 gpd in potable water. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property,based upon a projected demand of 38,400 gpd. The proposed action would require more potable water (34,050 gpd) than,the as-of-right development (15,000 gpd). However, as 50 single-family homes could be developed as part of current zoning, they could have 50 individual irrigation systems. Thus, the amount of water used by these systems could not be easily controlled. 4.5.5 Sewage Disposal Village sewer mains are located within C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Annexation of the property into the Village of Greenport would allow connection to the sewer lines. Connection allows the development to include a larger number of workforce units than would otherwise be feasible. Therefore, it is the intent of the applicant to extend the sewer lines into the property and to connect to the municipal sewer system. 232 Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP dated November 6, 2006, indicated that Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to handle the estimated sewage flow (see Appendix J). This was confinned by Jack Naylor of the Greenport Department of Utilities. In a telephone conversation of July 17, 2008, Mr. Naylor indicated that only about one-half of the sewage treatment plant's capacity was currently used. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to serve the subject property. 4.5.6 Solid Waste It is estimated that the proposed development would generate approximately 15.3± tons of solid waste per month, based on 2.25 persons-per-household'9 and 3.5-pounds ("Ibs") per-capita-per- unit-per-d 20 There would be no change in the collection and disposal of solid waste due to the proposed annexation of the property from Southold into Greenport. Solid waste generated by the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by private carters at licensed facilities. It is expected that as-of-right development would generate 6.0± tons of solid waste per month, which would also be collected and disposed of by private carters. The incremental difference in quantity of solid waste generate between the two scenarios is approximately 9.3 tons of solid waste per month. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with Village requirements. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Thus, no significant impacts on the production and disposal of solid waste are anticipated. 19 U.S. Census Bureau,Census 2000 Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:2000, Geographic area: Greenport Village,New York 20 Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al. (John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003) 233 4.5.7 Energy Suppliers Iii a letter dated April 28, 2008, John M. Merill, New Construction Representative of KeySpan Energy, has indicated that KeySpan will supply natural gas service to the proposed development provided that all scheduled main reinforcements for the North Fork area are completed prior to the start of construction of the proposed action and in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required(see Appendix P). Steven Aylward, Design Section Manager, Electric and Design Construction at LIPA, responded to correspondence on M.ay 2, 2008, indicating that LIPA would provide electric service for the proposed project in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required(see Appendix P). Annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport would not change the status of the energy providers for the proposed project. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would require an increase in the use of natural gas and electricity. This incremental increase in natural. gas and electricity is expected to have only a minimal impact on the supply of natural gas and electricity in the area. 4.5.8 Recreation The proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, thus it is expected that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on existing area recreational facilities. It is anticipated that development of residences under the HD zoning district in the Town of Southold would allow for the provision of private on-site recreational facilities, which would provide on- site recreational facilities. 234 In addition, the subject property is adjacent to 300-plus acres of designated open space known as Moore's Woods, which is accessible to the public for passive recreation activities. The property is also located near Arshamonaque Preserve and is close to downtown Greenport and, thus, Mitchell Park and the waterfront facilities. Development of the proposed residential units is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on area recreational resources. 235 4.6 TRANSPORTATION As noted in Section 3.6, Dunn Engineering has prepared a TIS for the proposed development. The complete study is included as Appendix Q of this DEIS. The potential traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action are summarized herein. 4.6.1 Site Trip Generation Analysis Information on trip generation rates for residential condominiums is contained in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"). For the purposes of this investigation, the trips expected to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by utilizing ITE data for residential condominiums/townhouses (Land Use Code 230). Table 19 presents the results of this analysis. Table 19—Site-Generated Trips Weekday -y" . an, Saturday eak: our A M.Peak Hour rP.M: . Peak Hour Enter n er E Exit EEnter Enter XI Residential Condorniniums/Townhouses Land Use Code 230 11 52 50 24 43 37 (128 Units) As can be seen by Table 19, the proposed townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips are expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village residential community. 236 J 4.6.2 Directional Distribution Analysis and 'Traffic Assignment Analysis The directional distribution and traffic assignment analyses are included in Appendix Q of this DEIS. 4.6.3 Planned Roadway Improvements A review of the most recent five-year Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") revealed that there are no projects planned by the SCDPW that would affect North Road (C.R. 48) in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind Village project. 4.6.4 Other Planned Developments Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted with regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of this project to determine the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in this report. Discussions held with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold revealed that they are not aware of any other developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind residential community. 237 4.6.5 Intersection Capacity Analyses Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of vehicles to safely negotiate turning movements at the key locations noted below: © North Road(C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; 0 North Road(C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and ® North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. The unsignalized intersection capacity analyses were performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well as the Saturday midday peals hour. These intersection capacity analyses calculations were performed in accordance with the methodology set forth in the latest (2000) edition of the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM")using the most current version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). Utilizing this methodology, the unsignalized capacity analyses software (HCS+) analyzed the quantity, size and capacity of gaps in the traffic stream on North Road (C.R. 48). Methodology for capacity analyses of unsignalized intersections is contained in Appendix Q of this DEIS. Results Intersection capacity analyses were first conducted to examine the 2007 existing traffic conditions (2007 Existing Condition). This condition evaluates the traffic conditions at the site and adjacent study area intersections without the proposed condominium community development at present. Intersection capacity analyses were then calculated for the "2008 No-Build" condition. This examination projected the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village community. 238 The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the New York State Department of Transportation's LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. The traffic from the proposed Northwind Village development was then added to the predetermined 2008 "no build" traffic volumes and the capacity analyses was performed for the 2008 Build Condition using the resulting 2008 Build traffic volume totals. Summaries of the results of the unsignalized capacity analyses are contained in Table 20, Table ,21, and Table 22 below. 239 cd m <C Q w tC Q r ter m; y CU 4;o", 00 cc N kn 06 DO N yy cn y H ,N In 61 O CP1 00 N ycoN 00 N tj CID 6: o a cn o ��" ani �^� n 'C o R. obi co M o a m ' Cl pr cn Cl cq O C Q^ N 00 O hrn o 00 rn oo N aCD ON t— N N [ N bA G 0 Cd co 4.H Cp H H F— . o co s o Cj ° 0 i t0 U �✓ U 3.4 GqCI 00 d PQ a d w d as d rn CC :, o U N �Gl W d' Cd d.�.. r1' .GAA..,v �,,: DO c,6 eG.! 06 kn �o 't�t E-i: v, oo 4�4 Ln 4-4at 4 C ON at d V �.a pa - C Q P r M CU d- � N d- M. i ,d M M Q: M M C r! M O y c�. rA as co u u u o d O �t O rt EA od aio cli o ° o o cd 4* 41 ° o ° o d�' pa � 'b c -dEn 0 0 at U0 u H " 00 d ai cl N . tn bA °�. 0Q N .Q M (10 rA ro Nt N 4Ni N rA 00 00 CL < r l7 .-N v It - M OJ CN 00 tn 00 p vii o00 O Q 0�o N i-. Q N t� M00 tn 00 kn d bA �CA CIS Cd Cd O � � 0. ° ccj r 0 (1) b b b b U 0 0 0 0 U The results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses performed indicate that the traffic due to the proposed Northwind Village condominium community development will have no significant impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. All of the unsignalized intersections studied continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during all three peak time-periods studied and increases in delay due to the North Wind development are slight. Although the results indicate a decrease in LOS from B to C from the 2008 No-Build Condition to the 2008 Build Condition for the northbound combined left turii/right turn lane at the North Road at Moores Lane intersection, the delay experienced by drivers in this land will. only be increased by an average of 0.6 seconds per vehicle. The No-Build LOS B delay was very close to the LOS B/LOS C delay threshold of 15.0 seconds causing the minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. The operation of the proposed site driveway was found to be LOS B, C and C during the Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively. It is noted that all movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and traffic exiting the site do not cause any delay to thru traffic on North Road. 4.6.6 Access The proposed development will have a single access drive constructed on North Road. This access drive will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking should be installed. It is further recommended that, given the speeds on North Road, a westbound left turn lane be constructed for entering site traffic. While a shoulder on the north side of the roadway exists on North Road it is narrow (five feet) and constructed of asphalt adjacent to through lanes constructed of concrete panels. The shoulder's narrow width and uneven surface causes difficulties for westbound through vehicles in passing vehicles stopped to make a left turn. Installation of a westbound left turn lane eliminates this condition and provides an added level of safety. 243 In addition, an emergency access would be installed in the northeastern portion of the property, in order to enhance the safety of the development. 4.6.7 Grades and Sight Distances West of the sight there exists a horizontal curve on North Road with the road's alignment curving south as it heads west. To ensure no sight distance problems at the proposed site access point, field sight ght distance movements were performed. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 is 50 mph. The sight distance available from the site driveway was measured according to the procedures set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") publication "A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004." This AASHTO publication is the recognized national standard for roadway geometrics. The sight distance measurements indicate an available sight distance to the cast of over 1,000 feet and an available sight distance to the west of approximately 685 feet. The factor limiting sight lines to the west is roadside vegetation on the south side of North Road. With some minor clearing of vegetation, sight distance to the west can be increased to approximately 800 feet. In comparing the field measurements to published standards there are two criteria of concern; Intersection Sight Distance ("ISD") and Stopping Sight Distance ("SSD"). Intersection sight distance criteria are intended to allow 9 stopped vehicle entering the roadway a sufficient view of the intersecting roadway to allow the driver adequate time to evaluate and decide when to enter the highway. Adequate ISD allows an entering vehicle to perform the entering maneuver without a major disruption to the traffic stream in that vehicles on the roadway already will not have to significantly adjust their speed as the vehicle from the side road enters. SSD is a more fundamental safety requirement as it represents the minimum distance that a driver on the main road must see in order to be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with an object or other vehicle. 244 "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" states the following: If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions. However, in some cases, this may require a major-road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor-road vehicle. To enhance traffic operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distance are desirable along the major road Information on recommended minimum sight distances is contained in "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," 2004 by AASHTO. The key ISD criterion in this case is related to the left-turn-out of the driveway. Table 23—Site Distance Criteria Design Speed: Stopping Sight Distance Intersection Sight. . (lPH)' (SSD , Distance SSD)TTEL 50 425 555 55 495 610 60 570 665 65 645 720 70 730 775 Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets",AASHTO 2004. As can be seen from Table 23, sight distance from the proposed site driveway to the west exceeds both the required SSD and desirable ISD for design speeds over 60 mph. With minor clearing the desirable ISD for design speeds over 70 mph will be achieved. As the speed limit on North Road in this vicinity is 50 mph, design speeds approaching 70 mph will not be present. The design speed, or 85111 percentile speed, although typically higher than the speed limit will not approach 70 mph. It is recommended that vegetation along the south side of North Road in the vicinity of the horizontal curve be trimmed back to the right-of-way line. With this improvement sight distance from the site access will be maximized. As a result, no sight distance restrictions will exist on North Road in the vicinity of the site. 245 4.6.8 Parking The Preliminary Alignment Plan prepared for Northwind Village indicates parking provided at a rate meeting Village of Greenport Code requirements as follows: 1.5 spaces per unit x 128 units = 192 spaces required The Preliniinaiy Alignment Plan contains 192 spaces,meeting Village Code requirements. 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation Given the location and nature of the proposed Northwind Village,residential community to the commercial districts of Greenport and Southold, it is likely that some portion of the residents will be employed at nearby businesses in both Greenport and Southold. Some residents may opt to carpool or choose alternative means of transportation (bicycle) to travel to work and back home. In this study, no credit was applied for use of any alternate means of transportation, and the traffic destined to and from the proposed Northwind Village was based on the use of passenger cars only. However, high potential for carpooling and/or alternative means of transportation by Northwind Village residents would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the site on the surrounding roadway network. As noted in Section 3.6, Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, since the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane, it is questionable whether many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. 246 However, the developer of Northwind Village is proposing to explore the establishment of a private shuttle service in conjunction with the homeowners association. This service could potentially provide transportation to downtown Greenport as well as to other local destinations. 4.6.10 Construction Traffic Impacts It is.anticipated that the construction of Northwind Village would occur over three phases. Phase I would include the construction of all roads, utilities and site drainage, a portion of the lighting and landscaping. Forty-eight -units will be constructed in Phase I. It is during this ten-month phase that the majority of the earthwork would occur and construction truck traffic would commence. Phase II includes the construction of an additional 40 units and is anticipated to last seven months. At the completion of Phase II, the vast majority of heavy site work would be complete. Phase III would follow with the final 40 units and construction traffic would be expected to be at its lightest. A consideration in any construction operation is the removal of excess soil materials in grading the site. In this case, approximately 3,000-cubic yards of excess material would be removed, the majority of which would occur during Phase I. This translates to an approximate total of 150 truck trips (at an average of 20-cubic yards each) over a period of 24 months. As North Road in the vicinity of the site is a truck route and North Road has no restrictions in place, these trucks would use North Road and would not impact secondary roadways. Although the final disposition of the removed material is not known at this early stage, it would most likely be to the west. It is expected that other construction vehicles as well as workers' private vehicles would arrive daily with the majority from the west, based on the site's location. The logical route would be via North Road from the east or the west as it is less congested than Main Road. As noted above, this roadway does not have any restrictions which would impact construction vehicles. As the site fronts only on North Road, no constriction vehicles are expected to utilize any of the secondary or residential roadways in the Village. 247 All construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles would be parked on-site during construction activity. 4.6.11 Conclusions According to Dunn Engineering's analysis, the development of Northwind Village will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development will not significantly disrupt the traffic flow on the adjacent roadway network and will not create undue traffic congestion. Although the proposed development will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be at minimal. The proposed development will provide safe traffic operations for the residents and guests of the Northwind Village. In summary: 1. Although the site will generate additional traffic, this traffic can be adequately handled by the existing highway network, the proposed access location, and the internal layout; 2. The access plan for the site has been designed to adequately provide for the estimated traffic flow from the adjacent roadways so as to assure the public safety and minimize traffic congestion; 3. The single dual-access point proposed on North Road will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking would be installed at the site exit; 4. A westbound left-turn-lane would be constructed on North Road for entering site traffic; 248 5. It is recommended that vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access be cut back to the right-of-way .lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate; 6. The proposed 128 unit residential townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips can be expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village; 7. Discussion with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold indicated that no other developments are currently planned for the immediate area surrounding the site; 8. The latest Nassau—Suffolk Transportation Improvement Program does not list any projects involving the reconstruction and improvement of roadways serving the proposed development prior to its expected completion; 9. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the subject site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the subject site, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not have a significant effect on existing Suffolk Transit bus service; 10. Intersection capacity analyses revealed that the existing highway and street network will be able to handle the increase in traffic flow attributed to the proposed development without significant increases in delay; 11. The proposed parking for the Northwind Village meets Village Code requirements; 249 12. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the police and the proximity of the firehouse, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are available to service the site. Furthermore, an emergency access has been provided at the northeast corner of the site; 13. With the proposed well-designed access plan, more than adequate sight distance and the addition of a proposed westbound left-turn-lane into the site, it is expected that the proposed Northwind Village development will not lead to an undue increase of the rate of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site; and 14. The study and analysis have concluded that development of the proposed Northwind Village residential community will have no significant adverse traffic impact on the roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the site. 250 4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES As no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. 251 4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Final Scope for the proposed action in Appendix A, identifies several potential impacts associated with the proposed development which, when considered in the context of the community, local area, or region may have significant environmental impact. The following is a consistency analysis with each: ® The impact of the potable water supply requirements of the proposed action on the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork. As indicated in Section 2.4, the proposed includes connection to the municipal water and sewer systems. As such, the proposed development would not require an on-site well to supply potable water or an on-site sanitary disposal system. A letter of water availability from the SCWA, dated March 4, 2008, clearly indicates that this entity is able to and would supply water to the proposed development, without detriment to the water--supply source. Moreover, correspondence-ftom Stephen M. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the SCWA dated March 23, 2009 (see Appendix M), indicates that the water to be supplied to the proposed development will come from wells located on the North Fork. The SCWA indicates that the "water supplies are tested every five years in a comprehensive way with a thorough SEQRA analysis." Testing data from the SCWA (including the DGEIS and SEQRA Findings Statement) for the Five Year Water Supply Plan Update) are contained in Appendix M of this DEIS. The correspondence indicates that the NYSDEC issues well permits to the SCWA based on a capped maximum gallons per minute, and the SCWA is required to provide a complete analysis of any potential problems that might occur from pumping (see Appendix M). The peak amounts are used in computations to determine if a peak demand is approaching. The correspondence further indicates that wells are pumped "very lightly" and some only seasonally in order to reduce the potential for either salt water intrusion and/or infiltration of surface contaminants. The SCWA did not indicate that there would be any problems associated with such water supply. In 252 addition, the Greenport sewage treatment plan has sufficient capacity to handle the sanitary waste generated. Furthermore, the proposed development would collect and recharge all stormwater on-site, thereby increasing stormwater flow to the groundwater/aquifer. Thus, implementation-_of the proposed-action would not significantly impact the aquifer or the public water supply system. ® The impact of the wastewater generated by the proposed action, on either the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility or, if septic systems are installed, on the groundwater and groundwater-related surface water features in the project area such as Moore's Drain and its associated wetlands. As indicated in Section 2.4, the proposed action includes comiection to the municipal sewer and treatment facility, which has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated effluent. As such, the proposed-development would-not require installation of an on-site sanitary system to accommodate sanitary waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts from sanitary effluent generated by the proposed development on either groundwater or groundwater-related surface water features (i.e., Moore's Drain and associated wetlands). Moreover, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the Greenport sewage treatment plant, as the plant has sufficient capacity to handle to the sewage effluent expected to be generated by the proposed development. ® The possibility that the loss of about 17 acres of forested area resulting from the action may be an incremental reduction in the deep forest habitat provided by the approximately 300 acre Moore's Woods, habitat which is especially important to certain forest dwelling species. As indicated in Section 4.3 of this DEIS, no areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are proposed to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the 253 NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100-foot-wide buffer area, that will be preserved. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6±-acres), the magnitude of this impact is not expected to be .significant, as----no Federal- or State-protected species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e. oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). See Section 5.3 for proposed mitigation associated with minor impact. 254 5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY The nature and scope of the development will necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As the site is currently undeveloped, in order to minimize potential significant adverse impacts, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed will be protected; this includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot-wide buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property. In developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped, the grade will have a maximum slope of 1:3. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. All disturbed areas that are not planned to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Common green spaces and other softscape areas will be landscaped with low-maintenance, native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and upon implementation of the proposed action, a final SWPPP and N01 will be prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC to ensure stormwater is properly handled and impacts are mitigated. The significant features of the SWPPP are discussed in Section 5.2,below. 255 5.2 WATER RESOURCES In order to minimize the impact to water resources, a number of measures will be employed. The proposed development would be connected to both the public sewer and water systems. This will minimize the impact of potential sewage effluent impacting the subject property. As no potable water would be drawn from the property, there would be no localized draw-down on the property. In addition, stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged within the site in compliance with both local standards. and NYSDEC Phase 11 regulations. The recharge of stormwater on the site would assist in ensuring that the aquifer is replenished. As indicated above, prior to construction, a detailed SWPPP will be prepared and implemented to ensure that there will be no significant impacts to surrounding properties or roadways. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shown on the Preliminary SWPPP include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (including the use of hay bales and silt fencing), and installation of a stabilized construction entrance (see Section 4.2.4 and Appendix G for additional details). Finally, the proposed action would adhere, to'the maximum extent practicable, to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, the NURP Study, and the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook as well as the relevant prevailing regulations regarding the protection of surface and groundwater resources. 5.3 ECOLOGY Based upon the proposed development, there would be a permanent loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests. These ecological communities currently provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including songbirds, small mammals, and herpetiles. The impact of the loss of habitat on wildlife would be mitigated through the preservation of 10.9± acres of natural habitats consisting of successional hardwood forests and red maple hardwood swamps. 256 Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and shrubs, which provide shelter and food for wildlife. Furthermore, the proposed development would, where possible,preserve mature trees within the 6.6-acre building area. In order to avoid a potential loss,of box turtle habitat, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. The box turtle nesting site construction and maintenance will follow guidelines for creation of box turtle nesting habitat put forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2009). The nesting site will be located on the western portion of the project site as shown in Appendix N. The creation of box turtle nesting will include removal of tall, herbaceous vegetation and organic soil layer from a 400-square-foot area to expose native, sandy soils. This area will be an open sunny location without nearby trees and shrubs which would shade the nesting area. A thin layer (approximately three inches) of clean, washed sand will be spread on the nesting area. Maintenance will include inspection of the nesting site every two years to ensure that the sandy soil remains exposed. Herbaceous plants and shrubs taller than 24 inches in height would be removed from the nesting area and the soils lightly raked to remove accumulated plant material. Maintenance will be conducted in April prior to nesting of female box turtles to avoid potential disturbance to eggs. In order to minimize potential impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods, a 100-foot-wide buffer area has been established landward of the freshwater wetlands. In addition, a row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar(Juniperus virginiana) or white pine (Pinus strobus), will be planted along the perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. The dense foliage of these trees will serve to shade the new forest edge and will reduce potential perturbations to the microclimate of the forest and limit the spread of invasive plants into the woodlands. Finally, in order to minimize potential impacts to the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands and potential transport of sediments or other pollutants, the development will be connected to the municipal sewer services, which will prevent discharges of wastewater from septic systems to the watershed of the adjacent wetlands and will prevent the addition'of water to the hydrological budget of these wetlands. 257 In addition, the installation of a stormwater control system capable of collecting two inches of runoff from impervious road, roof, and walkway surfaces will minimize the potential transport of storinwater and pollutants (i.e., petroletun products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Moreover, the 100-foot-wide buffer area established landward of the freshwater wetlands will also serve to prevent transport of pollutants to the adjacent wetlands. 5.4 LAND USE,ZONING AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts, the following measures will be employed: ® Appropriate landscaping and lighting will be provided throughout the development in order to enhance the aesthetics and be compatible with existing community character; and ® As -described in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the proposed plan includes Smart Growth development aspects such as the clustering of units and the compact building sizes, which preserve open space and natural resources. 5.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES The potential impacts to the Greenport UFSD would be mitigated, as follows: ® By limiting unit sizes and incorporating a variety of unit types, the overall number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project will be much lower than if all four-bedroom detached single-family homes were built on the site; i ® Construction of the proposed project will be a phased process, occurring over approximately three years. This timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new students into the school system. 258 The 26 to 52 students that could be generated by the proposed project will be introduced over three years, which will result in less than 9 to 17 new students per year. Divided equally among the thirteen grades, this represents less than 1.5 new students per grade per year; and The workforce units will be sold based on a priority list to Southold and Greenport residents. It is likely that many of these residents have been living in substandard or overcrowded housing conditions and whose existing living accommodations, once vacated, will not be reoccupied. Therefore, many of the expected school children may already be enrolled in the School District and their former units would not be re-occupied by"new" school-aged children. The applicant will work with the Greenport Fire Department and the Southold Police Department in order to ensure that the design of the proposed development (including all interior roadways) meets the requirements of both departments. The two-story height limit would not increase the burden of the Fire Department, as two-story buildings already exist in its jurisdiction. In addition, the design of the development (with front porches, etc.) will allow neighbors to informally provide security for the community. Finally, the proposed development would have an emergency access, located as far as possible from the main access. This would ensure that if there is a problem either gaining access to or leaving the property through the main entrance, another access point(in a different location) would be available. 5.6 TRANSPORTATION The TIS prepared by Dunn Engineering examined the traffic-related implications of the proposed action. Methods of alleviating existing and projected traffic problems have been developed and presented in that study. Based on the traffic analyses performed by Dunn Engineering, the following actions would be implemented to enhance the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site and mitigate the effects of the additional site traffic: 259 0 Installation of a STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking at the intersection of the proposed access drive and North Road; ® Installation of a westbound left-tum-lane to be constructed for entering site traffic; ® Parking of all construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles on-site during construction activity; and ® Cut-back of vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access to the right-of-way lines,to increase sight distance to the west:. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate. 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES As no significant adverse impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary. II 260 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 6.1 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS There will be several construction-related impacts associated with the installation of the infrastructure and with the residential development that cannot be completely mitigated. These impacts are associated with the site preparation and development, including clearing and grading, excavation of foundations and installation of utilities. It is anticipated that these impacts will cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project. Specific impacts are identified below. ® Soils will be disturbed by grading, excavation and mounding activities during site development; ® Despite the use of extensive and strategically-placed erosion and sediment control measures, minor occurrences of erosion may occur; • There is the potential for minor releases of air contaminants that will occur from construction equipment and emissions of fugitive dust during dry periods, although II; fugitive dust will, for the most part,be controlled through the use of wetting and covering exposed areas with tarpaulins or the equivalent; ® Operation of construction equipment, tricks and construction worker vehicles may temporarily impact traffic in the area of the project site; ® The wildlife currently inhabiting the site would leave during the construction period, but many are expected to return upon completion of the construction phase; and ® Increases in noise levels at the site boundaries may result from construction activities. 261 6.2 LONG-TERM IMPACTS Long-term impacts associated with project implementation have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate most of these long-term adverse impacts. Those adverse long-term impacts which cannot be Rilly mitigated are set forth below, namely: The proposed annexation would remove the subject property from the Town of Southold and place it within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport; The proposed development would eliminate approximately two acres of successional old field and 4.6±-acres of successional hardwoods; The proposed project requires the addition of impervious surfaces (buildings and roadways) to the site. The impermeable surfaces will generate runoff on the project site, which will be contained and recharged within the property boundaries, in accordance with prevailing requirements; m Development will increase the amount of water usage and sewage generation, although water would be supplied by the municipal water system and sewage would be disposed of via connection to the municipal sewer system; ® There will be an increase in the amount of solid waste generated at the site; ® There would be an increased demand for community services, although it will be offset by taxes generated by the development; ® Development of the site will preclude its use for other purposes; and • Additional vehicles will be added to the surrounding roadways. 262 With the exception of the item in the first bullet and the exact acreages in the second bullet, these impacts would occur whether as-of-right development were to occur in Southold or whether the proposed development were to occur in Greenport should annexation be approved. 263 i 7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND 'THEIR IMPACTS This section examines alternatives to the proposed action as set forth in the Final Scope, as follows: ® SEQRA-mandated,No-action Alternative (Site Remains as it Currently Exists); 0 Alternative Site Design; ® Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold; and e AIternative Sites. Alternative site design illustrating a 108-unit plan is shown in Appendix T. In addition, a conceptual plan depicting redevelopment under prevailing zoning (or "as-of-right" development) in the Town of Southold is included in Appendix T of this DEIS. Table 24 provides a comparison of the quantitative impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives discussed below. 264 Table 24—Comparison of Alternatives No-Action As-of-Right Proposed Action 50-Unit 108-Unit Alternative All Alternative Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres Land Use Multi-Family Attached Single- Multi-Family Residential Vacant Family Residential Residential Total Number of Units 128 0 50 108 Number of Workforce 64 0 5 50 Units Population"' 318 0 1.92 288 School Children22 40 0 50 40 Water Usage 13/Sewae 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 29,806 cubic feet 34,306 cubic feet Required Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 30,264 cubic feet 34,400 cubic feet Provided Solid Waste 1A 15.3 tons per month 0 tons per month 6.0 tons per month 12.9 tons per month Trafliczs AM Peak 63 0 30(44)26 55 PM Peak 74 0 34(57) 64 Saturday Peak 80 0 57(55) 74 Area to Remain in Natural 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres Vegetation Area to Remain Wetlands 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres Area of Roads,Buildings 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres and Pavement Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.64 acres 2.75 acres 21 The projected population based on structure type as provided in the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. 22 The projected number of school children provides the averages of the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University,U.S.Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics for the Greenport School District,and the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Impact Statement dated August 2003 used to calculate the generation of school children. 23 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time. 24 Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al.(John Wiley&Sons, Inc,2003) 25 Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Condominiums/Townhouses. 26 The numbers in the parentheses represent the trip generation based upon the single-family detached home(Land Use Code 210)factor,rather than the factor for Townhouse/Condominium(Land Use Code 230)as shown outside the parentheses. See Section 7.3.6 for a more detailed discussion. 265 7.1 SE+QRA-MANDATED,NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no-action alternative would leave the subject site as it currently exists. However, this alternative is not feasible as the 17.19±-acre site is privately-owned and zoned for residential development. Moreover, this alternative is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the applicant, and thus, is not a reasonable option for the applicant to pursue. Although this alternative is neither feasible nor reasonable, SEQRA mandates that this option be evaluated within the DEIS. Accordingly, the following sections describe the anticipated impacts, or lack thereof, associated with pursuit of the no-action alternative. It should be noted that the alternative consisting of no annexation and development under prevailing zoning in the Town of Southold, is discussed in Section 7.3,below. 7.1.1 Geology, Soils and Topography Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require disturbance to the land. As such, the site would remain unchanged. Thus, there would be no significant adverse impact to geology, soils or topography. 7.1.2 Water Resources Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require site disturbance. Thus, there would be no impact to area drainage, surface water or to groundwater quantity or quality. In addition, there would be no water demand or'sewage generation fiom the site. There would be no impact to the existing wetlands. 266 7.1.3 Ecology Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require disturbance of the land. As such, the site would remain unchanged, and, thus, there would be no impact to ecological resources. 7.1.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require the annexation of the subject property or change of zoning designation. In addition, the no-action alternative would not generate population or school.aged children.. The no-action alternative would not achieve the goals of providing much needed workforce housing as expressed in many of the plans that were analyzed in Section 3.3.3 of this DEIS. In addition, no additional tax revenue would be generated by the subject property. 7.1.5 Community Services and Utilities The existing demands on community services and facilities would remain the same under the no- action alternative. 7.1.6 Transportation No additional traffic would be added to the roadway network with the implementation of the no- action alternative. However, the TIS calculated the intersection capacity for the "2008 No- Build" condition by projecting the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village development (see Appendix Q). The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. 267 General growth, without the action, would continue to result in a decrease of the Saturday LOS from C to D at the intersection North Road (C.R. 48) and Moore's Lane from the northbound approach. However, it is worthy to note, that the same decrease in the LOS would be experienced with the implementation of the proposed action. In other words, the proposed action would not contribute to further deterioration of the intersection capacity. 7.1.1 Cultural Resources No cultural resources were identified. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact to such resources. 268 7.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGN The alternative development plan presented herein reflects the original site plan which, on or about July 11, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board(hereinafter"Town Planning Board") approved for KACE Ll, Lilac's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., permitting it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property(see Appendix B). Similar to the proposed action, implementation of the alternative site design would consist of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town into the Village, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property with a residential community consisting of 108 dwelling units, as illustrated on the Sketch Plan 108 Unit Alternative design in Appendix T. 7.2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography As with the proposed action, implementation of this alternative site design would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the.roads,parking areas and building areas. The soils and topography of the parcel would be impacted as there would be clearance and regrading involved in the construction of the 108-dwelling units and associated internal driveway and parking areas throughout. Erosion and sedimentation controls including straw/hay bales, silt fencing and sediment traps would be employed. Overall, as with the proposed action, no significant adverse impacts to soils and topography would be expected upon implementation of this alternative, as mitigation measures would be employed. 269 7.2.2 Water Resources Post-construction sanitary generation for this alternative development plan would be 30,000 gallons per day ("gpd"). Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would involve connection to the municipal sewer system and construction of an on-site pump station. Thus, this alternative would comply with Article 6 of the SCSC. Implementation of this alternative would also involve connection to the public water supply. Post-construction water use generation for this alternative development plan would be 30,000 gpd, excluding irrigation. This alternative would be subject to the Phase 11 Stormwater Regulations. In accordance with same, a SWPPP would be prepared and same would include erosion and sedimentation controls as well as methods to accommodate stormwater during construction. Similar to the proposed action, the erosion and sedimentation controls would consist of both vegetative and structural controls to stabilize soils and reduce the potential impacts to soils during construction activities. Included would be the strategic placement of silt fences and storm drainage inlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, and installation of foundations, pavement and/or landscaping as soon as possible after soil disturbance which would effectively limit the extent of soil erosion. Additionally, the installation of drywells and regrading activities would control and direct the routes of water flow on-site to minimize the impacts associated with overland flow. Similar to the proposed action, drywells would be installed on-site to accommodate stormwater. Overall, no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be expected. 270 7.2.3 Ecology Many of the potential impacts of the 108-unit alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed action, as both development options involve the loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forests. Accordingly, the ecological impacts associated with the proposed action are almost identical to those associated with this alternative. Like the proposed action, this alternative would unplement mitigation measures to minimize ecological impact. These measures would include landscaping with native trees and shrubs, provision of habitat for the box turtle should such habitat be disturbed by the development, perimeter planting of native coniferous trees, and protection of the existing wetlands and 100-foot adjacent area. 7.2.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies As indicated above, the development of this proposed alternative would be based upon the prior application and approval (see Appendix U), which consisted of 108 multi-family dwelling units. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would include the annexation of the subject property from the Town into Village and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 108-multi-family dwelling units, 50 of which would be workforce units, which is 14 fewer than the proposed action. 271 Similar to the proposed action, this alternative has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland, given the configuration of the subject property with wetlands surro-imding on three sides. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 12 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,195 square feet, and 76 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,530 square feet in size. Similar to the proposed action, all of the one- and two-bedroom units and 18 of the three-bedroom, units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 58 three-bedroom units would be market- rate. Like the proposed action, access to the site would be from a single access drive along C.R. 48, and a proposed emergency access from.North Road would be constructed at the northeastern comer of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30- foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. As with the proposed action, although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher-density residential and residential- type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. Therefore, like the proposed action, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. This alternative development would continue this pattern. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative development would remove a portion of the on- site vegetation getation along C.R. 48 and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site from C.R. 48 and properties to the north would increase. 272 However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly set back from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. While changing the property from undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, this alternative would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. As such, there would be no significant impact to zoning or community character by implementation of this alternative. 7.2.5 Community Services and Utilities As indicated in Section 3.5.2 of this DEIS, the subject property is located with the service area of the Greenport Fire Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on fire protection. The site is and would continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service due to the proposed annexation. Thus, this proposed alternative is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. As previously indicated in Section 3.5.3 of this DEIS, the subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Similar to the proposed action, the annexation associated with this alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on police protection. The site is and would continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service due to the annexation. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. As indicated in Section 4.5.1 of this DEIS, the subject property is located in the Greenport UFSD. As previously noted, the school-aged children projections assume 100-percent enrollment in the public school system as a worst-case scenario. As shown in Table 24, this alternative would generate approximately 40 additional students, the same amount as the proposed action. 273 Furthermore, as noted, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living within the Greenport UFSD. Overall, this alternative would generate slightly lower property taxes than the proposed action. 7.2.6 Transportation Based on the traffic analysis prepared by Dunn Engineering, this alternative plan would be expected,to generate 55 trips in the Weekday AM Peak Hour, 64 trips in the Weekday PM Peak Hour and 74 trips in the Saturday Peak.Hour. As compared to the proposed action, traffic during the peak hours in the Weekday AM and PM would minimally decrease. During the Saturday Peak Hour, traffic would be expected to decrease by six trips. As such, similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant adverse traffic impacts. 7.2.7 Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. 274 7.3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER PREVAILING ZONING IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD This alternative involves the redevelopment of the subject property in accordance with the prevailing HD zoning within the Town of Southold. This alternative design would not require annexation of the subject property. This alternative would permit the development of 50 single- family attached residential units, an internal driveway, associated parking and an on-site sewage treatment plant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The 50-unit plan has a very similar layout to the 128-unit and 108-unit plans, based upon the required wetland setbacks. However, the overall footprint of the dwellings would be slightly smaller than in the other scenarios. 7.3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography As with the proposed action and the other alternatives analyzed, implementation of this alternative site design would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. The soils and topography of the parcel would be impacted as there would be clearing and regrading involved in the construction of the 50 dwelling units and associated facilities throughout the site. Erosion and sedimentation controls including straw/hay bales, silt fencing and sediment traps would be employed. Overall, no significant adverse impact associated with soils and topography is expected upon implementation of this alternative,. However, there would be more clearing and grading along North Road as compared to the proposed action to accommodate an on-site waste disposal system. 275 7.3.2 Water Resources Post-construction sanitary sewage generation for this alternative development plan would be approximately 15,000 gpd, based upon 300 gpd per unit. It should be noted that the inclusion of an on-site sewage treatment plant in this alternative is required to achieve the yield permitted under local zoning while maintaining compliance with Article 6 of the SCDHS Sanitary-Code, absent the ability to connect to the municipal sewer system (see the discussion regarding annexation and sewer connection in Section 2.3 of this DEIS and Appendix T). The local zoning ordinance permits the construction of 50 single-family units on the 17.19-acre property. Independently, SCDHS Article 6 regulations limit on-site sewage discharge to 600 gpd per acre of property. In this case, the 17.19-acre property would support a sewage discharge of 10,314 gpd, if on-site systems are used. At the design of discharge rate of 300 gpd per unit, SCDHS criteria would limit the yield to 34 units. Provisions in the SCDHS Article 6 regulations allow for an increase in discharge if sewage treatment is provided. In this case, the on-site treatment plant would be constructed in lieu of the connection to the Greenport Sewer-District. In order-to- mitigate any potential impacts from the discharge of sewage, this alternative would include the construction of a Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System to treat sanitary sewage prior to discharge. The system will be designed in accordance with SCDHS standards for such systems, and would consist of a technology with prior approval from SCDHS (e.g., the Cromaglass treatment system) designed to reduce nitrogen loading to a level at or below 10 mg/1. The discharge of the treated effluent would be accomplished through precast leaching pools designed in accordance with SCDHS hydraulic leaching rates. Monitoring wells are required to and would be installed to monitor discharge. If connection to the Greenport Sewer District from outside the district is permitted, the on-site sewage treatment plant would not be necessary, and thus, impacts to the environment from on- site sewage discharge would not occur. Post-construction water use generation for this alternative development plan would be approximately 15,000 gpd, excluding irrigation. Implementation of this alternative would, like the proposed action, include connection to the public water supply. 276 l Similar to the proposed action, a SWPPP would be prepared and the associated erosion and sedimentation controls would consist of both vegetative and structural controls to stabilize soils and reduce the potential impacts to soils during construction activities. Included would be the strategic placement of silt fences and storm drainage inlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, and installation of foundations, pavement and/or landscaping as soon as possible after soil-disturbance vi-hich-would-effectively limit the extent of soil erosion. Additionally, the installation of drywells and regrading activities would control and direct the routes of water flow on-site to minimize the impacts associated with overland flow. Similar to the proposed action, drywells would be installed on-site to accominodate stormwater. Overall, no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be expected from this alternative. 7.3.3 Ecology Many of the impacts of the 50 unit alternative are similar to the impacts associated with the proposed action, as it involves the loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6±acres of successional hardwood forests. While the wetland setbacks would remain as they do with the proposed action and other alternatives, it would be more difficult to control the ecological impacts associated with single- family development across the entire property. No common open space is proposed, thus, the clearing and maintenance of 50 individual lots would be harder to control than in the proposed action or the 108-unit alternative. hi addition, the potential construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant may impact ecological resources due to the on-site discharge of treated sewage effluent. Specifically, the proposed on-site sewage treatment plant included in this alternative would result in the subsurface discharge of an estimated 15,000 gpd of effluent daily. The proposed sewage treatment plant would be located in the northeastern portion of the property and the effluent would be discharged into the ground via eighteen 10-foot-diameter precast leaching rings. The 277 leaching rings under this alternative would be located approximately 250 feet from the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands located on the eastern side of the property. The system would be designed in accordance with all SCDHS standards for vertical separation to groundwater, nitrogen concentration (10 mg/L), and all other potential contaminants including phosphorus and coliform. The proposed discharge of 15,000 gpd of treated wastewater has the potential to alter the hydrology of the wetlands on the eastern side of the property. Potential changes to these wetlands could include an increase in the freshwater wetland area at the western margin of these wetlands, an increase in water depth, and/or an increase in the duration of water-saturated soil conditions within the wetlands and at the upland margin of the wetlands. Detailed hydrological modeling would be required to determine the magnitude of these potential changes. Compliance with SCDHS standards would serve to minimize the transport of ecologically- hannfut nutrients and pathogens to the surface waters of-Moore's Drain. The proposed sewage treatment plant would reduce nitrogen levels to a concentration at or below 10 mg/L. This nitrogen concentration would be less than the expected nitrogen concentration of a typical residential sanitary system of approximately 30 mg/L (208 Study, 1978) to 35 mg/L (Cape Cod, 1992). However, due to the high volume of effluent, the proposed sewage treatment plant may still result in the discharge of significant quantities of nitrogen proximate to (i.e., 130 feet), the surface waters of the Moore's Drain system. Similarly, despite acceptable concentrations of phosphorus or bacterial coliform in the effluent, the high volume of wastewater may also result in significant discharges of these contaminants to Moore's Drain. Increases in nitrogen and/or phosphorus concentrations within freshwater wetlands can result in eutrophication, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface waters, and increased susceptibility to the colonization and spread of invasive plant species (Woo, 2002). Furthermore,nitrogen loading has been identified as a priority management issue for maintaining water quality in the Peconic Estuary (Peconic Estuary Program, 1991). In addition, Moore's Drain has exhibited elevated levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria following excessive (>6 inches) rainfall events (Town of Southold, 2004). Therefore, use of a sewage treatment plan 278 under this alternative has potential for significant adverse impacts to water quality and ecological health due to the high volume of proposed effluent under the Alternative Site Design, the close proximity to the freshwater wetlands, and the existing nutrient and coliform concentrations within Moore's Drain and the larger Peconic Estuary. 7.3.4 Land Use and-Z.oning, Comamntt-y Character and-Comprehensive Plans/Studies This alternative would include the construction of 50 single-family attached dwelling units and would not require the annexation of the subject property into the Village. Similar to the proposed action, the this alternative has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 50 two-story, four-bedroom units of approximately 2,520-square feet each in size. Two dwelling units would=be grouped together and each would have a footprint of 1,260.square feet, for a total footprint of 2,520 square feet. As compared to the proposed action, only five- units would be designated as workforce housing units. Access to the site would be from a single access drive along C.R. 48. Landscaping would be installed within the 35-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. As previously indicated, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. This alternative development would continue this pattern, but a lower density than the proposed action. However, as previously indicated, the configuration of the 50-unit plan is very similar to the proposed action.due to the physical constraints of the site (i.e., the wetlands and their associated setback requirements). 279 Similar to the proposed action, this alternative development would remove a portion of the on- site vegetation along C.R. 48 and the interior of the site. The 35-foot setback proposed in this alternative is only slightly wider than that of the proposed action. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to,the north, would increase. However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residenti--dt-properties-,x-oi-ild obscure the view-of the subject property. As such, there would be no significant impact to zoning or community character by implementation of this alternative. 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities As indicated in Section 3.5.2 of this DEIS, the subject property is located with the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have an impact on fire protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the -Greenport-Fire District. There wouhibe-no change in the status of such service. 'Thus, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. As previously noted, the subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have an impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. The school-aged children projections in Table 24 assume 100-percent enrollment in the public school system as a worst-case scenario. As indicated by Table 24 above, approximately 10 percent of the proposed project would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected xpected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project would be young individuals or families looking for their first home purchase. Unlike the proposed action and the Alternative Site Design, it is anticipated that the larger size of the units in this alternative would allow for a potential increase in household size and, thus, the number of school-age children 280 generated. This alternative would generate approximately 50 additional students, slightly higher than the proposed action and the Alternative Site Design(108-unit plan) (see Table 24). In addition, as demonstrated in Section 2.5 of this DEIS, the amount of overall property tax generated by this alternative would be less than that of the proposed action and less for the Town of Southold, in-Particular(see Section 2.4 for the tax analysis). 7.3.6 Transportation According to Dunn Engineering, the ITE "Trip Generation" report contains information on trip generation rates for both Townhouse/Condominium (Land Use Code 230) and Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210). While construction of the 50-unit alternative may involve semi-detached units which technically do not fit the definition of Single-Family Detached Housing, their size indicates that they may follow that trip generation pattern. Given this, and the possibility of actual detached construction, the trip generation for the 50-unit alternative was perforrnedboth ways (Land Use-Code 230 and-L-and=tJse-code 210). Using ITE trip generation data, the traffic volumes generated by the 50-unit alternative were estimated under both Land Use Code 230 (Residential Townhouse/Condominium) and Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing). As shown in Table 24, this analysis indicates that, in all cases, the 50-unit alternative would be expected to generate lower levels of traffic than the proposed development. While these differences may be significant on a percentage basis, they are not large in terms of absolute numbers as even the proposed development can be expected to generate only modest levels of traffic. It is notable that on a per-unit basis single-family homes generate more vehicle trips than condominiums. This effectively reduces, to some extent, the differences in trip generation between the proposed condominiums and 50-unit alternative. Overall, there would be no significant impact on area traffic conditions or safety on the adjacent roadway network. As such, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant adverse traffic impacts. 281 7.3.7 Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. 282 7.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES According to §617.9(b)(v) of the SEQR regulations, the DEIS should include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Furthermore, "site alternatives may be limited to parcels-owned by, or under option to'--a-private project sponsor." As, there are no other sites owned by the project sponsor that would accommodate the proposed development, discussion of alternative sites is not warranted. 283 8.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed development of the site would require a commitment of natural and manmade resources as well as time. Overall, the currently undeveloped site would now be committed to residential development. More specifically, approximately 4.14 acres of the property would be developed and would be covered by impervious surfaces--inniuding the residential buildings, associated parking areas, sidewalks and interior roadway. Another 2.51 acres would be developed with landscape materials. Though 6.6± acres of forest/successional field vegetation would be preserved, the loss of existing vegetation may cause the displacement of certain wildlife individuals. Certain additional resources related to the construction aspects of the development will be committed. These resources include, but are not limited to, concrete, asphalt, lumber, paint and topsoil. Mechanical equipment resources will be committed to assist personnel in the construction at the property. The operation of construction equipment will require electricity, water resources and fossil fuels. Furthermore, the construction phase of the proposed project will require the commitment of manpower resources as well as time. 284 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS Growth-inducing aspects are generally described as the long-term secondary effects of the proposed action. The site is already zoned for residential development and the additional units anticipated with the annexation is not expected to create a significant increase in secondary effects. Although the addition of 128 multi-family residential units will create some additional demand for commercial or institutional resources, such demand is not expected to be significant The same entities that would serve the site if it were to remain in Southold would serve the site if annexed to the Village of Greenport. There is already a well-developed infrastructure of shopping,personal service and institutional resources within the overall community. With regard to traffic growth, minimal mitigation measures are required. Thus, the action is not -anticipated to create the need for-any-changes to the roadway infrastructure in the vicinity of-the.- site. Since new roadway infrastructure will not be required, growth inducement is not expected to result. The proposed action includes the connection of the proposed residences to the municipal sewer system, which is located within the roadway adjacent to the subject property. Many of the surrounding uses are currently connected to the sewer system, and as such, the proposed project's connection will not change the availability to other sites. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant growth-inducing impacts. 285 10.0 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The proposed action involves the development of 128 residences, and thus, upon their occupancy, there would be an increased demand for electricity and natural gas. Consultations were undertaken with the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") and National Grid/KeySpan for the --availability of electricity and- natural gas, respectively. Both LIPA and National Grid/KeySpan have confirmed the availability of services for the proposed development (see correspondence in Appendix P). Existing and projected supplies of electricity and natural gas are available to supply the project. It is not expected that the project would require electricity providers to construct new generating facilities to serve this site. Moreover, the applicant is examining potential energy conservation methods, and will work with the Village at the appropriate time to incorporate same. These potential methods may include the following: ® capitalizing on the resources presented by LIPA including, but not limited to, LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative, New York State Green Building Tax Credits, and energy- efficient design guidelines, such as those promoted by the United States Green Building Council; ® incorporating high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, improved insulation, energy-efficiency windows, etc.; and ® including the use of Energy Star appliances and following other Energy Star guidelines to assist in reducing energy requirements. Based upon the foregoing, it is not expected that the project will result in adverse impacts to the use and conservation of energy. 286 11.0 REFERENCES Bums R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2 Hardwoods. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,Washington, DC. Cape Cod Commission. 1992. Nitrogen Loading. Technical Bulletin 91-001. Cape Cod Commission-Water Resources Office. Barnstable, MA. 25 pgs. Claussen, DL, PM Daniel, S Jiang, and NA Adams. Hibernation in the Eastern Box Turtle, Terrapene c. carolina. Journal of Herpetology. 25(3): 334-341. Coleman, JL, DM Bird, and EA Jacobs. 2002. Habitat use and productivity of sharp-shinned hawks nesting in a urban area. Wilson Bulletin. 114(4):467-473. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Eastern Box Turtle Fact Sheet. Bureau of Natural Resources- Wildlife Division. 2 pgs. Connors P.F. 1971. The Mammals of Long Island, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin#416. Albany,NY. 78pp. Corwin, K. 2008. Flight patterns. New York State Conservationist. December 2008: 16-21. Cramer, ASLA T. and Weiner K. 1990. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study. Southold, NY. Donaldson, BM and AC Echternacht. Aquatic habitat use relative to home range and seasonal movement of Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina: Emydidae) in Eastern Tennessee. Journal of Herpetology. 39(2):278-284. Dunn, EH and DL Tessaglia. 1994. Predation of birds at feeders in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology. 65(1): 8-16. Edinger G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M.. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,NY. Ernst, CH, JE Lovich, and RW Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington DC, USA. Flitz, BA and SJ Mullin. 2006. Nest-site selection in the Eastern box turtle, Terrapene carolina carolina, in Illinois. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 5(2): 309-312. Hall, RJ, PFP Henry, and CM Bunck. 1999. Fifty-year trends in a box turtle population in Maryland. Biological Conservation. 88: 165-172. 287 Lamont E.E. and J.M. Fitzgerald. 2001. Noteworthy plants reported from the Torrey Range. Journal of Torrey Botanical Society. 128(4): 409-414. Leonard M.D. 1926. A list of the insects of New York with a lost of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoirs 101, 1121 pp. LITP 2000. 2002. New York Department of Transportation: North Fork Travel Needs Assessment. Southold,NY. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB).1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. Vols. I&II(208 Study). Hauppauge,New York. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Pinnate Water-Milfoil Information Sheet. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 2 pp. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Eastern Box Turtle Fact Sheet. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 3 pgs. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Advisory guidelines for creating turtle nesting habitat. Division of--Fisheries-and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 4 pgs. Mawdsley J.R. 2007. Ecology, distribution, and conservation biology of the tiger beetle, Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinea). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 109(1): 17-28. McGowan, KJ and K Corwin. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Breeding Bird Atlas Project. Albany,New York. Mitchell R.S. and J.K. Dean. 1978. Polygonacea(Buckwheat Family) of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin#431. Albany,NY. 80 pp. Mohlenbrock R.H. 1998. The Illustrated Flora of Illinois: Sedges (Carex). Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL. 448 pp. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007.NYNHP Conservation Guide- Red Maple- Sweetgum Swamp. Albany,NY. 9 pp. Nazdrowicz,NH, JL Bowman, and RR Roth. 2005. Population ecology of the eastern box turtle in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(3):745-753. New York State Department of State- Division of Coastal Resources. 2005. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form: Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. 7 pgs. 288 New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007b. NYNHP Conservation Guide- Swamp Cottonwood. Albany,NY. 7 pp. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007c. NYNHP Conservation Guide-Northern Cricket Frog. Albany,NY. 9 pp. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 2000. New York State Ornithological Association and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,NY North Fork Audubon Society. 2004. Observed birds for Inlet Pond County Park 2000- 2004. Greenport,NY. Peconic Estuary Program. 1991. Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 866 pages. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Reschke C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham,NY. Roth, TC and SL Lima. 2003. Hunting behavior and diet of Cooper's hawks: an urban view of the mall bird-in-winter paradigm- Condor 105(3): 474-483. Roth, TC, SL Lima, and WE Vetter. 2006. Determinants of predation risk in small wintering birds: the hawk's perspective. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology. 60 (2):195-204. Roth, TC,WE Vetter, and SL Lima. 2008. Spatial ecology of wintering Accipiter hawks: home range, habitat use, and the influence of bird feeders. Condor. 110(2): 260-268. Trexel, DR, RN Rosenfield, J Bielefeldt, EA Jacobs. 1999. Comparative nest site selection in sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. 11 1(1) 7-14. Town of Southold. 2004.Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 1993.A Statistical Profile of Southold Town: 1990 and A Description and Evaluation of Southold's Affordable Housing Policies and Programs 1980-1992. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2002. The Eighty-Plus Preservation Action Plan: Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission For a Rural Southold. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 1998. Community Preservation Project Plan 1998-2001. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2006. Community Preservation Project Plan January 2006 Update. Southold, NY. 289 Town of Southold. 1997. Economic Development Plan: 1997. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2000. Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 2001. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan. Southold,NY Town of Southold. 1994. Stewardship Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2004. Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2000. Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy. Southold,NY. Village of Greenport. 1988. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Greenport,NY Viverette, CB, S Struve, L Goodrich, and KL Bildstein. 1996. Decreases in migrating sharp- shirmed-ha-wkv-(Accipiter striatus) at traditional raptor-migration watch sites in eastern North America. Auk. 113: 32-40. Williams,EC and WS Parker. 1987. A long-term study of a box turtle (Terrapene caroling) population at Allee Memorial Woods, Indiana, with emphasis on survivorship. Herpetologica. 43: 328-335. Woo I. 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by Typha x glauca? Wetlands. 22(3): 509-521. J:\27734.00\DOCUMENTIDEIS-Revised August 2009\DEIS-Northwind Village Revised August 2009.doc 290