HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEIS Text FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST'AT'EMENT
NorthwiWdvittage
Proposed Annexation and Development
Town of Southold.
Suffolk County
Prepared for KACE LI,LLC
Greenport,New York
Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Ambitecture,P.C.
Prepared by G '
Hauppauge,New York
April 2011
FINAL 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.
6317477-0600
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 I
(631) 444-0403
PREPARER& CONTACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared by:
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 I
(631) 444-0403
With technical input from:
Planning/Environmental Analysis:
VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture,
P.C.
2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300
Hauppauge,New York 11788
Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal
Gail .A. Pesner, AICP, Senior Project
Manager
(631) 234-3444
Site Engineering:
Barrett Bonacci &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
570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F
Medford,NY 11763
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: April 2011
AVAILABILITY OF
DOCUMENT: This document, together with the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement ("DEIS"), represents a Final
Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"). It has been
prepared for the Lead Agency, and copies are available for
public review and comment at the offices of the Lead
Agency. A copy of the FEIS 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
http://www.vhb.com/northwindvillage/feis
DATE OF FILING: April 14, 2011
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................1
H. LIST OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.....................................................................................................2
List of Appendices
Appendix A— Public Hearing Transcript
Appendix B— Written Correspondence
Appendix C— Proposed Box Turtle Nesting Area Location and Advisory Guidelines for
Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife,February 2009
Appendix D— 44-Unit Yield Plan and 44-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative
Appendix E— Correspondence from Suffolk County Department of Economic Development &
Workforce Housing
Appendix F— Photograph Location Map and Photographs of County Road 48 Corridor
Appendix G— Traffic Analysis Attachments
Appendix H— Update to Appendix N of the DEIS Regarding Ecology
Appendix I— Berm Detail
Appendix J— Proposed Planting Lists
Appendix K— Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans
Appendix L— Phragmites Stand and Drainage Culvert
Appendix M— Area of Vegetation to be Preserved
Appendix N— Smart Communities through Smart Growth, Suffolk County Planning
Commission,March 2000
This document represents a Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS") for the
Northwind Village Proposed Annexation and Development.
This FEIS incorporates,by reference, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS")
for this proposed action, dated, as last revised,August 2009.
The above-referenced DEIS was the subject of New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation public hearing held on October 28, 2009 at the Town of
Southold Town Hall.
The Public Hearing Transcript and Written Correspondence and are contained in
Appendices A and B,respectively,of this FEIS.
L INTRODUCTION
This document is a Final Environmental, Impact Statement ("FEIS") prepared in response to
comments received by. the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC"), as lead agency, regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS") for
the Northwind Village Proposed Annexation and Development.,The comments include those
that were made at the public hearing of October 28, 2009 (designated with an "H" before the
comment number) and other written comments (designated with a "C" before the comment
number) received during the comment period that ended on December 12, 2009. The Public
Hearing Transcript is included in Appendix A. All written correspondence is included in
Appendix B.
This FEIS includes two sections -- Section L of which this is a part, is the introduction to the
document,which describes the purpose of the FEIS as well as what is included in the document.
Section 11 includes a response to all comments made at the public hearing of October 28, 2009
and the written correspondence received during the comment period. The comments are
numbered in the order in which they were either stated (public hearing) or received (written
correspondence).
LIST OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
OCTOBER 28,2009
Rgy Huntington
Comment H-1
The Town of Southold has made significant investment in the Moore's drain area which flows
south from this area - - from where - - where the property - - the Northwind property is. To
protect that drain with those investments and preservation that were made, were. made to
protect the creeks and the bay and the the water that flows through that area. The
Environmental Irnpact Statement makes no mention of that. Pages 24—25
Response H-1
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS") addressed this issue in Sections 3.2 and 3.3
thereof. The applicant has designed the site to limit activities (including construction, clearing,
site grading and ground disturbance) within the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's ("N-YSDEC")jurisdictional area and the area associated with Moore's Drain. In
fact,most construction activities and permanent structures will be situated outside the NYSDEC
jurisdictional area. However, the applicant is proposing the development of a box turtle nesting
area in the western portion of the subject site. The development of fl-ds nesting area is within the
NYSDEC's jurisdiction and will require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit (see Appendix C of this
FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting area location and Advisory Guidelines for Creating Turtle
Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, February 2009). This box turtle
nesting area is proposed to mitigate potential impact to the box turtle, as described in Section
4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response 1-4-12 of this FEIS. Therefore, the proposed action is in
compliance with the requirements of the New York State Freshwater Wetlands (Article 24 of the
Environmental Conservation Law). The establishment of the minimum 100-foot setback from
improved areas associated with the residential development would serve to miruinuize potential
impacts to the site's freshwater wetlands and avoid regional impacts to Moore's Drain.
2
Comment H-2
The local knowledge suggests that the solutions--that--the local knowledge really is that this
is an area of spectacularly complex drainage. It runs for quite a distance down to the bay, and
locally I think people understand that you don't want to build a house in a lot of this area
because of the perched water, the poor drainage in general, the clay. It's not a place that's very
receptive to development. Page 25
Response H-2
The poor drainage referred to in this comment is in a localized area of perched water located
under the surface of the soil in the vicinity of boring 5 (see Section 3.1.2 and Figure 5 in the
DEIS). This layer was present in only one of the five soil borings conducted throughout the site
and is not representative of the overall drainage characteristics of the on-site soil. Additional
borings indicate that there are strata of porous soils that would be suitable for drainage of this
water.
The proposed drainage system will allow the surface runoff generated by the project to be
recharged back into the groundwater. A complete analysis of the proposed drainage system
was evaluated in Sections 4.2.4 of the DEIS.
Comment H-3
High density development has the potential to undo the preservation in which we have already
invested very considerably. Page 26
Response H-3
The subject property is privately owned, and as explained in Sections 2.2.1, 7.2 and Appendix B
of the DEIS, was previously approved for a 108-unit-development. Moreover, higher density
development does not necessarily conflict with preservation. In 'this case, density is
concentrated, rather than being spread out over many acres, thereby preserving natural
resources. Northwind Village is proposed to be connected to municipal sewer and water
facilities,furtherminimizingthe potential impacts on the environment.
3
Anne Murray
Comment H-4
I want to address something that the final scope requested, which was to - that the applicant
indicate the indication of sanitary flow impact if the connection to the Greenport sewer district
does not go through. This is not addressed at all anywhere in the DEIS that I could find, and I
believe that's required as requested,in the final scope, so I would think that's something that
needs to be addressed. Pages 26—27
Response H-4
First, this issue is addressed in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 of the DEIS. Second, as explained on
pages.10 and 11 of the DEIS, if the proposed project is annexed into the Village of Greenport, it
is eligible for connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of the fact that
it is located within the district. If the proposed project does not get annexed, it is still eligible .
for a connection to the Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant (at a cost) through a
Stipulation of Settlement. In the event that a Stipulation of Settlement does not permit the
connection, an alternative to the project design would be to locate a sewage treatment plant
directly on the project site, as explained and evaluated in Section 7.3 of the DEIS.
Comment H-5
It also says that the project will result in a loss of 4.6 acres of woodland, and the consultant says
that the magnitude of that is not expected to be significant. Well, that's a very subjective
answer in my book. I think what-- is significant to the developer is very different from what's
significant to Southold residents and the preservation of wetlands and the woods that we have
left. Page 27
Response H-5
The DEIS acknowledged that the proposed project would result in the permanent loss of 4.6
acres of successional southern hardwood forests. The DEIS indicated that the proposed clearing
would disturb less than two percent of the over 300-acre Moore's Woods. The magnitude of the
clearance impact is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or
threatened species would be impacted, and no significant plant communities will cleared(i.e.,
oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands). Also, since the remainder of Moore's
4
Woods is largely public land, it would likely remain intact, thereby minimizing the significance
of the approximately 4.6 acres that would be cleared on-site. In addition, the woodland
proposed to be cleared consists mainly of second-growth red maple and black locust stands that
have likely regenerated after historic clearing of the site. The highest quality woodlands are
proposed to be preserved within the wetland and buffer areas.
Moreover, no development is proposed to occur within either the wetlands or the 100-foot
adjacent area, with the exception of the creation of a box turtle nesting area, as explained in
Response H-1. Therefore, the wetlands on the site would be preserved in their entirety through
an appropriate legal vehicle(e.g., covenant, easement).
In addition, the lead agency has the responsibility to consider all.aspects of the proposed action,
which includes benefits and impacts. Specifically, according to 6 NYCRR§617.11(d) of the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), the lead agency in making its
findings about the proposed action must, among other things: "(1) consider the relevant
environmental impacts,facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS; (2) weigh and balance relevant
environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; and (3)provide a rationale for the
agency's decision."
5
Frank Wills—North Fork Environmental Council
Comment H-6
The DEIS lists 17.2 acres as the total property, but nowhere is - - what I found, is there any
statement as to how much of that property is wetlands, whatever you want to call them, which
under our rules and regulations are not allowed for development. Page 28
Response H-6
Table 1 on Page 15 of the DEIS indicates that there are 3.93 acres of wetlands currently, and
these 3.93 acres would remain after development. This is also indicated in the Executive
Summary and on pages 178, 205, 213,214, 218, 219 and 265 of the DEIS.
Comment H-7
The DEIS mentions there could be 40 students to the Greenport School District, whose budget
per pupil is $22,222. So obviously, this would add approximately$900,000 to the Greenport tax
base. This is something to consider.Pages 28—29
Response H-
Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS includes a projection of the number of school-aged children generated
from three different sources (Rutgers Study, National Center for Education Statistics, and the
Town of Southold). The projected numbers of students to be generated from the proposed
development ranges from 26 to 52. Therefore, the average estimate of school-aged children
generated by the project based upon the three studies is 40 students.
As per the 2009-2010 New.York State Property Tax Report Card, the budget for Greenport
LJFSD was $13,820,704, of which $9,663,287 (almost 70 percent) was raised from property tax
levy. It should be noted that the total budget for the Greenport UFSD includes costs associated
with special education. Therefore,based on a total enrollment of 625 students in the 2009-2010
school-year, the approximate cost per student raised by property taxes alone is approximately
$15,461 (which includes costs associated with 'Special education). Based on the foregoing,
approximately $618,450 needs to be raised in property taxes to support the enrollment of 40
students in the Greenport UFSD. Furthermore, based upon the assessed value of the proposed
development ($489,000 in 2008), as discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, and according to the
6
Town of Southold Assessor's Office, who indicated that the 2010-2011 School District tax rate is
approximately $623.00 per $1,000 of assessed value, the proposed project would generate
approximately$306,647 for the Greenport School District. Therefore, the total additional cost to
the District would be $311,803. However, if one applies the more recent data for multifamily
development in Suffolk County, the proposed development would generate 23 school-aged
children.' Using this analysis, the additional cost to the School District would be $256,910±,
which would yield an annual revenue over expenses of $189,890±. Therefore, the taxes
generated by the proposed development, assuming 23 school-aged children, would exceed the
total pupil expenditure.
It is also important to note that the as-of-right development (without annexation, within the
Town of Southold) would generate a total of 44 school-aged children and approximately
$162,727 in taxes to the school district. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the as-of-right
development would accrue an additional cost of$517,557±to the school district, approximately
$205,754+-higher than the proposed project.
'Kamer,Pearl M.,Ph.D.,Multifamily Housing on Long Island:Its Impact on Numbers of School-Age Children and School District Finances,Long
Island Housing Partnership,2010. The study showed a ration of 0.18 school-aged child per multifamily dwelling unit in Suffolk County.
7
Kris Pilks
Comment H-8
I understand the importance of homeownership out here. I think this is a very good way for
our community to see some benefit from a private developer doing the job that's typically
reserved for,you know,the--the taxpayers' dollars. Page 29
Response H-8
The comment is noted. The applicant has specifically chosen to develop the property with
affordable workforce units and request annexation in order to allow the market-rate units to
"subsidize" the workforce units,without the need for taxpayer contribution.
Comment H-9
Looking at the wetlands on the property, my understanding is the DEC has flagged the
freshwater wetlands, and the proposed project is within the hundred-foot boundary that is
required for any project. Page 30
Response H-9
As indicated on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G of the DEIS, the landward limit
of the freshwater wetlands was confirmed by Robert Marsh of NYSDEC Region 1 on November
9, 2005. With the exception of the proposed box turtle nesting area, the proposed development
is located outside the 100-foot freshwater wetlands jurisdictional area(see Response H-1).
Comment H-10
I urge the stakeholders of the project to look at not only the tax revenue created for the Town
and the Village who are both struggling financially,but the benefit to the locals.Page 30
Response H-10
The comment is noted.
8
Diana Weir-Long Island Housing Partnership
Comment H-11
I know it is very difficult for young people in this community to be able to purchase a home.
And I think the type of development, with the different types of housing, is going to make it
inherently more affordable, and the mix of single one bedroom, two bedroom, and three .
bedroom will address a lot of the needs for the young people in this community.Pages 31-32
Response H-11
The comment is noted. See the discussion of the need for affordable housing in Section 2.5 of
the DEIS.
9
Jerm Hartnagel—Group for the East End
Comment H-12
The subject parcel is ecologically valuable and it's integral in providing healthy habitat to a
variety of plant and animal species. The parcel also contains important freshwater wetlands
which are part of the Moore's drain system. The Town of Southold has recognized the
ecological value of the parcel as well by including it on its community preservation list.
Considering this, the proposed number of units is significantly higher than what is permitted
under the as-of-right zone, and this is concerning. Pages 32—33
Response H-12
The DEIS acknowledges that high-quality habitats for plant and animal species are present on
and adjacent to the subject property. A thorough description of the property's ecological
resources is presented in Section 3.3 of the DEIS, the potential impacts to these resources are
presented in Section 4.3 of the DEIS, and the mitigation measures to minimize and mitigate
these potential impacts are presented in Section 5.3 of the DEIS. As previously stated in
Response H-9, the freshwater wetlands on an adjacent to the subject property were confirmed
by the NYSDEC on�Novernber 5, 2008. As indicated in Response H-1, the applicant has
designed the site to limit activities within the NYSDEC.jurisdictional area and the area
associated with Moore's Drain. In fact, most construction activities and permanent structures
will be situated outside the N-YSDEC jurisdictional area. However, the applicant is proposing
the development of a box turtle nesting area in the western portion of the subject site. The
development of this nesting area is within the N-YSDEC's jurisdiction and will require a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit (see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting
area location and Advisory Guidelines for Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife,February 2009).
The proposed action has also incorporated mitigation measures to protect habitat, as follows:
• Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and
shrubs,which provide shelter and food for wildlife;
• 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;
10
e A row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar Uuniperus 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 microchmate of the forest and limit the spread of invasive plants into
the woodlands; and
* In order to minirrdze 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.
Comment H-13
Although this has been repeatedly stated that the proposed project hook-up to the Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plan would essentially eliininate the groundwater impacts and service water
impacts, the intense density continues to provide overarching potential impacts such as traffic,
community character,number of school-aged children, and the list goes on. Page 33
Response H-13
Based upon the analysis provided in Section 7.0 of the DEIS, the proposed multi-family
development would generate between 26 and 52 school-aged children(average of 40), while the
50-unit single-family home development would generate 50 school-aged children. Therefore,
the density,based on the unit types proposed, would affect the number of school-aged children
in a positive way. The more intense proposed development would produce more trips than the
50-unit alternative. However, according to the traffic analysis, even the proposed development
would be expected to generate only modest levels of overall traffic. With respect to community
character, while it is true that most of the residential development outside of the downtown
area is less intense, there are other "residential-type" uses in the vicinity of the subject property
that are more intense and highly visible from the roadway, such as a nursing and rehabilitation
center, several motels, and a new 68-unit resort condominium development on the north side of
County Road (Route)48("CR 48") across from Chapel Lane.
As demonstrated in the DEIS, the proposed development would provide 64 units of affordable,
workforce housing, which would fulfill an identified need, as described in detail in Section 2.5
(pages 21 through 25) of the DEIS. In order to achieve the benefit of 64 affordable workforce
homes, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable in the
Town of Southold.
The lead agency is required to consider all aspects of the proposed action, which included
benefits and impacts� Specifically, according to 6 N-YCRR §617.11(d) of SEQRA, the lead
agency, in making As findings about the proposed action must, among other things: "W
consider the relevant environmental impacts,facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS; (2) weigh
and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; and (3).
provide a rationalefor the agency's decision.
Comment H-14
The hook-up to the sewage treatment plan is not a cure all. Page 33
Response H-14
The comment is noted. The proposed hook-up is one element of the proposed action that assists
in allowing 64 of the residences to be affordable, workforce units, while mitigating potential
environmental impacts.
Comment H-15
Last year the Town of Southold codified new zoning standards,in specific relation to the hamlet
density zone. Essentially, size limits as well as maximum building area were created in
addition to the requirement of open space set asides. Under these new regulations, the
permitted as-of-right density would be reduced. And, theoretically, this decrease in density
would also significantly eliminate many of the potential environmental impacts. Pages 33—34
Response H-15
A new yield map has been prepared by the applicant addressing the revisions made to the
Town of Southold regulations for the HD zoning district, and to address a number of comments
made on the DEIS. The new yield map (hereinafter "yield plan") is based upon prevailing
Town of Southold zoning and includes 44 residential lots (see Appendix D of this FEIS). This
44-unit yield plan assumes connection to both public water and sewer. The 44 residential lots
generally range in size from 10,000 square feet to 21,269 square feet, with one lot at 55,120
square feet. The plan was prepared in accordance with Section 240-10.13 of the Town of
12
Southold Town Code. This section states that the yield plan is to be used for the determination
of allowable density on a property and is not to be used for site layout or construction purposes.
Based upon this yield plan, the applicant has prepared a 44-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative that
clusters the units on the site. As compared to the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative, four units
have been eliminated from the west side of the access drive and two units have been removed
from the area to the south of the on-site sewage treatment plant. While the 44-Unit Sketch Plan
Alternative has six fewer units than the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative, they both include five
workforce units. The 44 units would be connected to the municipal water system,but would be
connected to an on-site sewage treatment plant,similar to the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative.
The amount of sewage, solid waste and stormwater generated and the amount of water used
would be slightly less than the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative (see table below). Likewise, the
total population and number of school-aged children would be slightly lower than in the 50-
Unit Sketch Plan Alternative.
The amount of area to remain natural would be 0.4 acre greater in the 44-Unit Sketch Plan
Alternative as compared to the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative, while the amount of
impervious surface and landscaping would decrease by 0.2 acre each.
Based upon the factors used in Table 24 of the DEIS, Comparison of Alternatives, the following
impacts have been calculated for the 44-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative. These impacts are
compared to the No-Action Alternative, the 50-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative and the 108-Unit
Alternative that were analyzed in the DEIS:
13
Table 1-Comparison of Alternatives
44-Unii Sketch
No-Actlow SO-Unit Sketch. 108-Unit
A it
Proposed Action . Pla'n:Altemative.,:
Alternative PlariAl,ternative:: emative..:
Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres
Land Use Multi-Family Vacant Attached Single- Attached Single- Multi-Family
Residential Family Residential Family Residential Residential
Total Number of 128 0 44 50 108
Units
Number of 64 0 5 5 50
Workforce Units
Population? 318 0 166 192 288
School Children 3 40 0 44 50 40
Water 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 13,200 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd
Usage4/Sewage
Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 27,852 29,806 34,306
Required cubic feet cubic feet cubic feet
Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 28,045 30,264 34,400
Provided cubic feet cubic feet cubic feet
Solid Wastes 15.3 tons per 5.28 tons per 6.0 tons per 12.9 tons per
month 0 tons per month month month month
6
Traffic
AM Peak 63 0 27 30 55
PM Peak 74 0 31 34 64
Saturday 80 0 55 57 74
Peak
Area to Remain in 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 7.01 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres
Natural Vegetation
Area to Remain 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres
Wetlands
Area of Roads, 2.81 acres
Bu ings and 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres
Pavement
Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.44 acres 3.64 acres 2.75 acres
2 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.
3 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.
4 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time.
Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al.(John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003)
Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Condom in iums/Townhouses.
14
Therefore,while overall impacts would be somewhat lesser under the 50-Unit Sketch Plan when
compared to the impacts based upon the 44-Unit Sketch Plan, the area of disturbance associated
with the 44-Unit Sketch Plan would generally affect the same land area. Thus, the
commentator's assertion that the reduced-density subdivision would have "significantly" fewer
impacts is not supported by this analysis.
Comment H-16
And, lastly, I'd like to mention that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services last year
also updated its standards, and these updates directly effect the -- the proposal in the way of
how much proposed sanitary waste is projected to generate from various size the dwelling units
proposed. The standards have been amended to assigned dwelling units above 1,200 square
feet, a value of 300 gallons per day, which is equal to what a single family resident produces,
and I believe the proposal includes 70 units which range above that size. So these new
amendments would change the details provided within the DEIS, and in the very least we're
asking that the DEIS should be updated to reflect these changes, and the calculations should
also reflect these changes within the document as well. Pages 34—35
Response H-16
Section 4.2.2 of the DEIS used the correct sanitary flow of 300 gallons per day, as described by
the most recent Suffolk County Department of Health code, for sanitary flow from units 1,200
square feet or larger. Therefore,the DEIS is correct and does not require updating.
15
Patrick Heaney—Commissioner of Economic Development and Workforce Housing for
Suffolk County
Comment H-17
There are proposed to date 128 units, of which 64 are intended to be affordable. Of that 64,32 of
the units are intended for those families earning income less than 80 percent of the
Nassau/Suffolk. regional AM, and the second 32 units are intended for families earning
between 80 and 120 percent. The long term covenant on affordability is one that certainly meets
the requirements of the Suffolk County's Workforce Housing program, as do the percentages
and the income levels for the targeted families. With that said, we [Economic Development and
Workforce Housing Division of Suffolk County] strongly support a project like this, should it
actually come to fruition.Pages 36—37
Response H-17
The comment is noted. Details of the proposed workforce housing are included on Page 14
through 17 of the DEIS. Additional correspondence, dated March 26, 2010, from the Suffolk
County Department of Economic Development & Workforce Housing (hereinafter "Suffolk
County Letter"), reiterates Suffolk County's support for the proposed affordable housing (see
Appendix E of this FEIS).
16
Howard Meinke
Comment H-18
There is no way that Southold, before their master plan was written would ever consider
approving a development such as this.Page 38
Response H-18
The comment is noted. However, the site was previously approved for 108 units, as described
in Sections 2.2.1, 7.2 and Appendix B of the DEIS.Furthermore, the proposed action includes the
annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport.
Comment H-19
I've always understood that affordable housing wanted to be near the hamlets, near the HALO
zone, walking distance to shops, things of that sort. This is planted in a place that is just going
to create traffic, everybody will have to have an automobile to go anywhere. It may do
something about affecting the price of the house, I've heard that and I can't argue with it,but it
is not affordable housing in the place that affordable housing is intended to be, as far as I know.
Pages 38-39
Response H-19
The applicant owns the subject parcel and has the right to request both the annexation and
subsequent development of such parcel. As part of the proposed action, the applicant will
provide a shuttle bus to the downtown area and other local destinations that would serve to
transport residents of Northwind Village. This concept was discussed on page 247 of the DEIS.
In addition to the 64 units of workforce housing that will be guaranteed-affordable into the
future, there will be an additional 64 market rate units. In addition, both the Suffolk County
Department of Economic Development & Workforce Housing and the Long Island Housing
Partnership have indicated that the subject property is within an area that is appropriate for
such housing, as stated in the comments made at the public hearing of October 28, 2009 by
Patrick Heaney and Diana Weir and in written comments contained herein.
17
Tames Dinizio
Comment H-20
This land is probably the last time that we will ever be able to see a truly large development for
affordable housing. Page 40
Response H-20
The comment is noted.
Comment H-21
I am a member of the Fire Department...we're not getting any younger. We have a few young
members and they work quite a bit now because we have Peconic Landing, which is a senior
development. We could use more people. Page 41
Response H-21
The comment is noted. The proposed development has the potential to provide a larger pool of
potential volunteer firefighters, even though some existing members of the community are
expected to reside within the new development, as noted in Section 2.4 of the DEIS.
18
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
William Swiskey
October 15,2009
Comment C-1
Due to the annexation, the future residents would become part of the ownership of the Village
Electric,Department and could legally demand service. Plus there is a little known fact that a
dual franchise agreement exists for LIPA and the Village in the-whole of the Greenport School
District. However, the Village can refuse service as physically or cost prohibitive to new
applicant outside the Village. However, it cannot refuse service to new customers inside the
Village boundaries, should annexation occur. The cost of installing the infrastructure for
Village electricity could easily top $1,000,000, which current rate -pavers have to pick up and
could spike current rates. Since this possibility exists, there should be a financial impact study
on this issue.
Response C-1
The applicant has pursued receiving electricity from the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA").
Page 234 of the DEIS indicates: "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 (see Appendix P)." In addition, Page
286 of the DEIS.states: "Both LIPA and National Grid/KeySpan have confirmed the availability
of services for the proposed development(see correspondence in Appendix P)."
It is the applicant's understanding that the Village is obligated to provide service to its
residents, but that with a mutual agreement, LIPA can provide service within the Village. In
telephone correspondence with the applicant, LIPA confirmed that it serves customers within
the Greenport village boundaries,but would not specify such customers due to privacy issues.
Comment C-2
Depending on the equipment installed on the proposed units, the development could mean an
increase of 1000 to 1500 kW of demand to the Village system. All would be expensive kW's. It
would further dilute the hydro allocation causing average bills to go up for the whole customer
19
base. In other words, I as a current resident would be subsidizing this project. Why was this
issue not even looked at in the study?
Response C-2
The applicant has received confirmation of availability of service from LIPA. See Response C-1.
Comment C-3
Your report speaks of capacity in the Greenport School District, but fails to address added cost
to the district. The report contains no financial analysis. I would urge you to pull it back for
further analysis.
Response C-3
Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS includes a projection of the number of school-aged children generated
from three different sources (Rutgers Study, National Center for Education Statistics, and the
Town of Southold). The projected numbers of students to be generated from the proposed
development ranges from 26 to 52. Therefore, the average estimate of school-aged children
generated by the project based upon the three studies is 40 students.
As per the 2009-2010 New York State Property Tax Report Card, the budget for Greenport
UFSD was $13,820,704, of which $9,663,287 (almost 70 percent) was raised from property tax
levy. It should be noted that the total budget for the Greenport UFSD includes costs associated
with special education. Therefore,based on a total enrollment of 625 students in the 2009-2010
school-year, the approximate cost per student raised by property taxes alone is approximately
$15,461 (which includes costs associated with special education). Based on the foregoing,
approximately $618,450 needs to be raised in property taxes to support the enrollment of 40
students in the Greenport UFSD. Furthermore, based upon the assessed value of the proposed
development ($489,000 in 2008), as discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, and according to the
Town of Southold Assessor's Office, who indicated that the 2010-2011 School District tax rate is
approximately $623.00 per $1,000 of assessed value, the proposed project would generate
approximately$306,647 for the Greenport School District. Therefore,the total additional cost to
the District would be $311,803. However, if one applies the more recent data for multifamily
development in Suffolk County, the proposed development would generate 23 school-aged
20
children.7 Using this analysis, the additional cost to the School District would be $256,910±,
which would yield an annual revenue over expenses of $189,890±. Therefore, the taxes
generated by the proposed development, assuming 23 sc-hool-aged children, would exceed the
total pupil expenditure.
It is also important to note that the as-of-right.development (without annexation, within the
Town of Southold) would generate a total of 44 school-aged children and approximately
$162,727 in taxes to the school district. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the as-of-right
development would accrue an additional cost of$517,557±to the school district, approximately
$205,754+-higher than the proposed project.
Comment C-4
The village operates a water system. All residents get their water from it. If the Village lets a
part of its residents to purchase water from SCWA then I want the same privilege. I can save a
third on my bill. What will happen here in reality is there will be a master SCWA meter. The
Village will be the customer and it will install individual meters and bill.the residents. It will be
responsible for the water infrastructure maintenance. The key here is how much of the
construction costswill be paid by the Village.
Response C-4
According to the Suffolk Times article entitled Resistance to Mayor Trustees want no tax increase;
Nyce calls.for 2.36 percent hilce dated April 22, 2010, "most of the water system was sold to Suffolk
SCWA several years ago and what remains the water authority didn't want at the time."
Furthermore, the Village is pursuing selling the remainder of the system. Therefore, all of the
residents do not receive their water from the Village's water system.
As explained in Section 4.5.4 of the DEIS, the proposed project will have a private water main
installed throughout the site. This water main will connect to the existing SCWA main located
in front of the property along North Road (refer to section 4.2.2 of the DEIS confirming the
water availability). This proposed water main will be privately owned and maintained by the
developer/home owners association.
7 Kamer,Pearl M.,Ph.D.,Multifamily Housing on Long Island:Its Impact on Numbers ofSchool-Age Children and School District Finances,Long
Island Housing Partnership,2010. The study showed a ratio of 0.18 school-aged child per multifamily dwelling unit in Suffolk County.
21
Comment C-5
With respect to the sewer system, the cost is 128 x $15,000 = $1,920,000, which is what the
Village would get for these hookups if it was approved as a town entity. Even a 60 unit
development if approved by the town would put $900,000 in the village coffers. This money
would greatly relieve the debt burden of the Greenport Sewer Department upgrade costs. Any
DEIS should identify financial issues in a matter like this. The loss of up to $1,900,000 which
then must be replaced with the money from all rate payers doesn't strengthen a community as
referred to in your smart growth principals but weakens the capacity of its citizens to find
improvements in the base community.
Response C-5
The sewer hookup fees available to the Village if the parcel in question remained in Southold
are a consideration the Village presumably took into account when deciding its position on the
annexation proposal.
22
James Dinizio Jr.
Undated
Comment C-6
I am writing this letter to encourage you to allow the proposed KACE development to continue
the process for annexation to the Village of Greenport. I believe that the Village of Greenport
has the necessary utilities in place to allow this development to meet all of the environmental
concerns that the DEC may have. As a former member of the Zoning Board of Appeals in
Southold town and a lifelong resident of Greenport, I believe I have an understanding of both
sides of the issue and while I agree with the preservation efforts of the Town of Southold I also
believe that Southold's own laws encourage developers to seek to minimize the,effects of their
projects on the surrounding environmental. The KACE application has done this by finding a
location that would allow them to increase the amount of density while causing the least
amount of damage to the environment. In closing, I beg you to please allow this proposal to go
forward so that the community can benefit from the young families the may five there someday.
Response C-6
The comment is noted.
23
David S. Corwin
November 12 2009
Comment C-7
The DEIS notes in the Executive Summary that the project form of ownership will be "co-op"
with the village not having to supply services. The DEIS should address the form of ownership
in more detail, what services would be available to the project as part of the Village of
Greenport and what services it is expected the Village will be obligated or requested to provide
and what services the"co-op" will supply.
Response C-7
Page i of the Executive Summary indicates the proposed development would have a
condominium form of ownership. Page viii of the Executive Summary states that "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." As noted elsewhere in the DEIS, the applicant is seeking
connection to the Village of Greenport Sewer District. Water would be supplied by the SCWA
.Authority and both LIPA and National Grid indicated that they have the ability to provide
electricity and natural gas to the development, respectively. The discussion of sewers is
contained in Section 4.2.3 and Appendix J of the DEIS. Water supply is discussed in Section
4.2.2 and Appendix M of the DEIS. Utilities are included in the discussion in Sections 4.5.7 and
10.0 of the DEIS,with associated correspondence in Appendix P of the DEIS.
Comment C-8
The DEIS should note that the village currently provides yard waste pickup, snow/ice control,
road and sidewalk maintenance, water, sewer, zoning, and building construction regulation to
homeowners in the village. The DEIS should evaluate which of these services will be required
by the project and if additional Village of Greenport men and equipment will be needed to
provide services to an area that will be effectively isolated from the village. An example of
possible needs would be another dump truck with plow and operator for snow/ice control.
24
Response C-8
Services micluding yard waste pickup, snow/ice control, and road and sidewalk maintenance
would be conducted by private entities contracted with the Homeowners Association (as
explained in Section 4.5.5 of the DEIS). These items would not be Village responsibilities. As
discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the DEIS,water would be provided by the SCWA. Sewer service is
proposed to be provided by the Village of Greenport, and should annexation occur, zonmg,
building construction and overall development of the subject property would be under the
jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport.
Comment C-9
The existing sewer line along County Road 48 should be evaluated for condition and available
capacity. It is said that the sewer line is cement asbestos pipe and presently at capacity. The
method and cost of installing a new sewer line should be evaluated if the existing line is at
capacity or the cement asbestos pipe is found to be deteriorated.
Response C-9
Iri a letter dated March 26, 2001, the Village of Greenport indicated that it would be "prepared
to provide sewer service" for the project. This would indicate that not only is there sufficient
capacity in the sewage treatment plant to accept the additional flow (further confirmed mi a
letter dated November 6, 2006 from Cameron Engineering), but that the collection system is
adequate for the collection of the additional flow and its transmission,to the Sewage Treatment
Plant. See Appendix J of the DEIS for copies of both of these letters. Also,see Response C-5.
Comment C-10
As part of the Village of Greenport the project would need to be supplied with electricity by the
village. The method of physically providing an electric hookup should be explored. The village
electric system operates at 4,000 volts while the LIPA electric system operates at 13,000 volts. It
is questionable whether LIPA would allow village electric wires on LIPA poles. Would the
village have to install a power line through Moore's Woods to the project and what
environmental consequences would such an installation have if it is found to be required. The
size of the existing village primary step-down transformer and whether it.can carry additional
load should be explored. The load that will be placed on the existing standby engines should be
explored and what method the village emergency generation would use to allocate the existing
25
undersized generation capacity to an additional electric circuit. The Village of Greenport
electric supply is provided by the New York Power Authority with an allocation of favorably
priced electricity that is often exceeded during times of peak use. Once the allocation is
exceeded the village must pay a higher rate for electricity. The DEIS should note how much the
peak electric demand for the project will be and how it will affect the present allocation, NYPA
charges, and adjustment charges for exceeding the existing electric allocation.
Response C-10
The applicant has pursued receiving electricity from the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA").
Page 234 of the DEIS indicates: "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 (see Appendix P)." In addition, Page
286 of the DEIS states: "Both LIPA and National Grid/KeySpan have confirmed the availability
of services for the proposed development (see correspondence in Appendix P)." Therefore,
electricity is proposed to be supplied directly by LIPA.
Comment C-11
The DEIS notes that a variance will be required for the layout of the proposed project from the
Village R2 zoning category. A new zoning category and classification of the project in a new
zoning category by the Village Board would be more appropriate than a variance. The DEIS
should discuss possible zoning classifications, what classification the project would ask for and
the mechanics of putting a classification in place.
Response C-41
The applicant has requested being placed in the Village's R-2 zoning category should the
annexation be granted. Application of this zoning district has been evaluated in the DEIS. No
other zoning for the site has been requested by the applicant, and thus, no other district was
examined. It is the Village's responsibility to consider zoning the property to the R-2 zoning
district,should the annexation occur.
26
Comment C-12
The DEIS states that the Village of Greenport is in favor of the project. The present
administration of the village does not appear to have expressed any support for the project. The
DEIS should document what support the current village administration has for the project and
note that the support for the project was from the previous village administration.
Response C-12
The prior administration specifically supported the proposed project, as demonstrated in its
letter, included in Appendix F of the DEIS. The current administration has submitted a
comment letter that is addressed within this FE15. This letter does not express either support
for or opposition to the project, but provides comments on the DEIS and requests additional
information so that a future determination can be made.
Comment C-13
The DEIS notes that the Village would negotiate a contract with a contractor for solid waste
pickup. This does not seem correct as the Village currently provides no solid waste services.
Response C-13
The DEIS indicates that solid waste would be collected and disposed of by private carters at
licensed facilities. The Northwind Village homeowners' association would have the
responsibility for solid waste collection and disposal. This is discussed in Section 4.5.6 of the
DEIS.
Comment C-14
The DEIS notes that the Suffolk County Water Authority would provide Water. It would be the
Village of Greenport's obligation to provide water. Who would supply water and how should
it be examined in more detail.
Response C-14
As previously noted in Response C-4,most of the Village's water system was,sold to the SCWA
several years ago and the Village is currently pursuing the sale of the remainder of the system.
27
The SCWA has issued a letter of availability (dated March 4, 2008) stating that the proposed
development would have water available for domestic use through the use of an existing water
main located in North Road (please refer to section 4.2.2 of the DEIS).
Comment C-15
The current fire district is the East-West Fire District. The Town of Southold contracts fire
protection to the Village of Greenport for the East-West District. The DEIS incorrectly states
what district the project is in. The question of fire and emergency services should be expanded
on.
Response C-15
The East/West Fire Protection District is part of the overall Greenport Fire Department. Page
136 of the DEIS indicates that t1-ie subject site is located in and served by the East/West Fire
Protection District. The applicant has undertaken consultations with the Chief of the Greenport
Fire Department and the Chief has provided the applicant with overall department fire
protection information,which is included in Appendix P of the DEIS.
28
Wendy Quinn-Pacholk
November 16 2009
Comment C-16
I am in support of the project on many levels. At the top of the list of my support stand my own
two children and the fact that they would not be able to buy their own home on the North Fork,
as the current real estate exists. I am for the workforce housing that allows the working class
that need affordable housing to reside in and remain in the beautiful surrounding of our village.
Our village has gone through such beautification over the last several years, but the local
residents and their children can no longer afford to remain and live here.
Response C-16
The comment is noted.
Comment C-17
Last but certainly not least on my list of support for this project is for the KACE Management
family. As I mentioned above, I have worked for this family for three years at the Harborfront
Inn and they are descent, fair, caring, understanding, professional, ethical and forthright
business men. They think decisions through to see how they. can "help people", to see what is
fair and ethical, empower their employees to contribute to the needs of their guests/clients and
as the expression goes, "at the end of the day" they can sleep at night knowing they have done
what they think to be right for everyone involved. They desire the opportunity to make
peoples' lives just a little bit better, if it is within their power to do so. KACE Management
deserves the right to develop the property they own in a manner that serves the local people
and those who desire to be "locals".
Response C-17
The comment is noted.
Comment C-18
Support this project to give local families an option to own a piece of this beautiful area that we
so enjoy and give our children and future generations the opportunity to live were we love and
29
love where we live so the history of the North Fork goes on and on. Let the Greenport Village
Board embrace the approved development plan of KACE's environmentally safe and
demographically sound project.
Response C-18
The comment is noted.
30
NORTH FORK HOUSING ALLIANCE INC.
Barrytatney,President
December 8 2009
Comment C-19
As the primary affordable housing agency in the Town of Southold, the North Fork Housing
Alliance, Inc. ("NFHA") fully supports the KACE LI, LLC Workforce Housing project. The
sponsors of the KACE LI project have designed a unique project that surmounts the usual
barriers to affordability. NFHA has no financial or other involvement in this project; we offer
our support for the project strictly as a function of our mission to provide safe, decent,
affordable housing in the Greenport/Southold area and know from many years of hard work
that the.KACE LI project is a rare opportunity to have a substantial aspect of the dire need for
affordable housing addressed by a private owner.
Response C-19
The comment is noted.
31
NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Frank Wills
November 29,2009
Comment C-20
The need for Affordable Housing is not.fully discussed. The 80% to 120% area median income
for Nassau/Suffolk Census Area is identified as parameter. This delineates a population
earning $80,000 to $120,000 for a family of four. How does this fit with Greenport Village and
Southold Town incomes? With affordable housing need as compiled by Southold Town
Affordable Housing inventory?
Response C-20
The need for affordable housing was thoroughly documented in Section 2.5 and Appendix I of
the DEIS and requirements are discussed on pages 14 through 17 of the DEIS. Furthermore,the
commentator is incorrect regarding the income requirement of$80,000 to $120,000 income for a
family of four. In order to be eligible for the workforce housing, an applicant must meet the
income guidelines of less than 80 percent or.120 percent by family size, of the HUD AMI (Area
Median Income) for Nassau/Suffolk for the current year. Furthermore, the applicant must be
able to secure a mortgage.
According to www.1-tuduser.org the American Community Survey(ACS)Local Median Income
(for Nassau/Suffolk) in 2007 was $96,243. According to the ACS for the three-year period from
2006 to 2008, the median family income in the Town of Southold was $83,223. (No similar data
was available for the Village of Greenport.) Eighty percent of$96,243 is$76,995 and 120 percent
is $115,492, thus, the median income in the Town of Southold falls within the eligibility criteria
based upon HUD standards.
See Appendix E of this FEIS for correspondence from the Suffolk County Department of
Economic Development & Workforce Housing, dated March 26, 2010, endorsing the provision
of affordable housing units to be built within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce
Housing Program.
32
Comment C-21
Greenport Village does not appear to perceive a need for affordable housing because of its
rejection of Greenport Gateway in 2008. It was sited on Front Street in the commercial district
of the Village and involved in the construction on a developed site with no negative
envirom-nental impacts noted in the SEQRA documents.
Response C-21
The rejection of the Greenport Gateway in 2008 does not necessarily reflect the Village's
position on all affordable housing. The Greenport Gateway project, which was at a difficult
location, also included a commercial component and the request for several variances. The
denial of such project is not a prediction of the outcome of other affordable housing projects, as
each proposed project must be judged on its own merits.
Comment C-22
Tax revenue is discussed as a benefit without offset of increased expenses, especially to the
Greenport School District with a projected 40 additional students. Is there an actual net gain to
be anticipated?
Response C-22
See Response H-7 regarding cost to the School District and revenue generated by the proposed
project. Without annexation, the Village of Greenport would not receive any property taxes
from the Village, nor would it incur the cost of providing certain services. The Greenport
School District and the Greenport Fire Department would serve the site with or without
annexation. With annexation, the site would be under the jurisdiction of the East-West Fire
District of the Greenport Fire Department.
In addition, as discussed in this FEIS, some of the services typically provided by the Village
would be handled by the development's homeowners association (see Response C-8). Such
services include solid waste collection, snow removal and internal roadway maintenance.
33
Comment C-23
The discussion of road access to/from the project is inadequate. The site's only road frontage is
on Route 48, a major east/west road with 50 mph speed limits. The traffic study indicates a
need for a turn lane for traffic heading west. Isn't a turn lane necessary in both directions?
What about traffic exiting from the development? How will.such traffic enter the traffic flow?
Response C-23
The discussion and analysis of the site access point contained in Section 4.6.6 of the DEIS and
page 38 of Appendix Q of the DEIS is adequate, and in keeping with standard industry practice.
While the traffic study recommends the provision of a westbound left turn lane for entering site
traffic coming from the east, an eastbound right-tam lane for entering site traffic coming from
the west is not necessary. The eastbound right-turn movement, unlike the westbound left-turn
maneuver, does not require gaps in the opposing through traffic, and therefore, the delay
imparted to eastbound through traffic will be minimal. A driver attempting the westbound left-
turn maneuver, on the other hand, will need to look for gaps in the opposing eastbound
through traffic before completing the left turn and will thereby experience some delay while
waiting for a gap, if one is not readily available. In regard to traffic exiting from the
development, the analyses performed indicate that there are adequate gaps in both the
eastbound and westbound through traffic on North Road to accommodate exiting left-turning
and right-turning site traffic.
Comment C-24
The annexation process is not fully discussed. Especially omitted is discussion of Greenport's
willingness to change zoning from HD to R2 even if the annexation were to be granted.
Response C-24
The annexation process is specifically discussed in the DEIS on pages 9 through 12. The
applicant, as property owner,has the right to request the annexation and to request designation
into a specific zoning district should the annexation be granted. The Village of Greenport,
should the annexation occur,has the responsibility to consider the zoning of the property. It is
the Village's prerogative to zone the property to the most appropriate zoning district. HD is a
zoning district within the Town of Southold and would not be available to the site should the
34
annexation occur. R2 is a zoning district within the Village of Greenport, which would be
available to the site, should the annexation occur.
Comment C-25
The proposed zone change is not discussed in light of the HALO zones being defined in each of
the hamlets in Southold Town. The HALO zones, designed to focus housing density where
there is access to services and,usually, some form of public transit. The proposed development
requests higher density without external sidewalks on bordering streets, services, or public
transportation.
Response C-25
As explained in Section 3.4.3 of the DEIS, the subject property was.proposed to be included
within the HALO zone, prior to its final adoption by the Town of Southold, which occurred
during this current environmental review process for Northwind Village. The area of the site
was removed prior to final adoption of the HALO Zone Maps within Town of Southold Hamlet
Study by the Town Board.
The subject site has access to both the municipal sewer and water systems. Furthermore, the
applicant has indicated that it will provide a shuttle bus to the downtown area and other local
destinations that would serve to transport residents of Northwind Village.
Comment C-26
No site plan is included. Proposed structures are described as two stories in height with 23
structures but actual lot coverage per building and overall remain unclear.
Response C-26
A Preliminary Alignment Plan is included in Appendix G of the DEIS, both in hard copy.version
as well as electronic version. The lot coverage was shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan and
discussed in both the Executive Summary and in Table 13, page 175 of the DEIS, which
indicates that permitted lot coverage (in the Village's R-2 zoning district)is 35 percent,while the
proposed lot coverage is 10.9 percent. It should be noted that lot coverage in the Town of
Southold in the HD zoning district is 25 percent, as noted on Table 7,page 86 of the DEIS.
35
Comment C-27
Water table varies in depth over the site. Placement of buildings on site therefore must be
known to ascertain impact of building foundations on aquifer and to assess stability of
proposed foundations.
Response C-27
As a Preliminary Alignment Plan was included in the DEIS, the placement of the buildings is
shown. Furthermore, as described on pages 43 through 48 of the DEIS, test holes across the site
indicate that,in general, groundwater was encountered at 20 feet below grade,but there is some
perched or trapped groundwater at certain locations. The overall results of the test holes
concluded that the soil bearing capacities in the anticipated construction area are sufficient. The
test hole report and data are included in Appendix L of the DEIS.
Comment C-28
What recreational facilities are contemplated on-site? None are discussed. What are the
potential impacts? For example, placement of a swimming pool set into an area with a high
water table condition could have an environmental impact.
Response C-28
No active recreational facilities are proposed as part of the action. No swimming pool is
proposed. There is common area on the site that can be used for passive recreational purposes.
Comment C-29
There is no site plan that would indicate roadways, traffic circulation within the development
or specific access points for cars, trucks or emergency vehicles.
Response C-29
A Preliminary Alignment Plan is included in Appendix G of the DEIS in both the hard copy
version and the electronic version. As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan, there is one
proposed main access on Route 48 and one emergency access on Route 48. Internal circulation
is shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan and described on pages 243 and 244 of the DEIS.
36
Comment C-30
Section 1.3.5 of the DEIS only identifies the number of parking spaces (1.5 x 128), not their
specific location within the development no any indication that the buildings, parking spaces
and roads would fit within the described acreage. No mention of traffic signals. Would one be
necessary to enter/exit the project?
Response C-30
A Preliminary Alignment Plan was included in Appendix G of the DEIS, which shows the
proposed parking. Pages 248 through 250 as well as 259 through 260 discuss the conclusions
and proposed mitigation measures' for the potential traffic impacts. No traffic signal is
proposed and one is not necessary. The traffic impact study recommended the installation of a
STOP sign and STOP bar paving marking at the intersection of the proposed access drive and
North Road. In addition, the traffic impact study (see Appendix Q of the DEIS) recommended
the installation of a westbound left-turn lane for entering the site.
Comment C-31
Traffic levels are not discussed in the context of seasonal traffic spikes. Route 48 is the principal
road to/from the Orient/New London ferry service that experiences heavy traffic in.the summer
months. There is no discussion of road network capacity in light of seasonal traffic spikes.
Response C-31
As explained in Appendix Q of the DEIS, the data utilized in the Traffic Impact Study reflects
peak season conditions. The turning movement counts utilized in the traffic study were
performed in August 2007 at the three study intersections. ATR counts were collected for a full-
week, including a weekend, during the month of August 2007 at several locations. As such, all
of the counts collected and contained in the traffic study reflect the heavier traffic traversing
North Road during the summer months.
37
Comment C-32
There is no site plan provided and therefore no parameters indicated for discerning where
specific areas of deforestation would occur, how the grading segues with the most sensitive
areas of the property and whether the regarding will have any possible unintended
consequences. This entire subject is inadequately explored.
Response C-32
Plans for the proposed action, including a grading plan showing proposed topographic
contours after development, are provided in, Appendix G of the DEIS. In addition to the
proposed grading, this plan indicates the required drainage structures and the approximate
clearing limits for the project. Page 164 of the DEIS states that 4.6 acres of woodland will be
removed due to the proposed development. As stated in Section 3.3.1 on page 71 of the DEIS,
the woodlands consist of successional hardwood forests dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum)
and black, locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) with understory dominated by honeysuckles (Lonicera
sp.) and privet (Ligustrum sp.). These woodlands are re-growth stands that are likely to have
resulted from the abandonment of historical agricultural activities on the property. As stated in
Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS, the highest quality ecological habitats are freshwater wetlands and
located on the western, southern, and eastern margins of the property. With the exception of
the creation of the box turtle nesting area, all proposed grading and ground disturbance will
occur more than 100 feet from the freshwater wetland boundary in order to avoid,potential
impacts to these habitats. A survey of the-trees to be cleared under the proposed development
was not required pursuant to the Final Scope (included as Appendix A of the DEIS), however,
one would be provided at the time of site plan review.
Comment%&30137
The proposed project's water use and wastewater generation are not fully discussed in terms of
the impact on groundwater quality,nearby SCWA wells and local private wells.
Response C-33
The sanitary disposal and water supply aspects of the project have been discussed in the DEIS
report in sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. Under the proposed plan, wastewater from the site will be
directed to the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant(section 4.2.3). Based upon this, in
accordance with Article 6 of the SCDHS, the proposed project would be protective of
38
groundwater quality (including nearby private wells) relative to sewage disposal. The nearest
SCWA well field is approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the subject property on Route 48
(North Road Well Field). The SCWA, in its correspondence, did not indicate a potential impact
to any of its nearby wells associated with the potential development of Northwind Village.
Furthermore, groundwater flow direction is south-southeast, away from this wellfield.
Comment C-34
There are no details of chemicals including fertilizers and pesticides, et al. to be used on the four
landscaped acres in order to maintain the proposed plantings. What is projected to be the
impact on the aquifer of these chemicals? Also the potential for irrigating the landscaped areas
is dismissed with, "irrigation is not contemplated at this time." If irrigation is later installed
what will be the impact on water consumption and groundwater runoff? Unless irrigation is
completely ruled out, this must be addressed since it remains a possibility.
Response C-34
The proposed action consists of the annexation of the subject property to the Incorporated
Village of Greenport, and the development of the subject property for residential purposes.
When the positive declaration was issued by the NYSDEC, it was done based upon the pending
annexation request. No plans for development of the property were available, as it was
premature to do so until a decision was made on the annexation. However, in order to
comprehensively evaluate the impacts of implementation of the proposed action (i.e., granting
of the annexation and development of the subject property) in accordance with SEQRA and its
implementation regulations, a conceptual site plan was prepared and evaluated in the DEIS.
However,it is important to understand that the site plan is only conceptual and was developed
in order to allow the evaluation of potential significant adverse environmental impacts. If the
annexation is granted, the applicant would be required to submit a site development plan
application to the Incorporated Village of Greenport. However,if the annexation is not granted,
the subject property would remain under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and would
be developed in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Town(see Appendix D of this
FEIS).
Accordingly, it is not feasible for the applicant to prepare site plan details (e.g., specific
landscaping plan, tree preservation plan) for the conceptual site plan that is presented and
evaluated in the DEIS. However, the questions raised regarding landscaping plantings are
reasonable to the extent that they relate to ecological impacts. The applicant has indicated that
39
it would install non-fertilizer dependent species that are drought-tolerant, and that it did not
plan to install irrigation. The applicant has prepared a planting list, which is included in
Appendix J of this FEIS. The planting Est includes native evergreen and deciduous trees and
shrubs, native grasses and native wildflowers. The plant species included on both the berm
detail and plant list (see Appendices I and J, respectively) are native to the area and drought-
tolerant.
It must be recognized, however, that once all units are sold and the common areas are placed
under the jurisdiction of the Homeowners' Association, it is possible that the Homeowners'
Association could decide to install an irrigation system. Even if the Homeowners' Association
were to ultimately install an irrigation system at some time in the future, such irrigation would
not cause significant adverse environmental impacts.
Comment C-35
Section 1.4 lacks details. Three phases of. construction are indicated. Will each phase
encompass one, two.and three-bedroom units? It is possible that market rate units will all be
built in Pt and 2nd phases and affordable housing not built if the first two phases are not
successful? The issue of multi-season construction over several years is inadequately discussed
in light of impact on flora and fauna.
Response C-35
This section is part of the Executive Summary, and would not contain all the details, as
specifically stated on page i thereof. The market-rate units and affordable workforce units
would be integrated and included in both phases of the project. In addition, each of the
bedroom types would be built in both phases. These issues are discussed in Section 2.4 of the
DEIS.
Section 4.3 of the DEIS thoroughly describes the potential ecological impacts resulting from the
proposed action including impacts that are likely to occur during the short-term (i.e.
construction related impacts) and permanent impacts. However, most of the potential impacts
of the proposed action to native flora and fauna are independent of the duration of
construction. For example, the loss of old field and southern successional hardwood woodlands
and increased edge effects will be realized after initial site clearing and persist after completion
of the proposed development. However, these impacts will likely be slightly lessened when the
development is completed, as the proposed lawns and native landscaping will reduce edge
40
effects and provide habitat for some species. Potential impacts to native vegetation and water
quality resulting from sediment-laden stormwater from exposed soils can be minimized
throughout the construction phase of the project, regardless of its duration, by the installation
and maintenance of appropriate erosion and sediment control measures under the site's
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan("SWPPP").
In another example, Section 4.3.1 the DEIS acknowledges the potential noise-related impacts,
along with other edge effects, on breeding birds on and adjacent to the subject property. These
noise-related impacts are likely to occur both during construction, and over the long-term.
Regarding ecological impacts,potential impacts to breeding wildlife obviously occur during the
spring and summer months, potential impacts to migratory birds occur during the spring and
fall migratio ns, and potential impacts to resident wildlife and plants occur year-round.
Comment C-36
There is inadequate discussion of soil composition with regard to the impact of proposed
buildings on the site's soil strata.
Response C-36
Soil borings taken at various locations throughout the site have been included on the plans and
are thoroughly described in the DEIS (refer to pages 42 — 47, Figure 5 and Appendix G of the
DEIS).
Comment C-37
There is an insufficient exploration of important water sources and flows. The DEIS only
indicates what flows north and south.
Response C-37
The DEIS provides the location of the surface waters and, wetlands on and adjacent to the
subject property. It also indicates that these wetlands are hydrologically connected to the
Moore's Drain and Pipes Cove watershed, provides a description of the flora and fauna located
within these surface waters and wetlands, and indicates that these wetlands drain to the south
into Moore's Drain (see pages 62 through 64 of the DEIS. Accordingly, the applicant has
fulfilled the requirements put forth in the Final Scope (Appendix A of the DEIS, pg. 7) calling
41
fora "description of the surface water located on and adjacent to the site". The Scope does.not
specify that the applicant collect any additional hydrological data on the surface waters located
on or adjacent to the property. Notwithstanding this, as explained in Response C-33, sewage
will be disposed of via connection to an off-site sewage treatment plant and water will be
supplied to the site by the SCWA.
Comment C-38
There is no discussion of sanitary flow connection costs. Will the costs vary if the development
is inside Village limits vs. in Southold Town?
Response C-38
According to correspondence with Cameron Engineering, the Village's sewer consultant (see
correspondence with Cameron Engineering dated November 16, 2009 in Appendix J of the
DEIS) there is sufficient capacity at the sewage treatment plant to accommodate the proposed
development. In addition, there are Village sanitary mains existing at.the north end.of the
project site (along North Road). Costs associated with connecting to the Village sewage
treatment plant would be borne by the developer and would not change regardless of where the
.development is located. The developer would be required to pay an out-of-district connection
fee if the development was located within the Town of Southold. The applicant is committed
to participate financially on infrastructure improvements that may be required to connect the
development to Greenport's sewage collection system.Also, see Response C-5.
Comment C-39
There is no access to any public transportation in contradiction to the "smart growth" strategy
espoused.
Response C-39
As part of the proposed action, the applicant will provide a shuttle bus to the downtown area
and other local destinations (specifics to be determined) that would serve to transport residents
of Northwind Village. This concept was discussed on page 247 of the DEIS. The shuttle is
anticipated to allow residents to access existing public transportation facilities, including the
Long Island Railroad.
42
Comment C-40
There is no discussion of the connection to the Greenport Village sewage treatment plant in
terms of increase in effluent discharge into the Long Island Sound. In addition, if the
connection is not authorized, septic systems or an on-site sewage treatment plant is required.
The applicant failed to address this issue and did not describe any impact this would have on
groundwater or surface water quality of existing private and public wells in the area.
Response C-40
Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, the Village's sewer consultant,
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. This correspondence
is included in Appendix J of the DEIS. Since the Village has indicated its ability to serve the
site, it is the Village's responsibility to ensure compliance with its SPDES pern-dt for sewage
discharge from the wastewater treatment plant. An inquiry with N-YSDEC's Region 1 staff
found that the Greenport sewage treatment plant has been operated in compliance with the
discharge limits contained in its SPDES permit for at least the last three years.
Since the plant has sufficient unused capacity to accept the expected flows from the project, and
has an established record of meeting the discharge limits of its permit, it is reasonable to
conclude that the flows received from Northwind Village should not impact the performance or
other characteristics of the plant, and, therefore, should not result in a deterioration of Long
Island Sound water quality. Also, see Response C-5.
Should sewage connection not be granted, the 128-unit development would not occur. Instead,
as explained in Section 7.3 of the DEIS, development under the existing Southold HD zoning,
within installation of an on-site sewage treatment plant would occur. An analysis of the
installation of a sewage treatment plant is contained in Section 7.3 of the DEIS. The impacts to
groundwater and surface water from the installation of an on-site sewage treatment plant are
discussed on pages 276 through 279 of the DEIS.
43
Comment C-41
Section 4.4 does not address precedents for the annexation, the rezoning and other changes
required for the development. There is no discussion of the impact of annexation except for
benefit of the developer.
Response C-41
The proposed annexation would not set a precedent for annexation as each application is
analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The impact of the annexation would be to potentially permit
the development that has been proposed by the applicant. Upon annexation, the Village of
Greenport would have to zone the property to permit the development requested by the
applicant.
Comment C-42
As noted by your agency, this proposed development may have "an impact of regional
significance, given Peconic Bay's designation as a National Estuary, Critical Environmental
Area, and Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat."
Response C-42
The Part 3 - EAF that was prepared is used by the lead agency to assist in determining the
significance an impact is expected to have on the environment. If the Part 3—EAF indicates that
an impact may be significant, it was indicated in the Final Scope, evaluated in the DEIS and
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
With respect to wetlands, the N-YSDEC's Part 3 - EAF indicates that the wetlands on and
adjacent to the subject property are protected pursuant to Articles 15, 24, and 25 of the
Environmental Conservation Law(pg. 4 of the Part 3-EAF) and that proposed development on
the subject property may have "an impact of regional significance, given the Peconic Bay's
designation as a National Estuary, Critical Environmental Area, and Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat" (pg.5 of the Part 3-EAF). However, the NYSDEC's Long EAF also states that
such an impact would be realized if the project "results in major damage to the wetland, from
either direct disturbance at the surface or changes to the underlying impermeable soil levels."
The proposed action does not involve any excavation, filling, grading, or clearing within the
freshwater wetland; accordingly, there will be no direct disturbance to the wetland's surface or
44
subsurface. The applicant has designed the site to limit activities (including construction,
clearing, site grading and ground disturbance) within the NYSDEC-jurisdictional area and the
area associated with Moore's Drain. In fact, most construction activities and permanent
structures will be situated outside the N-YSDEC jurisdictional area. However, the applicant is
proposing the development of a box turtle nesting area in the western portion of the subject site.
The development of this nesting area is within the NYSDEC's jurisdiction and will require a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit (see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting
area location and Advisory Guidelines for Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, February 2009). This box turtle nesting area is proposed to mitigate
potential impact to the box turtle, as described in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response H-12 of
this FEIS. Furthermore, the NYSDEC's Part 3-EAF states that the consequences of a minor
encroachment into the adjacent area of the freshwater wetland will probably not be felt at the
regional level(pg. 5 of the Part 3-EAF).
45
GROUP FOR THE EAST END
Tenn Hartnagel
November 18 2009
Comment C-43
It is also critical that the DEIS thoroughly address the concerns and probable impacts outlined
within the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3. The following comments serve'to
specifically address deficiencies within the DEIS that need to be addressed in order to fairly and
accurately consider the potential impacts of this proposal and its alternatives.
Response C-43
A Part 3 - EAF was prepared for the proposed action. In. accordance with 6 N-YCRR §617.7,
based upon the Part 3- EAF, a positive declaration was issued by the lead agency. Subsequent
to the issuance of the positive declaration, a formal scoping process was held and a Final Scope
adopted by the lead agency. The contents of the DEIS are governed by the information
requested in the Final Scope. The DEIS was deemed complete and adequate for public review
by the lead agency on September 28, 2009. This means that the lead agency was satisfied that
the DEIS includes all of the information that was requested in the Final Scope.
The issues included in the Part 3 - EAF and the location where they are addressed in the DEIS
are listed below.
1A.Impact on Land(geology, soils,etc.)—Section 4.1 of the DEIS.
1B. Impact on Land(construction)—Sections 2.6,4.1,4.2.5,4.3.1 and 5.1 of the DEIS.
3. Impact on Water(wetlands)—Sections 4.2.5 and 4.3.1 of the DEIS.
5A. Impact on Water (discharge permit) — Sections 2.7, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.4, 4.4.4, 5.1 and 5.2 of
the DEIS.
5B. Impact on Water(sewage)—Sections 4.2.3 and 4.8 and Appendix J of the DEIS.
5C. Impact on Water(water supply)—Sections 4.2.2 and Appendix M of the DEIS.
8. Impact on Plants and Animals (threatened and endangered species) — Sections 3.3, 4.3
and 5.3 of the DEIS.
9. Impacts on Plants and Animals (non-threatened and non-endangered) — Sections 3.3
and 4.3 of the DEIS.
12. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources—Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the DEIS.
46
19A. Impact on Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood (community
services)—Sections 3.5,4.5 and 5.5 of the DEIS.
19B. Impact on Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood (annexation) —
Sections 2.3,2.4,3.4 and 4.4 of the DEIS.
6. Impact on Water(drainage)—Sections 3.2.4 and 4.2.4 of the DEIS.
15. Impact on Transportation—Sections 3.6,4.6 and 5.6 of the DEIS.
Comment C-44
The Town of Southold proactively adopted new regulations pertaining specifically to the
Hamlet Density Zones throughout the Town.' The law places restrictions on the size of the
dwelling units in the HD zoning district as well as setting a maximum limit to the parcels
allowable total gross floor area. The second code amendment that was passed creates
mandated open space set-asides.9 Under these new requirements, the proposed density would
be reduced, which would provide greater potential for reduced overall impact of high intensity
development.. The DEIS at a minimum should provide an Alternative that illustrates a plan in
conformance with these new standards.
Response C-44
As stated previously in Response H-15, the yield plan has been developedto conform to the
most recent Town of Southold zoning code (see Appendix D of this FEIS). The yield plan
indicates that a maximum of 44 lots could be developed on the subject property in accordance
with the prevailing HD zoning district regulations.
Comment C-45
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also amended its standa-rds.10 The new
standards directly affect the proposed sewage calculations for the Proposed Action and the
Alternatives. Specifically,housing units containing over 1,200 sq. ft. of gross floor area are now
considered to produce 300 gallons per day of sanitary waste, the same value that a single-family
residence produces. Th.e,DEIS states that 70 units are proposed to have between 1,350 to 1,500
sq. ft. gross floor area, therefore the SCDHS new standards should be noted within the DEIS
and the 70 units' associated sanitary waste should be reexamined.
8 Local Law 1-2009 entitled,"A Local Law in relation to Zoning Amendments to limit the size of dwelling units in Residential Site Plans in the
Hamlet Density District in the Town of Southold."
9 Local Law 2-2009 entitled,"A Local Law in relation to Design Standards and Regulations for Site Plans in the Town of Southold."
10 Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Other Than Single-Family Residences,July 15,2008(corrected November 20,2008).
47
Response C-45
The proposed sanitary and water usage calculations for the proposed development are based on
the most recently updated usage rates of the Suffolk County Health Department, as noted in the
comment (See Section 4.2.2 of the DEIS). Housing units containing over 1,200 SF of gross floor
area were calculated using 300 gallons per day. The calculations contained in the DEIS were as
follows:
70(units 1,200 SF or greater)x 300 Gallons per Day =21,000 Gallons per Day
58 (units less than 1,200 SF) x 225 Gallons per Day=13,050 Gallons per Day
Total Flow =34,050 Gallons per Day
-Therefore,the sanitary calculations contained in the DEIS are correct.
Comment C-46
Section 4.3.3 and Section 4.3.4 of the Final Scope calls for the need for an in-depth analysis of the
proposed project's impact on water resources. Specifically, the questions, "What will be the
sanitary flow impacts if connection to the sewer district is not authorized"was not coveted within.the
DEIS. For instance, will a sewage treatment plant be required onsite to manage flow? How
might this produce an impact?
Response C-46
As stated above, should connection to the sewer district not be authorized, the development of
128 units on the site would not occur. An analysis of the impact to water resources of
installation of an on-site sewage treatment plant is included in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 of the
DEIS, which analyzes a 50-unit residential alternative. It should be noted that the alternative
plan,which previously included 50 units,has been updated to address comments relating to the
current Town of Southold zoning regulations. The new Southold zoning-compliant alternative
plan shows 44 lots.
Comment C-47
The Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 (Appendix A) provides a detailed synopsis of
potential large impacts identified in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2. However,
the DEIS routinely concludes that any of the "potential large impacts" can be mitigated and
48
therefore will not create impacts. This conclusion applied to each and every acknowledged
large potential impact is concerning given with was identified .as serious concerns outlined in
the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3. Not a single aspect of the proposed action has
been redesigned or modified to further address these impacts.
Response C-47
The Part 3 - EAF that was prepared is used by the lead agency to assist in determining the
significance an impact is expected to have on the environment., The. Part 3 - EAF is prepared
based upon the results of the Part 2-EAR The Part 2- EAF indicates that if any potential large
impact is identified or if one cannot determine the magnitude of an impact, a Part 3-EAF must
be prepared.
Preparation of a Part 3 - EAR comes at the beginning of the process. Based upon the Part 3 -
EAF, a positive declaration, indicating the need for preparation of a DEIS, is then issued by the
lead agency. Subsequent to the issuance of the positive declaration, scoping can occur (in the
case of the proposed action, a formal scoping process was held). Lastly, a Final Scope is issued
and adopted by the lead agency. The contents of the DEIS are governed by the information
requested in the Final Scope. The DEIS then evaluates the potential impacts and proposes
mitigation that will minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 5.0 of the DEIS includes a discussion of the mitigation measures that have been
proposed to minin-Lize significant adverse impacts. These include the following:
• 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 13;
• 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 axe 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;
Although the specific mechanism has not been determined,the applicant intends to ensure the protection of areas designated for
preservation by a legal vehicle such as an easement or a deed covenant.
49
• Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree
species to reestablish wooded,-buffers around the perimeter of the site(see Appendix J of
this FEIS);
• A final Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, incorporating erosion and sedimentation
control measures, will be prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC to ensure stormwater
is properly handled and impacts are mitigated;
• The proposed development would be connected to both the public sewer and water
systems. This 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;
• Since no potable water would be drawn from the property, there would be no localized
draw-down on the property;
• Stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged within
the site in compliance with both.local standards and NYSDEC Phase H regulations. The
recharge of stormwater on the site would, assist in ensuring that the aquifer is
replenished;
• Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and
shrubs,which provide shelter and food for wildlife;
• 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. This would occur within the NYSDEC 100-foot jurisdictional area, and, as
such,would require a Freshwater Wetland Permit;
• Maintenance of the nesting site will include inspection of the nesting site every two
years to ensure that the sandy soil remains exposed. Maintenance will be conducted in
April prior to nesting of female box turtles to avoid potential disturbance to eggs;
• A row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar or white pine, 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;
• Smart Growth development aspects such as the clustering of units and the compact
building sizes, which preserve open space and natural resources will be employed as
part of site development;
• 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;
50
Construction of the proposed project will be a phased process, occurring over
approximately three years. Tl-ds timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new
students into the school system;
The applicant will work with the Greenport Fire Department (East-West Fire District)
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 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; and
Traffic mitigation measures include the following:
o Installation of a STOP sign and STOP bar pavement,marking at the intersection of
the proposed access drive and North Road;
o Installation of a westbound left-turn-lane to be constructed for entering site traffic;
o Parking of all construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles on-site during
construction activity; and
o 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.
Moreover, the DEIS was deemed complete and adequate for public review by the lead agency
on September 28, 2009. This means that the lead agency was satisfied that the DEIS includes all
of the information that was requested in the Final Scope.
Comment C-48
Ute Part 3 — EAF indicates that "77he action will affect a body of water designated as protected
pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Article 15, 24 &25. Based on the size and configuration of
the upland portion of the subject property, and the size (number of units) of the proposed development,
the probability of the action encroaching into some part of the adjacent area resulting in some reduction of
the wetland buffering value of the adjacent area is high.
The same section further states that if a large impact were created to the welland "'such and
impact would be of regional significance, given Peconic Bay's designation as a Natural Estuary, Critical
Environmental Area, and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
51
Lastly, the DEC notes that, "It should be possible to control the impact of encroachment into the
wetland and adjacent area through the development of a careful design for a realistically sized project and
careM management of the construction process"[5].
Response C-48
As previously discussed, the Part 3-EAF that was prepared is used by the lead agency to
assist in determining the significance an impact is expected to have on the environment. The
Part 3-EAF is prepared based upon the results of the Part 2-EAF.'The Part 2-EAF indicates that
if any potential large impact is identified or if one cannot detern-dne the magnitude of an
impact, a Part 3-EAF must be prepared.
Preparation of a Part 3-EAF comes at the beginning of the process. Based upon the Part 3-EAF,
a positive declaration, indicating the need for preparation of a DEIS, is then issued by the lead
agency. Subsequent to the issuance of the positive declaration, scoping can occur (in the case of
the proposed action, a formal scoping process was held). Lastly, a Final Scope is issued and
adopted by the lead agency. The contents of the DEIS are governed by the information
requested in the Final Scope. The DEIS then evaluates the potential impacts and proposes
mitigation that will minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
The DEIS was deemed complete and adequate for public review by the -lead agency on
September 28, 2009. This means that the lead agency was satisfied that the DEIS, whether it
agrees with the data of not,includes all of the information that was requested in the Final Scope.
Nevertheless,the proposed development is subject to N-YSDEC regulations,including a 100-foot
wetland buffer imposed upon it(see the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G of the DEIS).
The applicant has designed the site to limit activities (including construction, clearing, site
grading and ground disturbance) within the NYSDEC jurisdictional area and the area
associated with Moore's Drain. In fact, most construction activities and permanent structures
will be situated outside the N-YSDEC jurisdictional area. However, the applicant is proposing
the development of a box turtle nesting area in the western portion of the subject site. The
development of this nesting area is within the N-YSDECs jurisdiction and will require a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit (see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting
area location and Advisory Guidelines for Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat,Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, February 2009). This box turtle nesting area is proposed to mitigate
52
potential impact to the box turtle, as described in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response H-12 of
this FEIS.
The Part 3-EAF does state that the "probability of the action encroaching into some part of the
adjacent area...is high." However, based upon the proposed Preliminary Aligntnent Plan, with
the exception of the creation of the box turtle nesting area, no other encroachment within the
NYSDEC's .100-foot adjacent area is proposed. As there is no physical disturbance of the
wetland or its buffer area, an impact of"regional significance," as discussed in this comment, is
not expected to be realized. In fact, the Part 3-EAF states that the consequences of a minor
encroachment into the adjacent area of the freshwater wetland will probably not be felt at the
regional level(pg.5 of the Part 3-EAF).
Comment C-49
The proposed action (aside from the No-Action Alternative) and the alternatives do not
illustrate reduced building footprints and/or increased natural area buffers. The 50-unit
alternative essentially mirrors the proposed action's building coverage and natural area set-
asides.
The DEIS should include an*alternative that illustrates a reduced dens4 with an alternative lot-
layout that increases buffers. An alternative is not an alternative if it does not effectively
mitigate identified large probable impacts. The DEIS does not provide as the proposed action
or an alternative, as the DEC noted above, "a realistically sized project.
Response C-49
The 50-unit Sketch Plan Alternative presented in the DEIS reflected development under
prevailing zoning and was an alternative requested as part of the Final Scope. Since the time of
the Final Scope, the zoning of the Town of Southold'has been amended. The yield plan, in
compliance with current Town of Southold zoning, is included in Appendix D of this FEIS. The
amended zoning reduces the number of lots permitted from 50 to 44. Based upon the yield of
44 units, the applicant has prepared a 44-Unit Sketch Plan Alternative that clusters the units on
Ahe site. An assessment of the impacts of the 44-Unit Sketch Plan is provided in Response H-15,
along with a comparison of impacts associated with other plans that have been evaluated as
part of this SEQRA process (i.e., 128-Unit Multi-Fairiily Proposed Action, 50-Unit Sketch Plan
Alternative and 108-Unit Multi-Family Alternative). The table of quantifiable impacts,
contained in Response H-15,has been reproduced below.
53
Comparison of Alternatives
44.;Unit Sketch
No-Action :,::,So nit Sketch 1087Unit ::::,
Proposed:Action
Plan Alternative
-Alternative Plan Alternative Alternative': I
Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres—
Land Use Multi-Family Vacant Attached Single- Attached Single- Multi-Family
Residential Family Residential Family Residential Residential
Total Number of 128 0 44 50 108
Units
Number of 64 0 5 5 50
Workforce Units
Population'2 318 0 166 192 288
School Children 40 0 44 50 40
Water 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 13,200 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd
Usage"/sewage
Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 27,852 29,806 34,306
Required cubic feet cubic feet cubic feet
Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 28,045 30,264 34,400
Provided cubic feet cubic feet cubic feet
Solid Waste 15 15.3 tons per 0 tons per mo nth 5.28 tons per 6.0 tons per 12.9 tons per
month month month month
16
Traffic
AM Peak 63 0 27 30 55
PM Peak 74 0 31 34 64
Saturday 80 0 55 57 74
Peak
Area to Remain in 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 7.01 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres
Natural Vegetation
Area to Remain 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres
Wetlands
Area of Roads, 2.81 acres
Buildings and 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres
Pavement
Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.44 acres 3.64 acre-,777r77��acres
12 The projected population based on structure type as provided in the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced bythe Centerfor Urban
Policy Research at Rutgers University.
13 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.
14 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time.
15 Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al.(John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003)
16 Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Conclomin iu ms/Town houses.
54
Due to the decrease in units from 50 to 44, based on the Town of Southold's amended zoning,
the project sponsor has indicated that it is not feasible to consider an alternative that would
further decrease the amount of building, pavement and roadway coverage beyond that which
would be permitted by current Town zoning. Should the property remain in the Town, the
proposed action would be subject to site plan approval in accordance with Town regulations,
which would dictate the parameters set forth for site coverage (including impervious surfaces),
density and setback requirements, among others.
Comment C-50
Although the 50-unit alternative presents a significantly reduced density, it is mentioned in the
DEIS as described as having, "the overall footprint of the dwellings would be slightly smaller than in
other scenarios" (275). Additionally, Table 24-Comparison of Alternatives illustrates that the 50
unit alternative would only reduce the area of roads, buildings and pavement by a single acre
while having the same amount of area to be kept naturally vegetated as the proposed action.
The 50-unit alternative should be amended to increase the area of natural vegetation and to
further decrease the amount to building, pavement and roadway coverage so that the potential
for impacts to the wetlands and natural areas are further reduced.
Response C-50
As previously indicated in Response H-15, the yield plan reflects the prevailing I-11) zoning of
the Town of Southold and is included as Appendix D of this FEIS. The yield plan has been
determined to be 44 lots. However, the applicant has prepared a 44-Unit Sketch Plan
Alternative that clusters the units on the site. See Responses H-15 and C-49.
55
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
Heather Lanza,AICD,Town Planning Director
November 23 2009
Comment C-51
A significant adverse impact to the wetland system has not been discussed at length or
mitigated in the DEIS. The impact is the alteration of the hydrology to the surrounding
wetlands caused by grading and development in areas where the groundwater is close to or at
the surface. It seems likely that high groundwater and perched water occur throughout this soil
type,yet that condition is.dismissed in the report about soils on page 43 and 48.
Further, standing water on the surface is common on the property. Groundwater levels and
perched wetlands should be re-evaluated with more comprehensive soil tests done during a
wet time of year. Ephemeral wetlands (vernal ponds) are as important as year-round wetlands
because they provide habitat for a unique set of animals that can breed nowhere else (mole,
salamanders, certain frog species,certain insects).
Grading in the area of poorly drained soils (i.e., this band of Raynham soil type) could
significantly alter the hydrology of the wetlands. Will the layer of poorly draining soil be
pierced by the grading and cause draining of perched wetlands nearby?
This potentially significant adverse impact must be fully analyzed before it can be determined
that no significant adverse impact will occur.
Response C-51
The DEIS does not identify the alteration of the hydrology of the surrounding wetlands caused
by grading and development in areas where the groundwater is close to or at the surface to be a
significant adverse impact.
Section 4.2.5 of the DEIS discusses both of these issues in detail. Page 161 of the DEIS indicates
"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." None of the
proposed residential activities will occur within the NYSDEC jurisdictional area. However, as
56
explained in Response H-1, tl-ie box turtle nesting area is proposed to be created within the 100-
foot wetland setback area, and would require a Freshwater Wetland Permit from the NYSDEC
(see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting area location and Advisory
Guidelines for Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massadiusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife,
February 2009).
Irt addition, page 162 of the DEIS discusses the potential impacts to hydrology, noting that "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 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."
Furthermore, the preliminary grading and drainage plan presented in Appendix G of the DEIS
provides existing and proposed topographic contours for the proposed action. This plan sheet
indicates that there are no areas of proposed excavation/grading that are likely to intercept
impermeable soil layers. The proposed cuts associated with site grading will occur in the
northern portion of the property adjacent to County Route 48. These proposed cuts will not
intercept groundwater as the test borings closest to these cuts show groundwater at 20 feet
below the ground surface. .The large majority of the project site, particularly where perched
w.ater as observed, will be brought-to a higher grade through the placement of 0-5 feet of clean
fill. Initial site clearing and grubbing typically disturbs only the upper layer of,soil horizon and,
accordingly, is not expected to disturb subsurface soil layers. Potential disturbance to the
.subsurface soil layers would only result,from the installation of proposed utility lines and
stormwater drainage structures.
Standing water is common in the perched freshwater wetlands on the subject property. All
"ephemeral" and "year-round" are included within the freshwater wetland boundary
confirmed by Robert Marsh of the NYSDEC on November 9, 2005. With the exception of the
box turtle nesting area, all other proposed ground disturbance and clearing will occur more
than 100 feet from the landward limits of the freshwater wetlands iri order to provide a buffer
for the wildlife and.plants dependent on these habitats.
57
The freshwater wetland boundary should not be impacted by the time of year of the delineation
as the wetland boundary is based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and indicators of
hydric soils,which require consistent saturation of soils during the growing season to develop.
The USCS soil maps provided for the project site do not provide the detailed information that is
available through close examination of the soil borings taken for the project. The locations of
the soil borings were taken based on the construction of the proposed project. These borings
indicate that the material will be suitable for construction of the proposed buildings. Water that
is close to the surface, as indicated by the borings, is perched water that would be mitigated
during construction and is not groundwater. Please refer to pages 44 to 47 of the DEIS for a
detailed description of the soils found on the subject property in the locations of the proposed
buildings.
The subject site is situated on a crest from which water flows towards the south into the existing
wetland.
Comment C-52
To reemphasize the above discussion, the alteration of the hydrology to the surrounding
wetlands is likely, and will cause a significant adverse impact. No mitigation,for this impact
has been offered. The poorly drained soils described in this comment are limited to a small area
uphill of the wetland and are not representative-of the site. Grading of this area should not alter
the hydrology of the lower-lying wetlands.
Response C-52
Test borings and analysis in the DEIS do not support the premise that the project will result in a
significant modification to the hydrology of the wetlands.
The proposed methods of minimizing potential impacts to the hydrology and water quality of
the surrounding wetlands include the installation of leaching basins to collect stormwater from
the proposed impervious surfaces and establishment of a 100-foot buffer area prevent direct
discharges of stormwater and surface runoff. Page 168 of the DEIS addresses the potential for
an adverse impact to wetland hydrology stating that "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 discharges into drywells located under the proposed roadway. Accordingly,
58
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 to 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."
Comment C-53
The DEIS states "no irrigation at thistime" yet does not preclude the possibility of irrigation in
the future. To assess the impact of water supply, the full potential use of water must be
analyzed.
There is no landscaping plan submitted to support the idea that no irrigation will be installed at
this time, and no guarantee about future irrigation. "Landscaping" is referred to in other places
with respect to the proposed action, yet no details are provided. Landscaping in communities
such as this are routinely maintained with irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide treatments. The
applicant should submit more detail about how they will avoid having to do so. Otherwise the
claim that no water will be used for irrigation is questionable. On page 168 the DEIS mentions
the use of lawns, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients and on page 15, two and a half acres
of "lawn and landscaping" are proposed as part of this project. Lawns are water-dependent
and
nd are typically irrigated in communities such as this which will presumably have a
Homeowners' Association own and maintain the grounds.
Response C-53
As indicated in Responses C-34 and.C-53, the proposed action consists of the annexation of the
subject property to the Incorporated Village of Greenport, and the development of the subject
property for residential purposes. When the positive declaration was issued by the NYSDEC, it
was done based upon the pending annexation request. No plans for development of the
property were available, as it was premature to do so until a decision was made on the
annexation. However, in order to comprehensively evaluate the impacts of implementation of
the proposed action (i.e., granting of the annexation and development of the subject property)
m accordance with SEQRA and its implementation regulations, a conceptual site plan was
prepared and evaluated in the DEIS. However, it is important to understand that the site plan
is only conceptual and was developed in order to allow the evaluation of potential significant
adverse environmental impacts. If the annexation is granted, the applicant would be required
to submit a site development plan application to the Incorporated Village of Greenport.
59
However, if the annexation is not granted, the subject property would remain under the
jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and would be developed in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the Town(see Appendix D of this FEIS).
Accordingly, it is not feasible for the applicant to prepare site plan details (e.g., specific
landscaping plan, tree preservation plan) for the conceptual site plan that is presented and
evaluated in the DEIS. However, the questions raised regarding landscaping and screen
plantings are reasonable to the extent that they relate to ecological and aesthetic impacts. In
order to address those comments, a berm detail has been prepared and is presented in
Appendix I of this FEIS. As indicated on that detail, the berm would be planted along the
frontage of the property on CR 48., It would be approximately three-to-four feet in height and
have a maximum of slope of 1 on 3. It would be planted with a mix of native evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs (see Appendix I). The proposed plantings include American Holly,
Eastern Red Cedar, Pitch Pine, White Oak, Scarlet Oak, Red Oak, h-Lkberry, Northern Bayberry,
Beach Plum and Highbush Blueberry. The latter four species are shrubs, which will form the
understory on the berm. The first, six species are the evergreen and deciduous trees that will
form the canopy and block the tops of the proposed residences. The height at planting and the
height at maturity for each species are shown on the Berm Detail in Appendix I of this FEIS.
The berm would be designed to screen the interior of the property from views along CR 48.
In addition, the applicant has indicated that it would install non-fertilizer dependent species
that are drought tolerant, and that it did not plan to install irrigation. The applicant has
prepared planting lists, which are included in Appendix J of this FEIS. These planting lists
consist of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, native grasses and native wildflowers, all
of which are drought-tolerant. It must be recognized, however, that once all units are sold and
the common areas are placed under the jurisdiction of the Homeowners' Association, it is
possible that the Homeowners' Association could decide to install an irrigation system. Even if
the Homeowners' Association were to ultimately install an irrigation system at some time in the
future, such irrigation would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts.
With respect to the preservation of existing trees, as it is not feasible to prepare a specific tree
preservation plan until a detailed site plan is prepared, the applicant has indicated those areas
where existing trees would remain, despite the ultimate site plan that is developed (see
Appendix M of this FEIS).
60
Comment C-54
From the information submitted in the DEIS, we are not able to determine whether any
potential significant adverse impacts from stormwater runoff are going to be mitigated. The
DEIS,in paragraph 2 on page 159, states that detailed site plans will be submitted to the Village,
including details for grading, drainage, and erosion control,implying that,the preliminary plans
in the DEIS are not detailed and cannot be used to ensure that local drainage storage
requirements are met. The environmental impacts of stormwater runoff cannot be properly
evaluated because the plans in the DEIS are so generalized as to not provide accurate
information about how runoff will be controlled.
The last statement regarding stormwater runoff in the last paragraph of Section 4.2.4 seems
unfounded. There is a generalized "Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)" that provides little detail on stormwater pollution prevention. A detailed SWPPP is
needed to be able to make a determination on whether there will be any significant adverse
impacts to groundwater or surface water during construction. Merely stating it will be
controlled is not enough to determine that the adverse impact has been mitigated.
Response C-54
The preliminary plans included in Appendix G of the DEIS and the drainage calculations and
associated analysis provided in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIS are designed to demonstrate that the
local drainage storage requirements can be met for the proposed development. Runoff for the
site, as indicated on these plans, is to be contained and recharged into the groundwater through
the use of a drywell system. This system will have a series of inlets to capture the runoff and
direct it into the recharge system in accordance with the best management practices described
by the N-YSDEC.
A final, detailed set of plans will be provided at the time of site plan approval. This plan set
will be required to detail the construction of the drainage system. A detailed SWPPP will be
included in this set of plans. This SWPPP will be required
quired to meet the standards of the Village
and the DEC in terms of containing and mitigating any stormwater runoff.
Comment C-55
The DEIS and Preliminary SWPPP state that dust will be controlled during construction, but
does not provide details about how it will be controlled.
61
Response C-55
As indicated on page 261 of the DEIS, "fugitive dust will, for the most part, be controlled
through the use of wetting and covering exposed areas with tarpaulins or the equivalent."
However, specific details of the dust control operations for the project will be provided as part
of the final SWTPP. At that time, the final SVVTPP, including the dust control plan, will be
submitted for approval by the Village (should the property be annexed) and the N-YSDEC.
Comment C-56
In the fourth paragraph on page xii it states that the groundwater is said to be an average of 20-
25' below the surface, and a statement follows later that the drywells will be two feet above the
groundwater level. This implies that drywells will be installed 18' below the surface in places.
What are the top and bottom elevation of the drywells? How can adverse impacts of
stormwater pollution be determined without accurate information about the proposed drainage
system? Soils with seasonal high groundwater occur within the development area, yet the
drainage plan does not appear to account for that problem.
Response C-56
These details are premature for a preliminary design of the drainage system, within the SEQRA
process. The top and bottom elevations of the proposed drainage system will be finalized as the
project approaches a final design, at the time of site plan review. At this time, the preliminary
drainage system design demonstrates that the project will be able to contain the required
volumes of water required by the local municipality. Upon generating a final design, the
drainage system will be subject to review and approval by the Village. Furthermore, soil
borings have been taken to demonstrate the levels of groundwater in the area. The final
drainage system design will maintain a minimum of two feet above the seasonal high
groundwater derived from those borings.
Comment C-57
It cannot be assumed that either hooking up to the Greenport sewer system, or providing a
sewer system on-site will have no impact to groundwater or surface water. According to a
recent Suffolk County report reviewing treatment plants in the region, many public sewers are
operating at substandard levels and failing to adequately treat the sewage before it is
discharged. The Greenport sewage treatment outfall pipe empties into the Long Island Sound.
62
The track record and current test results of the effluent of the Greenport Sewer system should
be reported in this EIS to effectively evaluate the effect to surface water that another 128 units
will have on the Long Island Sound.
Response C-57
The Village of Greenport has issued a letter of sewer availability for the proposed project stating
that the Village treatment plant has sufficient capacity to accept the proposed project additional
flow(please refer to Section 4.5.4 of the DEIS).
Moreover, as noted in Response C-5, an inquiry with NYSDEC's Region 1 staff found that the
Greenport sewage treatment plant has been operated in compliance with the discharge limits
contained in its SPDES permit for at least the last three years.
Since the plant has sufficient unused capacity to accept the expected flows from the project, and
has an established record of meeting the discharge limits of its permit, it is reasonable to
conclude that the flows received from Northwind Village should not impact the performance or
other characteristics of the plant, and, therefore, should not result in a deterioration of Long
Island Sound water quality.
Furthermore, the Village would not be responsible for constructing the on-site sewage collection
system. This cost would be borne by the developer of the project. In addition, the applicant is
committed to participate financially on infrastructure improvements that may be required to
connect the development to Greenport's sewage collection system.
In the event that some development goes forward without the connection to the Village
treatment plant, the proposed on-site treatment plant will conform to the discharge and
treatment standards of the Suffolk County Department of Health and any applicable state
permits. The proposed development of 128 units (including 64 affordable units) would not
proceed without connection to the municipal sewer system.
Comment C-58
The project will potentially alter the hydrogeology of the area and affect the nearby wetlands by
reducing the amount of clean water that enters that area. The cutting and filing will alter the
topography. On page 163, the DEIS suggests that hydrogeology will be altered by puncturing
the strata of "unsuitable materials" or the soils that are not permeable where the water is
63
perched above. The DEIS downplays the significance of perched water at 5 feet as an isolated
anomaly. A thorough analysis of the site during seasonal high groundwater times must be
conducted to avoid construction in seasonal wetlands or on area where groundwater is very
close to the surface. This analysis is also necessary to be able to determine if significant adverse
impacts are being mitigated or avoided entirely.
If the perched water is part of the hydrogeology of the adjacent wetlands, and that perched
water is drained out, it could have a significant adverse impact on the adjacent wetlands, and
those plant and animal species that depend on those wetlands (there is more on wetlands under
Ecology section following).
Response C-58
Please refer to Response C-51 for a discussion of the potential impacts to hydrology of nearby
wetlands. The applicant has fulfilled the requirements put forth in the Final Scope(Appendix A
of the DEIS, pg. 7) calling for a "discussion of how fill placement, runoff, and drainage affect
surface wetlands and waters."
Groundwater elevations presented in the DEIS were taken at 4 time of the year (March 20-21,
2008) when groundwater levels are expected to be high. Therefore, the DEIS is consistent with
the comment that site analysis occurred during a seasonal high groundwater period.
Precipitation is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the year in New York State. However,
evaporation from the ground surface and transpiration are low at this time, of year due to the
cool temperatures and lack of deciduous vegetation. Accordingly, groundwater water levels
are expected to be highest in the early spring,when the groundwater elevations were measured.
The comment is incorrect in suggesting that the observed perched groundwater is associated
with seasonal wetlands. All wetlands on the site are included within the freshwater wetland
boundary and that boundary was confirmed by Robert Marsh of the NYSDEC on November 9,
2005. As described previously, with the exception of the box turtle nesting area, there will be no
other construction within 100 feet of any seasonal/vernal or permanent freshwater wetlands (see
Responses H-1 and H-5).
As stated previously, the DEIS acknowledges thattheproposed action has a potential to affect
the infiltration of precipitation to groundwater and flows to adjacent wetlands. 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
64
surfaces will be collected, concentrated, and discharged into drywells located under the
proposed roadway, resulting in unequal infiltration across the site. Accordingly, the comment
is incorrect in indicating that there will be a net change in the total water supply to the wetlands
on or adjacent to the property, as all precipitation that falls on the site will either percolate
directly into the ground or will enter the ground through the site's drywells. However, the
proposed project could affect the existing pathways by which precipitation falls on the site,
drains through the sites soils, and discharges through the site's wetlands. This may not impact
the surrounding wetlands uniformly, as some wetland areas may receive greater water supply
from nearby uplands, while other areas receive less. Areas receiving greater water supply may
exhibit a marginal up-gradient shift in the wetland boundary, duration of water saturation in
soils, depth of standing water, and/or a shift to more hydiophytic wetland vegetation. Areas
receiving less water supply may exhibit a marginal down-gradient shift in the wetland
boundary, duration of Water saturation in soils, depth of standing water, and/or a shift to less
hydrophytic wetland vegetation.
Comment C-59
The existing site conditions are described very generally and no survey showing existing
habitats on site has been provided. Are there any large trees that will need to be removed or
trimmed? How many trees are being removed, where they are located, and what size are they?
Where are the various habitats located? Wetlands have not been accurately identified on the
survey — it has been determined by the Town that wetlands as defined in Chapter 275 of the
Southold Town Code are not accurately shown on the plans.
Response C-59
Contrary to the comment, pages 69-73 of the DEIS describes the specific ecological communities
present on the subject property, the dominant plant species within each of these communities,
and the area of each community on the subject property. The DEIS, at pages 14 and 164,
indicates that 6.65 acres of successional old field and successional hardwood woodlands will be
lost as a result of the proposed action and indicates that 6.4 acres of successional hardwoods
and will be preserved. This discussion sufficiently addresses the requirements of the Final
Scope (Appendix A of the DEIS, pg. 5) calling for a "description and list of terrestrial
vegetation" and "discussion of the vegetation to be removed and vegetation to be preserved."
Page 71 of the DEIS provides a description of the dominant vegetation within these successional
hardwood woodlands and indicates that these tree stands are likely to have re-grown
subsequent to historical clearing of the subject property for agricultural purposes.
65
As stated on page 71 of the DEIS, the red maple-hardwood swamps are. located along the
western, eastern, and southern property boundaries. All red-maple hardwood swamps are
located down gradient of the freshwater wetland boundary shown on the Preliminary Align ment
Plan in Appendix G of the DEIS. Th I e 2.3 acres of successional old fields are located, in the
central portion of the property approximately 400 - 650 feet to the south of County Route 48.
The remainder of the subject property is comprised of successional southern hardwood forests.
The location of the wetland boundary raised in this comment will be addressed in response to
later Town Planning Board comments.
As the development plan is conceptual at this time,it is not appropriate or practical to prepare a
specific tree' preservation,plan or landscaping plan. However, as is typical for a development
such as this, a landscaping plan and tree preservation plan would be prepared during the site
plan development stage of the proposed action, wherein specific trees within the proposed
building area will be identified for potential preservation. It is also noteworthy that the Final
Scope did not require that a tree survey be, performed, and such survey is not necessary to
assess the potential significant adverse impacts of the proposed action on ecological resources.
However, a list of drought-tolerant, non-fertilizer-dependent, commercially-available species
has been developed for use on.the subject site (see A ppendix J of this FEIS). See Responses C-34
and C-53 for a more detailed discussion of landscaping and tree preservation.
With respect to wetlands, in the event that the annexation to the Village of Greenport is not
granted, and the property remains within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold, the Town
has indicated that the Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold, Chapter 275 of the Southold
Town Code would govern development of the property. The applicant has had its ecological
consultant, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., investigate the subject property once again to
determine whether wetlands, as defined iri Section 275-2 of the Southold Town Code, exist
beyond the wetlands identified by the N-YSDEC.
The additional inspection was conducted on December 9, 2010 by William Bowman, Ph.D. of
Land Use Ecological Services. At that time, a 0.15-acre stand of common reed (Phrgamites
australis) was located in the northeastern portion of the property adjacent to CR 48 (see shown
on the site map presented in Appendix L of this FEIS). The northern edge of this Phragmites.
stand coincides with the base of a steep berm located adjacent to CR 48 and a drainage culvert
that discharges stormwater from the roadway into the Phragmites stand. The southern edge of
the Phragmites stand is located approximately 130 feet to the south of CR 48 and approximately
220 feet from the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands located on the eastern edge of the
subject property.
66
The Town of Southold Code states that "all lands and waters witIdn the Town" supporting
//aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation" may be classified as freshwater wetlands under the
definition for Freshwater Wetlands pursuant to §275-2(A). Phragniftes is listed one of the aquatic
or semi-aquatic plant species that may.serve as indicators of freshwater wetlands under the
Town Code. Phragniffes is an invasive species and typically colonizes wetland and some upland
habitats after an environmental disturbance such as clearing of native vegetation, grading or
other ground disturbance, sedimentation, or deterioration of water quality through nutrient
loading. Therefore, at first glance, the presence of Phragmites would seem to indicate that the
area meets the broad definition of freshwater wetlands provided by the Town Code.
However, the Town Code also indicates that freshwater wetlands possess three essential
characteristics "(1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology" [§275-
2(A)]. The Code directly states that "'for freshwater wetlands that frequently lack standing
water, vegetation alone may not be adequately diagnostic for identification of the wetland
boundary and that field verification of wetland hydrology and/or hydric soils might be required
to define the boundary." Permanent standing water is,not present in the Phragmites stand and
field investigation indicates.that this area does not exhibit characteristic hydric soils or natural
wetla-nd hydrology. Therefore, due to the absence of hydric soils and natural wetland
hydrology, the Phragmites stand does not meet the regulatory standards for establishing a
freshwater wetland boundary.
The Town of Southold Code also requires that the methodology used to determine a freshwater
wetland boundary "shall be the same methodology utilized in the New York State Department
of Envi ronmental Conservation Technical Methods Statement relating to the Freshwater
Wetlands Act." The Town Code indicates that the word "shall" is always mandatory and not
directory. Accordingly, the delineation of the wetland boundaries on the subject property must
follow the NYSDEC's technical guidance on determination of wetland boundaries.
The location of the freshwater wetlands on the subject property and their boundaries were
confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation on November 5, 2008. Mr. Marsh is the Regional Manager for the Department's
Bureau of Habitat and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Article 24
(Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law in Nassau
and Suffolk Counties.
Therefore, despite the presence of Phragniffes, the area does not feature natural wetland
hydrology and hydric soils necessary to classify the area as a freshwater wetland under the
67
New York State Freshwater Wetland Delineation Manual and §275-2(A)(Wetland Boundary) of
the Town of Southold Code.
Hydrology
The Phragmites stand in the northeast portion of the Northwind Village property is regularly
flooded by the direct discharge of stormwater runoff from CR 48 (see Appendix L).
Stormwater from CR 48 is collected in a drainage ditch located on the north side of the road.
The collected stormwater is then conveyed by a 12 inch-concrete culvert under the road and
discharged to the subject property.
Wetland plant species, such as Pl2ragmites, dominate habitats when permanent or seasonal
flooding or sufficiently water-logged soils provide these plants with a competitive advantage
over other plant species. Wetland plants have various physiological and morphological
adaptations to allow them to thrive in sites with permanent or seasonal flooding or water-
logging. The source of the periodic flooding at the northeast portion of the property is
anthropogenic, rather than a natural source such as a seasonally-high groundwater table or
surface water, such as a stream or creek. However, the periodic discharge of stormwater from
CR 48 to the site has provided Phragmites with a competitive advantage over plant species and
allowed this invasive species to colonize this portion of the property.
Hydric Soils
The soils underlying the Phragmites stand are non-hydric, i.e. they do not have characteristics
typical of soils that are saturated for significant portions of the growing period. Digging of soil
test pits within the Phragmites stand indicates that brightly colored, oxidized soils are present
below the soil's A-horizon (surface layer). These brightly colored soils (10YR 4/4) were present
more than seven inches below the soil surface.
The presence of oxidized soils below the Phragmites stand confirms that the groundwater table
does not rise to the ground surface and saturate soils within the rooting zone. Similarly, test
borings performed approximately within 150 feet of the Phragmites stand indicate that
groundwater is located 20 feet below the ground surface. Finally,the elevation of the.landward
edge of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland adjacent to the northeastern portion of the
subject property is at elevation of 10-15 feet (1929 NGVD). In contrast, the elevation of the
Phragmites stand ranges between 20-25 feet(1929 NGVD).
68
Due to the absence of hydric soils and natural wetland hydrology, the Phraginites does not meet
the standards of the New York State Freshwater Delineation Manual, as confirmed by Mr.
Robert Marsh of the NYSDEC, or the definition and delineation procedures pursuant to §275-
2(A)(Wetland Boundary) of the Town of Southold Code. Furthermore, based upon the
observations of Dr. Bowman, no additional areas on the site beyond those.already determined
by Mr. Marsh could be classified as wetlands under the Town of Southold or NYSDEC
regulations.
Comment C-60
The project contradicts good planning for natural resource protection of environmentally
sensitive areas by embedding a high density residential development irl a nature reserve of
forested wetlands. The DEIS asserts that the applicant mmuirz es the effects of.the development
on the surrounding sensitive landscape,yet fails to back up the assertions made.
Response C-60
The subject site is a privately-owned property located adjacent to freshwater wetlands
associated with Moore's Drain and these wetlands axe located to the west, south, and east of the
subject pr.operty. Contrary to the comment, the subject property is not a "nature reserve of
forested wetlands." Nevertheless, the proposed action complies with both the New York State
Freshwater Wetlands Act and the setbacks put forth in §275-3(D)(1)(a) of the Town of Southold
municipal code. The 100-foot buffer between the proposed residential development activities
and the high quality wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property will serve to
minimize the potential adverse impacts to water and habitat quality in these wetlands. The
only construction proposed to occur within the wetland setback area is the creation of a box
turtle nesting area. The most appropriate loc'ation for the nesting area is within the 100-foot
wetland setback area (see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box. Turtle nesting area
location and Advisory Guidelines for. Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, February 2009)), and,this will require a Freshwater Wetland Permit from
the NYSDEC.
Comment C-61
The DEIS fails to mention the effects of pets, especially cats allowed,outdoors, on the wildlife
population, and how tl-ds development will likely introduce this "subsidized predator" into
places where cats either doWt exist now, or exist in very small numbers. It is a known fact that
69
cats kill birds, snakes, mice, rabbits and any other small animals they can catch and can have a
profound negative effect on local wildlife populations. The introduction of a potentially large
number of domestic cats into this area will turn a good part of the wildlife habitat that is now a
boon to wildlife into an ecological sink, meaning wildlife will continue to attempt to breed in
the area, but will not be successful in maintaining their population due to predation by cats.
This predation rate and the creation of ecological sinks are wen-documented in scientific
studies.
Response C-61
Page 167 of the DEIS acknowledges that the proposed action is likely to increase the abundance
of cats (as well as native predators), which may impact resident songbirds due to increased
predation on eggs, chicks, and adults. However, the applicant respectfully asserts that it is not
expected to be a significant impact. Furthermore, there are other residential uses (both large
and small), with the potential for having pets, located in the vicinity of Moore's Woods and
other undeveloped land in the area.
Comment C-62
The plan shows disturbance to be outside the 100' wetlands buffer, however, the DEIS states
that"disturbance would be limited to an area witl-dn a 100-foot-wide buffer around the existing
wetlands" meaning that there Will be disturbance within 100' of the wetlands. Whether or not
the 100' foot buffer will be disturbed at any time during construction or after is an important
fact that must be clarified to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the construction
phase.
In mitigation discussions there is reference to revegetating disturbed areas in the 100' wetlands
buffer area,yet no disturbance is shown on any plan.
Response C-62
With the exception of the creation of the box turtle nesting area, the proposed action will not
result in any other disturbance within 100 feet of the N-YSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands,
as shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan. The quoted text highlighted by the Town is a
typographical error and should state that disturbance would be limited to an area outside the
100-foot-wide buffer around the existing wetlands. The proposed 100-foot buffer will be
maintained during the construction phase of the proposed action and no clearing, grading, or
70
construction equipment operation will occur within the 100-foot buffer, with the exception of
the creation of the box turtle nesting area.
Comment C-63
The DEIS states that buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native
materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site, and all
other areas not built upon will be landscaped with low-maintenance native plant materials.
Grass areas are not mentioned (grass cannot be included in the category "low maintenance
native plant materials"), yet this project is supposed to include families. Where will children
play? It appears from the description that the only open space areas will be the streets and the
box turtle nesting site.
Response C-63
Some common area has been provided on the site that can be used for passive recreational
purposes. The configuration of the property, and the limited area of disturbance, which has
been identified to protect natural resources, do not permit the development of active
recreational areas.
A landscaping plan and tree preservation plan would be developed during the site plan
development stage of the proposed action, since the current plan is conceptual in nature. This
landscaping plan will indicate areas of native plantings and proposed lawn under the proposed
action. Moreover, a landscaping plan is not required to assess the potential significant adverse
impacts.of the proposed action. However, as noted in Response C-53, a list of drought-tolerant,
non-fertilizer-dependent, commercially-available plant species has been developed for use on
the subject property(see Appendix J).
Comment C-64
Some wetlands have likely not been identified on the map. This was determined via site visits
in November, 2009 by the Town staff and the Town Board of Trustees, the permitting agency
with jurisdiction over wetlands in Southold. The full adverse impact to wetlands cannot be
assessed without knowing where all the wetlands are located and having them marked on the
plans. Also, wetlands constitute-unbuildable lands, and affect the potential yield for the
property under current Town zoning, and thus affecting many assumptions being made in the
71
DEIS regarding impacts of development under current zoning in comparison to development
under Village-zoning.
Response -64
The freshwater wetland boundary on the subject property was confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh
of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on November 9, 2005. Mr.
Marsh is the Regional Manager for the Department's Bureau of Habitat and is responsible for
the implementation and enforcement of Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
As discussed in Response C-59, in the event that the annexation to the Village of Greenport is
not granted, and the property remains within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold, the
Town has indicated that the Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold, Chapter 275 of the
Southold Town Code would govern development of the property. The applicant has had its
ecological consultant, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., investigate.the subject property once
again to determine whether wetlands, as defined in Section 275-2 of the Southold Town Code,
exist beyond the wetlands identified by the NYSDEC.
The additional inspection was conducted on December 9, 2010 by William Bowman, Ph.D. of
Land Use Ecological Services. At that time, a 0.15-acre stand of common reed (Phrgamites
australis) was located in the northeastern portion of the property adjacent to CR 48 (see shown
on the site map presented in Appendix L of this FEIS). The northern edge o f tl-ds Phragniftes
stand coincides with the base of a steep berm located adjacent to CR 48 and a drainage culvert
that discharges stormwater from the roadway into the Phragniftes stand. The southern edge of
the Phragmites stand is located approximately 130 feet to the south of CR 48 and approximately
220 feet from the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands located on the eastern edge of the
subject property.
The Town of Southold Code states that "all lands and waters within the Town" supporting
"aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation" may be classified as freshwater wetlands, under the
definition for Freshwater Wetlands pursuant to §275-2(A). Phragmites is listed one of the aquatic
or semi-aquatic plant species that may serve as indicators of freshwater wetlands under the
Town Code. Pliragmites is an invasive species and typically colonizes wetland and some upland
habitats after an environmental disturbance such as clearing of native vegetation, grading or
other ground disturbance, sedimentation, or deterioration of water quality through nutrient
72
loading. Therefore, at first glance, the presence of Phragmites would seem to indicate that the
area meets the broad definition of freshwater wetlands provided by the Town Code.
However, the Town Code also indicates that freshwater wetlands possess three essential
characteristics "(1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology" [§275-
2(A)]. The Code directly states that "for freshwater wetlands that.frequently lack standing
water, vegetation alone may not be adequately diagnostic for identification of the wetland
boundary and that field verification of wetland.,hydrology and/or hydric soils might be required
to define the boundary." Permanent standing water is not present in the Phragmites stand and
field investigation indicates that this area does not exhibit characteristic hydric soils or natural
wetland hydrology. Therefore, due to the absence of hydric soils and natural wetland
hydrology, the Phragmites stand does not meet the regulatory standards for establishing a
freshwater wetland boundary.
The Town of Southold Code also requires that the methodology used to determine a freshwater
wetland boundary "shall be the same methodology utilized in the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation Technical Methods Statement relating to the Freshwater
Wetlands Act." The Town Code indicates that the word "shall" is always mandatory and not
directory. Accordingly, the delineation of the wetland boundaries on the subject property must
follow the NYSDEC's technical guidance on determination of wetland boundaries.
The location of the freshwater wetlands on the subject property and their boundaries were
confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation on November 5, 2008. Mr. Marsh is the Regional Manager for the Department's
Bureau of Habitat and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Article 24
(Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law in Nassau
and Suffolk Counties.
Therefore, despite the presence of Phragmites, the area does not feature natural wetland
hydrology and hydric soils necessary to classify the area as a freshwater wetland under the
New York State Freshwater Wetland Delineation Manual and §275-2(A)(Wetland Boundary) of
the Town of Southold Code.
Hydrology
The Phragmites stand in the northeast portion of the Northwind Village property is regularly
flooded by the direct discharge of stormwater runoff from CR 48 (see Appendix P.
73
Stormwater from CR 48 is collected in a drainage ditch located on the north side of the road.
The collected stormwater is then conveyed by a 12 inch-concrete culvert under the road and
discharged to the subject property.
Wetland plant species, such as Phragmites, dominate habitats when permanent or seasonal
flooding or sufficiently water-logged soils provide these plants with a competitive advantage
over other plant species. Wetland plants have various physiological and morphological
adaptations to allow them to thrive in sites with permanent or seasonal flooding or water-
logging. The source of the periodic flooding at the northeast portion of the property is
anthropogenic, rather than a natural source such as a seasonally-high groundwater table or
surface water, such as a stream or creek. However, the periodic discharge of stormwater from
CR 48 to the site has provided Phragmites with a competitive advantage over plant species and
allowed this invasive species to colonize this portion of the property.
Hydric Soils
The soils underlying the Phragmites stand are non-hydric, i.e. they do not have characteristics
typical of soils that are saturated for significant portions of the growing period. Digging of soil
test pits within the Phragmites stand indicates that brightly colored, oxidized soils are present
below the soil's A-horizon (surface layer). These brightly colored soils (10YR 4/4) were present
more than seven inches below the soil surface.
The presence of oxidized soils below the Phragmites stand confirms that the groundwater table
does not rise to the ground surface and saturate soils within the rooting zone. Similarly, test
borings performed approximately within 150 feet of the Phragmites stand indicate that
groundwater is located 20 feet below the ground surface. Finally,the elevation of the landward
edge of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland adjacent to the northeastern portion of the
subject property is at elevation of 10-15 feet (1929 NGVD). In contrast, the elevation of the
Phragmites stand ranges between 20-25 feet(1929 NGVD).
Due to the absence of hydric soils and natural wetland hydrology, the Phragmites does not meet
the standards of the New York State Freshwater Delineation Manual, as confirmed by Mr.
Robert Marsh of the NYSDEC, or the definition and delineation procedures pursuant to §275-
2(A)(Wetland Boundary) of the Town of Southold Code. Furthermore, based upon. the
observations of Dr. Bowman, no additional areas on the site beyond those already determined
by Mr.Marsh could be classified as wetlands under the Town of Southold regulations.
74
As explained in Response H-15, a conceptual plan was prepared that conforms to the zoning
requirements of the Town of Southold, pursuant to the prevailing HD zoning (see Appendix D
of this FEIS).As no additional wetlands are located on the subject property, the site would yield
44 lots, as described in Response H-15.
Comment C-65
Significant impact due to intrusion of housing into the habitat—feral cats, invasive species will
penetrate the habitat and degrade it. The impact will extend far into the habitat, not just on the
outskirts as the DEIS claims.
Response C-65
The potential adverse impacts associated with the creation of a new forest edge, including
altered microclimate and invasive species, are discussed on pages 166-167 of the DEIS. Page 167
of the DEIS also acknowledges that the proposed action is likely to increase the abundance of
cats. Invasive species as well as cats may adversely impact breeding birds due to increased
predation on eggs,chicks, and adults and increased competition. However,"as previously noted,
it is not expected that this impact would be significant. This section provides scientific
references for the assessment that microclimate changes in forest habitat will extend
approximately 240 foot into the forest (i.e. Gehlhausen et al. 2000) and that these edge effects
will be more pronounced on the south- and east-facing edges than the north- and west-facing.
edges (Fraver, 1994). The comment provides no support.for its assertion that invasive plant
species will extend-further into the woodlands. It is not expected that the impact of the new
forest edge on Moore's Wood will be significant, as mature forest located within approximately
240 feet of the new forest edge accounts for less than two percent of the forested areas associated
with Moore's Woods (300+acres).
Comment C-66
The DEIS claims that wildlife that lives within the actual construction site will only temporarily
be displaced, and will return once construction is over, as if gone on a short vacation. The fact
is that some wildlife species have the ability to flee the area of grading and construction before
being harmed, and some do not. Box turtles are slow moving and probably will not be able to
evade a bulldozer. Displaced box turtles that do manage to stay out of harms way may attempt
to cross CR 48 in search of new habitat. The same goes for mole salamanders that breed in the
vernal pools nearby and rely on the wooded area to live underground the rest of the year.
75
This entire discussion minin-dzing the adverse impact of habitat destruction by claiming the
wildlife will come back after construction should be discounted as mitigation. While some
wildlife will return, it will be limited to the species known as "human commensals", those that
benefit from humans in some way (e.g.,raccoons that eat cat food left outside).
Response C-66
The DEIS indicates on page 261 that wildlife currently inhabiting the site would leave during
the construction period and some would return subsequent to construction. In addition, page
164 of the DEIS states that the proposed action will result in the permanent loss of the 6.65 acres
of successional old field and hardwood forests that currently provide habitat for small
mammals, herpetiles, and songbirds. Therefore, the DEIS acknowledges that some wildlife
currently inhabiting the site would be lost. Page 169 of the DEIS also acknowledges that some
mortality of adult box turtles is a potential adverse impact of the proposed action, as turtles are
likely to be killed in the proposed roadway or by lawn mowers. However, box turtle mortality
during construction by heavy machinery is fairly easy to avoid. Silt fencing will be installed at
the perimeter of the proposed development prior to site clearing and grubbing with heavy
macl-dnery. A survey for box turtles of the project site could be performed subsequent to the
installation of the silt fencing and all observed turtles moved to the other side of the silt fencing
during the construction phase. The creation of a box turtle nesting area and the installation of a
small earthen and timber rise will assist iri minimizing the impacts to box turtle upon
implementation of the proposed action. During site grading, a six-to-eight-inch vertical rise
created from non-CCA17 timber posts (either two four-inch by four-inch posts stacked or a six-
to-eight inch diameter piling laid horizontally on the ground and imbedded slightly into-the
gr ound surface) will be installed along the perimeter of the proposed development. These posts
or pilings shall be anchored in place with reinforcing bar driven through the posts/pilings and
into the ground. During site clearing, an excavator will be used to bury the posts/pilings
approximately two inches into the ground and the backfill behind the posts/pilings will create a
gentle slope on the landward side of the timber posts/pilings. This will create a vertical barrier
for turtles moving from the woodland towards the residential development area,but will allow
turtles within the residential development area to return to the woodland.
In addition, the Town correctly indicates that mole salamanders inhabit moist forests adjacent
to wetlands during much of the year. Under the proposed action, the establishment of a 100-
17 CCA is copper chromium arsenic,a timber preservative.
76
foot buffer landward of the freshwater wetland boundary will provide suitable habitat for adult
mole salamanders.
Therefore, the loss of 6.65 acres of successional old field and hardwood forests habitat will
mean: 1) the loss or decreased abundance of some species that are intolerant of human activity
or development, 2) no change or an increase in the abundance of some species that are tolerant
of human activity or prefer open habitats or forest edges created by development(such as song
sparrow or red-bellied woodpecker), and 3) an increase in human commensals and invasive
species that directly benefit from human development(such as raccoon and European starling).
Comment C-67
Opening up the woodland with a development that protrudes into it will have a greater effect
that the DEIS describes. The edge effect and the intrusion of invasive species will occur
immediately and will not be mitigated by the planting of evergreens along the perimeter as the
DEIS suggests. The evergreens would have to be planted after the construction is complete, and
will likely be a small size throwing very little shade. Invasive plants like mugwort, garlic
mustard, rosa rugosa and bittersweet will already have had ample opportunity to establish
themselves during this time, degrading the native habitat.
Response C-67
As stated previously, the DEIS's discussion of the potential adverse impacts resulting from edge
effects provides adequate supporting scientific references. The Town's assertion that these edge
effects will extend further into the forest is not substantiated with scientific citations. The DEIS
does not state that the planting of native conifers will eliminate the edge effects that will be
associated with the clearing associated with the proposed action. Instead, the planting of native
conifers along the perimeter of the project area is proposed to reduce the magnitude of the
forest edge effect (i.e., provide mitigation) by producing more shade than would exist without
the installation of these trees. Clearly, larger trees will provide a greater benefit in terms of
shading out invasive herbaceous plants than smaller trees. Furthermore, as these trees grow
and develop greater crown volume some invasive plants that established during or shortly after
construction will become shaded out. The DEIS has identified a potential impact (i.e. increase
light and other changes to forest microclimate along the new forest edge) and has provided a
reasonable mitigation measure to minimize the potential impacts of the proposed clearing.
77
Comment C-68
There is no mitigation possible for lost habitat except to create new habitat to replace it. The
DEIS states that mature trees would be preserved in the development area,.where possible, yet
no mature trees are identified on the site plans (there is no "existing conditions" plan
identifyingmature trees and their sizes). This statement cannot be considered mitigation.
Often trees that matured in the forest cannot survive alone where the effects of wind and storms
cause a more severe impact. In addition, the applicant has not provided any supporting
evidence that any mature trees exist in places within the development area where they would
be able to be left standing.
Response C-68
Preserving existing habitat is effective mitigation as it is a means to reduce the overall potential
adverse ecological impacts of the proposed action. For example, the establishment of a 100-foot
wetland buffer will serve to minimize adverse impacts to the nearby wetlands and will preserve
0.3 acre of successional old fields and 6.4 acres of successional southern hardwoods. While the
preservation of these habitats, along with 3.9 acres of red maple-hardwood swamp, will not
eliminate all impacts, it is not possible to develop this property (or any property) without
causing some sort of impact. The SEQRA regulations, at 6 NYCRR Part 617, acknowledge that
not all impacts can be avoided or completely mitigated.
Rather, the lead agency must weigh and balance the potential significant adverse impacts with
social and economic benefits and ensure that mitigation has been identified, to the maximum
extent practicable,before making a decision.
As previously stated, a landscaping plan and tree preservation plan.will be developed during
the site plan development stage of the proposed action. As the plan is conceptual at this time,
and as explained in Responses C-34 and C-53, it is not appropriate or practical to prepare a
specific tree preservation plan or landscaping plan, as the plan may change in the future. The
incorporation of a few large existing trees into the final development will provide some
additional environmental benefit. However, as demonstrated in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and
in prior FEIS responses, the protection of 3.9 acres of red maple-hardwood swamp,the retention
of 0.3 acre of successional old field and 6.4 acres of successional southern hardwoods, will
effectively mitigate potential significant ecological impacts. See Appendix J for a list of specific
plant species that would be incorporated into the site design during the site plan approval
process.
78
Comment C-69
The DEIS states that a row of conifer trees such as white pine or cedar will be planted along the
perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. No landscaping plan has been submitted, and this has not
been shown on any of the plans submitted. Will these conifers be planted in the ten feet
between the buildings and the 100' buffer areas? A small white pine can have a crown
diameter of five feet, and, as it matures, it will fill the space between the buildings and the.
buffer, creating difficulty with access to the buildings.
The desired effect of the trees will not occur if they are planted too small. Small trees will not
provide enough shade to accomplish the stated mitigation of shading the forest edge and
reducing invasive plants into the woods. If they are large enough to do the job of shading, they
will leave a very narrow area between the woods and the backs of the buildings. This plan for
mitigation to the significant adverse impacts to the wetlands and forest appear to be unrealistic,
therefore the impact should not be considered mitigated.
Response C-69
A landscaping plan and tree preservation plan showing both the location and size of proposed
native conifers along the project perimeter,and the existing trees on the property that will be
preserved will be developed during the final site plan* development stage of the proposed action
(see Responses C-34 and C-53 for a more detailed discussion). The DEIS does not state that the
planting of native,conifers will eliminate the edge effects that will be associated with the
clearing associated with the proposed action. Instead, the planting of native conifers along the
perimeter of the project area is proposed to reduce the magnitude of the forest edge effect by
producing more shade than would exist without the installation of these trees. Clearly, larger
trees will provide a greater benefit in terms of shading out invasive herbaceous plants than
smaller trees., Furthermore, as these trees grow and develop greater crown volume some.
invasive plants that established during or shortly after construction will become shaded out.
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 the high-
quality oak-tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within approximately 240
feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated
with Moore's Woods(300+acres).
79
Comment C-70
Box turtle nesting habitat is proposed to be created to mitigate the destruction of a box turtle
nesting area elsewhere on the site. This habitat is proposed very close to the buildings. Slow-
moving box turtles are easily caught by children and are often kept for pets, and thus removed
from the breeding population. Box turtles are very long-lived (100 years) and slow growing-
removing one breeding adult from a local population can have profound negative effects on the
future population.
Box turtle nests are easily dug up by dogs, and cats likely use the area as a litter box. All of
these factors will serve to reduce or entirely destroy the usefulness of the box turtle nesting site
being offered as mitigation. This development will likely have many children, dogs and cats.
The provision of a sandy area for box turtle nesting will likely not mitigate the destruction of .
the existing habitat.
Response C-70
The proposed box turtle nesting site is not proposed as mitigation for the lost box turtle habitat,
instead it is proposed as mitigation for the loss of an existing box turtle nesting site. As stated
on page 75 of the DEIS,two small sandy clearings(approximately 400 square feet in size) within
the successional old fields were found to be utilized by box turtles as nesting sites. As stated on
page 169 of the DEIS, one of these nesting sites is located within the 100-foot wetland buffer
area and will remain undisturbed. The other nesting site is located within the proposed
development footprint and will be destroyed.
Box turtle nests consist of shallow depressions in .sandy soils and clearing and are very
susceptible to predators both natural (such as the abundant raccoons currently present on the
subject property). and feral (such as cats associated with the proposed development). In
addition, box turtle nesting sites are short-lived in nature as colonization of the sandy soils by
grasses and herbaceous vegetation eventually makes the site no longer suitable for box turtle
nesting. Therefore, the proposed maintenance of the existing and proposed box turtle nesting
site associated with the proposed action to prevent encroachment of herbaceous vegetation will
make .these sites more usable for box turtles over the long-term and will help to offset any
reduction in nest site quality resulting from occasional disturbance by people or feral pets. See
Appendix C for the proposed location of the new box turtle nesting area.
80
Comment C-71
There will be a significant adverse impact on community character with the development of
either the 128 proposed action or one of the two alternatives. The plans as submitted do little or
nothing to mitigate this impact. The DEIS, Section 4.4.2 on page 180 attempts to minimize this
impact to community character by stating that the architecture and design will be similar to the
Village of Greenport,however the Village center is almost two miles away.
Response C-71
The assertion by the commentator that there will be a significant adverse impact to community
character is not supported by specific examples. As indicated in Section 4.4.2 of the DEIS, there
are pockets of higher, density development already located on Route 48, including the Cliffside
Resort Condominiums and Sea Breeze Village (see photographs in Appendix F of this FEIS).
Whether they are used seasonally or all-year round, the structures still remain and are located
close to the roadway with minimal screening. This development is located on the north side of
Route 48, generally across from the subject property. In addition, the San Simeon Nursing and
Rehabilitation facility, which is located at Chapel Lane and Route 48, contains structures that
have large massing, and are visible from Route 48. All of these developments are part of the
character of the community and both contain minimal,if any, screening.
In addition, although the downtown area of Greenport is approximately two miles from the
subject property, the Village of Greenport boundary is adjacent to the subject property. The
DEIS also states (on page 180) that the proposed architectural treatments would be harmonious
with those of the Village as well as the surrounding houses. The applicant asserts that although
the subject property is not located within downtown Greenport, it is in the vicinity, and there is
a definite local vernacular architecture that bears consideration in future development of the
community. Furthermore, the existing vegetation along Route 48 at the frontage of the subject
property would be maintained in order to assist in providing screening of the proposed
development. Moreover, although no specific landscaping plan has yet been developed, the
DEIS indicates (on pages 188 and 192) that the frontage of the property, with the exception of
the access and emergency access, would be landscaped with supplemental screening
vegetation, where necessary. See the frontage berm detail and list of proposed species in
Appendices I and J,respectively of this FEIS,with regard to landscaping and screening.
81
Comment C-72
The proposed project would have four two-story buildings, each 90-100 feet long and 15 feet
apart from each other, located only 30 feet from the road. There is no other development that
sits that close to the Scenic Corridor except for the older motels/resorts, including Soundview 1/2
mile away, the motel across from Town Beach, and the Condo/former motel just to the west of
Town Beach over two miles away.
Response C-72
Based upon a visual analysis that is presented in this FEIS, there are a number of larger
developments situated along Route 48 that are,situated close to the roadway. The San Simeon
by the Sound development, located approximately 800 feet west of the subject property, is
located along the roadway. The main building is approximately 240 feet in length (within no
breaks) and although set back approximately 80 feet from the property line, the parking lot is
located less than 20 feet from the property line. This development is highly visible from the
roadway as there is no screening landscaping along the frontage of this property (see
Photograph Nos. 8 and 9 in Appendix F of this FEIS). In addition, the Cliffside. Resort
Condominiums are also located.along the roadway, as shown in Photograph Nos. 23 and 24 in
Appendix F). The minimum building setback is approximately 80 feet, but the parking is set
back less than 35 feet from the property line. There is no existing vegetation along the frontage
of this site and landscaping is minimal,making the buildings clearly visible from the roadway.
As indicated in the visual analysis the proposed residential structure would be similar in
massing and height to the newly-constructed Cliffside Resort Condominiums. However, the
proposed units would be screened from the roadway by both existing vegetation and
supplemental landscaping.
Finally, the older motels, resorts, etc. that the commentator notes are situated close to the
roadway have helped to establish the visual character of the corridor. Based upon the foregoing
and the visual analysis included in this FEIS, the proposed development is not expected to have
a significant adverse impact on the visual character of the corridor.
Comment C-73
The proposed project's adverse impact to community character is further emphasized by the
seven-acre vacant parcel adjacent to the east. The project would be in drastic contrast to the
82
potential development of this neighboring parcel, which is zoned for two acres per residence.
Any house on that property would be set back from the road a minimum of 60 feet and, if
subdivided, would be required to cluster the lots and screen the houses from the road with a
vegetated buffer.
Response C-73
Based upon the yield plan prepared for this site, under the prevailing HD zoning regulations,
the property could contain 44 single-family residences. In a standard subdivision, these
residences could be located as close as 30 feet to the roadway, based upon zoning. The yield
plan also maintains a 30-foot setback from the roadway.
Comment C-74
The DEIS does not contain enough information to show that the significant adverse impact
created by the visual impact will be mitigated. The DEIS contains a visual rendering of the sign
and driveway (no buildings), and a separate rendering of a couple of the buildings close up
from the interior, as well as a few photographs of the area. There is nothing in context to the
Scenic Corridor. To adequately assess the visual impact on the Scenic Corridor and the
neighborhood, a visualImp analysis alysis is needed to show how the project will look after
completed, in year one and some later year (e.g., year ten) to show maturing landscaping and
screening,from several angles—across the street looking straight at the proposed development,
and at an angle as drivers approach from the east and west, both close up and from farther
away. Otherwise this adverse impact must be considered as remaining a significant adverse
impact that has not been mitigated.
Response C-74
In order to properly assess the visual character of the Route 48 (North Road) corridor, an
extensive photographic analysis of the area was performed. On May 7, 2010, a photographic
inventory of Route 48,between Albertson Lane and Moore's Lane,was conducted.
As indicated in the photographs in Appendix F of this FEIS, the southeast side (noted
hereinafter as the south side) of Route 48 is mostly undeveloped,but is punctuated with various
uses. Traveling from east to west, undeveloped land is situated just west of Moore's Lane
followed by an unscreened equipment shed (see Photograph Nos. 1 and 2 in Appendix F).
Several houses are located along the south side of the road, several of which are visible, and
83
some of which are screened (see Photograph Nos. 3 and 4). The Eastern Long Island
Kampgrounds is situated at Queen Street and Route 48. This comer and a:stretch of Route 48 to
the west has been cleared and planted with a large expanse of grass as well as landscaping (see
Photograph No. 5). There are several houses located to the west of the campground site, some
of which are clearly visible from the roadway (see Photograph No. 6). Beyond these houses to
the west is Moore's Woods (see Photograph No. 7) and the subject property. Located at the
intersection of Chapel Lane and Route 48 is the San Simeon by the Sound Center for Nursing
and Rehabilitation. As Photograph Nos. 8 and 9 indicate,with the exception of one tree, there is
no vegetation along the entire frontage of this facility. There is a small grass patch along the
roadway, followed by parking spaces and the approximate 240-foot long building. Thus, the
facility is clearly visible.from Route 48.
Traveling west along the south side of Route 48, the area around Chapel Lane is essentially
wooded. Town of Southold Preserved Open Space Lands are located west of Chapel Lane (see
Photograph No. 10 in Appendix F). Most of the south side of the corridor is wooded in this
area, but is interspersed with several houses and tennis courts and parking areas associated
with uses on the north side of the road (see Photograph Nos. 11 through 13), which are visible
from the roadway. The remainder of the south side to Albertson Lane is undeveloped (see
Photograph No. 14). Overall, the majority of the south side of Route 48 from Moore's Lane in
the east to Albertson Lane in the west is undeveloped woodland. However, where
development has occurred(especially at San Simeon by the Sound, several single-family homes,
and the tennis courts with associated parking area) little-to-no screening exists, and the
buildings are situated close to the roadway.
The northwest side (noted hereinafter as the north side) of Route 48 from Moore's Lane (to the
east) to Albertson Lane (to the west) was also examined and photographed. Traveling west
along the north side of Route 48, the area to the west of Moore's Lane is wooded with the
occasional single-family home (see Photograph No. 15 in Appendix F). Some of the single-
family homes are located adjacent to the roadway and are, thus, clearly visible; others are set
back within landscaped and wooded areas (see Photograph No. 16). Inlet Pond County Park is
situated on the north side of the roadway in the area of Queen Street(on the south). The house
associated with the park is visible along the corridor, and the area around it has been cleared
and landscaped with grass and ornamental vegetation (see Photograph No. 17 in Appendix F).
The area to the west contains either wooded land or single-family residences set back from the
roadway. The homes are not visible but have visible driveways, fences and/or mailboxes (see
Photograph Nos. 18 through 20). As one travels west, several houses and the Sunset Motel are
situated closer to the roadway and are clearly visible to passing motorists. Fewer trees and
84
more houses populate the northern side, as one travels west. Views to the Long Island Sound
amongst the houses and the motel become evident, due mostly to the shape of the land (see
Photograph Nos. 21 and 22). These more open views begin across from the subject site. To the
west of the subject property, on the north side of Route 48 (directly across from San Simeon by
the Sound) is the newly-constructed Cliffside Resort Condominiums. The buildings on this site
are similar in height and massing to the buildings being proposed as part of Northwirid Village.
As can be seen in the photographs (see Photograph Nos. 23 and 24), the buildings are situated
close to the roadway behind minimal landscaping. These buildings are clearly visible to
motorists on Route 48.
To the west of this development is generally woody vegetation with several houses set back
from the roadway, and partially visible (see Photograph Nos. 25 and 26). To the west of this
area, across from the area west of Chapel Lane is Sea Breeze Village. This development contains
multi-unit dwellings that are readily visible from,the roadway. There is little landscaping along
the property frontage (see Photograph No. 27). The Pebble Beach Apartments are located
between Sea Breeze Village and the one- and two-story Soundview Inn. Grass exists in front of
the two-story PebbleBeachApartments, and there is little landscaping (see Photograph No. 28).
There is no landscaping in front of the Soundview Inn, as there is a direct pull-off from the
roadway into the parking area in front of the building. To the west of the Soundview Inn, is the
Soundview Restaurant. Again, this building is located directly on the roadway, with pull-in
parking (see Photograph Nos. 29 through 31). The houses located to the west of the restaurant
are situated on a small strip of land between the roadway and the beach. There is no setback
and little or no landscaping along this narrow stretch of roadway (see Photograph No. 32).
West of this area toward Albertson Lane, since the land is wider at this point, houses are set
back farther from the roadway behind existing I vegetation and landscaping. Thus, they are not
clearly visible to passing motorists(see Photograph Nos. 33 through 36 in Appendix F).
Overall, the visual character of the area varies along both the north and south sides of the Route
48 corridor from Albertson Lane to Moore's Lane, a 1.8±-mile stretch of roadway that contains
the subject property. There are a number of uses in the vicinity of the site that have similar
visual characteristics (multi-family residential buildings) as the proposed action. Additionally,
several of the large buildings along the roadway (particularly San Simeon, which is within 800
feet of the subject property on the south side of the road, Cliffside Resort Condominiums and
Sea Breeze Village) are clearly visible from the roadway. Therefore, the introduction of the
proposed dwelling units on the subject property, with the retention of the existing vegetation
and the proposed additional landscape screening, would not result in significant visual impact
on the Route 48 corridor in the vicinity of the site.
85
Comment C-75
The Final Scope requires that the DEIS include a visual impact assessment pursuant to the
procedures contained in the NYSDEC visual impact guidance document. This property is
subject to this requirement due to its location in a State-designated Scenic Corridor/Byway. This
assessment was not done.
Response C-75
See Response C-74. In addition, a berm detail for the frontage of the subject property has been
prepared that illustrates the proposed screening along the frontage of the subject property (see
Appendix I of this FEIS. The berm would be approximately three-to-four feet in height and,
have a maximum of slope of I on 3. It would be planted with a n-dx of native evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs (see Appendix 1). To the rear of the berm would be a lawn area that
separates the proposed residences from the berm. The berm and its plantings would be
designed to screen the interior of the property from views along CR 48. See Response C-53 for
additional details regarding the berm and the proposed deciduous and evergreen tree and
shrub plantings.
Comment C-76
The parcel is located in the Town of Southold Scenic Corridor designated by New York State in
2001. This particular stretch of CR 48 provides a respite from the short stretch on intense
visible development to the west, which is uncharacteristic of the majority of CR 48 Scenic
Corridor. The scenic characteristics of the corridor include an emphasis on the rural
characteristics of the town.
The proposed project is not consistent with this plan which calls for new development to be
consolidated dose to hamlet centers. This project is far (not within easy walking distance) from
the center of Greenport Village.
The official New York State designation requires that the visual impact analysis be conducted.
This significant adverse impact will certainly occur as a result of this proposed action, has not
been mitigated in the proposed plans, and must be analyzed in accordance with the Final Scope.
86
Response C-76
The commentator indicates that a significant adverse visual impact would occur without
providing supporting facts. A visual assessment of the Route,48 corridor was conducted. As
demonstrated in Response C-74 the results indicate that the introduction of the proposed
dwelling units on the subject property, along with the retention of the existing vegetation and
the proposed additional landscape screening, would not result in significant visual impact on
the Route 48 corridor in the vicinity of the site.
In addition,.while parts of the corridor may be considered rural, the subject site is located in an
area that contains several large-scale developments, includmig,but not hn-dted to San Simeon by
the Sound, Cliffside Resort Condominiums, Sea Breeze Village, Pebble Beach Apartments, and
the Soundview Inn and Restaurant.
Comment C-77
The DEIS make claims that "Smart Growth" principles are guiding "many aspects" of this
proposed action. It should be noted that the location of tl-ds proposed action is contrary to the
basic tenet of the Smart Growth idea, which would have high density residential development
located within walking distance of a village center.'Instead, this proposed development is
located over two miles from the village center, with hundreds of acres of preserved natural
lands in between. Pedestrian access is difficult and dangerous, with CR 48 having a narrow
shoulder and the nearest sidewalk located on Moore's Lane almost 'a mile away.
Response C-77
Smart growth consists of more than the location of a project. According to an article entitled
Smart Growfli and Affordable Housing, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA") a-smart growth approach to housing is that it is compact in nature, green in design
and construction and provides transit options. While public transportation options are limited
in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, every effort will be made to offer
residents alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.. For example, a private shuttle service
will be provided to key employment and,retail centers in the Village and Town.As the proj ect is
adjacent to the Route 48 bicycle route, the community design will encourage bicycle use. Given
that 50 percent of the proposed homes will be workforce housing, with potential priority given
to those who live and/or work in the Village or Town, carpooling may be a viable option (see
87
pages 14 through 17 of the DEIS). Finally, an electric car recharge station, powered by a
renewable energy system, will be provided for use by the residents of the proposed project.
Therefore, while the proposed does not provide "many" transit options, it will provide some
alternatives. Also, the development is compact and will be green in design and construction, as
explained in the DEIS on pages 18 through 20 and 176 through 179, and later in this FEIS (see
Responses C-113 and C-120).
Comment C-78
The DEIS states that the site is within walking distance of downtown Greenport, which is false.
The site is over two miles away from downtown Greenport (as measured along nearest roads
from the proposed site driveway to the post office in Greenport center).
The location of this development places the proposed action squarely in opposition to the key
tenet of smart growth—locate high density close to village and hamlet centers and transit hubs
(within walking distance) — 1/4 to a 1/2 mile. This is located over two miles from the center of
Greenport and its mass transit opportunities and other amenities such as grocery stores, the
post office, and other shopping. The Greenport school is located 1.6 miles away. Further, there
are no sidewalks on this stretch of County Road 48 (the nearest sidewalk is nearly a mile away
with narrow shoulders), making walking from this location to Greenport Village a dangerous
and intimidating undertaking with traffic commonly moving very fast (60 mph) on this stretch
of road.
Response C-78
See Response C-77.
Comment C-79
The proposed project is being labeled 'workforce housing' and 'affordable housing' yet the
affordability is not guaranteed into the future if the property is annexed to the Village. The
DEIS states the size of the units will assure affordability into the future. The Town of Southold
has experience with the notion that the size or location of a housing unit will control the cost
and keep it low;it doesnt work. Southold approved a project of affordable housing some years
ago,but did not include a restriction on future selling prices. The prices of these modest homes
are now out of reach for low to middle income people. In addition, to the 64 units of workforce
88
housing that will not be guaranteed affordable into the future, there will be 64 market rate units
that will not be providing any public benefit.
If the affordable units are not made perpetually affordable, can they truly be counted as
affordable into the future? The Town currently ensures that at least twenty percent of the units
would be perpetually affordable by limiting the resale values and home improvements. The
Town also provides a fair way for potential homeowners to buy affordable homes by first
determining their eligibility based on income and other factors, and then, holding a lottery
among those eligible.
Further, the DEIS attempts to use the label "affordable" to justify the location. Southold does
need affordable housing,just not in that location at that density.
Response C-79
The Town of Southold has affordable housing requirements only for sites located within its
Affordable Housing District(AM). As indicated on page 98 of the DEIS, the current affordable
housing, program, set forth by the Town of Southold Zoning Code, involves granting
developers increased housing densities beyond what is normally permitted mi 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 micome limits that define
affordability based on initial values that were set by the Town Board in 1989 and then adjusted
annually to reflect changes in cost of living. As the subject property is not located within the
AM (it is located within the Hamlet Density [HDJ Residential District), the proposed
development is not subject to the Town of Southold affordable housing requirements.
Moreover, the Incorporated Village of Greenport does not include affordable housing
requirements within any of its zoning districts. However, as indicated on Pages 15 through 17
of the DEIS regarding the proposed workforce/affordable housing:
7'he 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 offour in the County of Suffolk
as the Area Median Income ("AA41"), price ranges will be determined using standard
calculations (i.e., 2.5 times the AMI, as described below). 774e target AMI levels will be adjusted
for household size. As of 2008, the HUD AMIfor Suffolk Counly 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
89
percent of the AMI($116,500). 77iis distribution is consistent with current Suffolk County and
Town of Southold workforce housing guidelines and policies...
77he anticipated sales prices foi- 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 AMA 7he 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 incomefor afamily offour and those earning between 100 percent
and 120 percent of the median incomofor afamily offour). Prices will also depend on the size of
the units.
I'he 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 Village would determine the eligibility of individuals orfamilies 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.
The commentator is incorrect in that the DEIS does not just label the housing as "affordable" to
justify its location. The applicant owns the subject property and has committed to providing 64
units of affordable housing based upon the criteria discussed below. Page 14 of the DEIS noted
that 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.
Furthermore, see Response C-20 of this FEIS for a discussion of the need for affordable housing
and the specific income eligibility calculations.
Finally, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development & Workforce Housing
supports the development of affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County
Workforce Housing program. This support was indicated in a letter dated November 25, 2008
(included as Appendix F of the DEIS) and reiterated in the Suffolk County Letter, which is
included in Appendix E of this FEIS.
90
Comment C-80
LWIZP Policy I is intended to foster a development pattern that provides for beneficial use of
the environmental, historical and cultural coastal resources of the Town of Southold while
maintaining and building on its traditional economic base. The primary components are
strengthening the hamlets as centers of activity, maintaining a clear sense of separation
between hamlet centers and the countryside and encouraging water dependent uses to
concentrate in existing areas of maritime activities,etc.
The proposed action is not located within the Greenport HALO or Hamlet Center. Further, the
"isolated" location lacks sufficient connecting infrastructure (sidewalks) to a commercial/service
area available to residents without vehicles... Correspondingly, the isolated location also
promotes higher vehicle dependency'and consequently greater vehicle trips.
The proposal prompts a sprawl development pattern that conflicts with the principles of smart
growth, the stated goals as identified in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study and the Hamlet
Stakeholder recommendations.
A scenic viewshed analysis was not completed for the proposed action, therefore, the impact to
which the development would have on the scenic qualities cannot be adequately addressed.
The proposed action does not meet LWRP Policy 1.
Response C-80
As discussed in the DEIS, on pages 113 through 120, the subject site is located in the Greenport
West hamlet, as described in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study. The Hamlet Study indicated
that the Greenport West hamlet surrounds the Incorporated Village of Greenport and is
comprised of a series of residential neighborhoods. The recommendations for this han-det
include embracing a diversity of housing types including attached single-family homes,
townhouses and multi-family dwellings. In addition, with respect to affordable housing, the
Hamlet Study states:
"774e creation of affordable 'wor7cforce'housing opportunities is a priority. A new HALO zone is
recommended to facilitate this goal. 'Die parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to
accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of up to 114 acre.
91
Furthermore, "if appropriate infrastructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to 118 acre
within clustered subdivisions are acceptable.
At the time of the Hamlet Study, and at the time the environmental review process began for
the proposed Northwind Village development, the subject site was located within the new
HALO zone, as depicted on Figure .16 of the DEIS. The DEIS notes that the Town of Southold
adopted the Greenport Halo zone map on March 20, 2008, and according to this map, the
subject property is not situated within the Greenport HALO zone, which is-contrary to the
recommendations of the Hamlet Study.
The applicant controls the property that is being proposed for annexation and development of
both market-rate and affordable housing units. The subject property is directly adjacent to the
Village of Greenport and is currently zoned for residential development. Thus, the applicant is
not requesting residential development in an area that is not zoned for such type of use, the
applicant is requesting an increase in the density of such residential use. In addition,the type of
residential development that is proposed—multi-family development clustered away from the
wetlands and wetland setback—is the antithesis of sprawl.
Also,Response C-74 regarding the visual assessment.
Comment C-81
With respect to LWRP Policy 3.1 regarding visual quality and scenic resources, the proposed
action is located in Moore's Drain, a designated New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Area. The natural scenic components (woodland) are largely intact from the County
Route 48 viewshed looking south. The location and scale of the proposed action in context of
the surrounding area would be discordant with the existing scenic components (woodland).
The proposed action is inconsistent with this policy.
Response C-81
See Response C-74 containing the visual assessment of the Route 48 corridor. While much of
the south side of Route 48 in the vicinity of the site contains undeveloped woodland, there are
several areas of the viewshed that are developed with large facilities, including the Eastern
Long Island Kampgrounds, several single-family homes, and San Simeon by the Sound. The
scale, massing and height of the proposed development are similar to San Simeon as well as the
Cliffside Resort Condominiums and Sea Breeze Village, both located on the north side of the
92
roadway. However, in contrast to some of these developments'. the proposed Northwind
Village would be screened from the roadway by existing vegetation and supplemental
landscaping (see Responses C-34 and C-53 and Appendices H and I for additional details
regarding landscaping and screening of the subject property).
Furthermore, the subject property is zoned.for the development of residences. According to the
yield plan prepared as part of this FEIS (see Appendix D of this FEIS), the site could be
developed with 44 residential dwellings. In addition, the town previously granted approval for
a 108-unit development. Therefore, even without the annexation and the proposed Village of
Greenport R-2 zoning,the site could be developed with residences.
Comment C-82
With respect to LWRP Policy 5.4, the impact to alteration of the surface and subsurface water
quality through the manipulation of drainage patterns and subsurface discharge has not been
adequately addressed. The parcel is subject to frequent fluctuating water tables that are
evidenced by standing water and wetlands on-site. Correspondingly, aerial photo series
analysis indicates that portions of the parcel and surrounding areas are frequently flooded.
Response C-82
The commentator does not present any facts to support the statements made. Furthermore, the
commentator is incorrect as the alteration of hydrology has been addressed in Section 4.2.5 of
the DEIS. The proposed action complies with State and Town wetland setbacks and the
proposed connection with the Village sewage treatment plant will prevent significant adverse
impacts to surface and subsurface water quality, as also discussed in Section 4.2.5 of the DEIS.
The closest proposed dry well to receive stormwater would be more than 175 feet from the
freshwater wetland boundary. The proposed development, with the exception of a new box
turtle nesting area, provides a 100-foot setback between the freshwater wetland boundary and
proposed clearing, grading, filling, and excavation for the residential development. The
proposed action also provides for a 110 feet between the freshwater wetland boundary and all
proposed structures, again with the exception of the new box turtle nesting area, which would
be located within the 100-foot setback area. Since the box turtle nesting area would be located
within the 100-foot wetland setback area, a Freshwater Wetland Permit would be required from
the N-YSDEC. Potential hydrological and water quality impacts will be,minin-dzed by the
compliance with State and Town setbacks for the construction of impervious surfaces. Most
import antly, the proposed development would be serviced by the Village of Greenport's.
93
municipal sewage treatment facility. Accordingly, the proposed action will not result in the
discharge of effluent from sanitary systems.
The applicant has adequately addresses the potential impacts of the proposed action on site
hydrology on page 168 of the DEIS, which states that "under natural conditions precipitation
falling on the project site percolates into the ground uniformly across the project site. Under the
proposed site conditions, precipitation wl-ddh falls on impervious surfaces will be collected,
concentrated, and discharges into drywells located under the proposed roadway. Accordingly,
the proposed project will result in a -perturbation to the existing pathways by which
precipitation falls n the site, drains through the site's soils., and discharges to 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 commentator correctly indicates that portions of the parcel are subject to frequent flooding
and standing water. However, these portions of the property are located within the freshwater
wetland boundary confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the NYSDEC on November 9, 2005. The
water quality of these natural surface waters will be adequately protected by conformance with
State and Town wetland setbacks for all residential development. As mentioned previously,
stormwater discharge from CR 48 is directed on to the subject property via a drainage pipe
located on the northeastern comer of the property. This is likely a contributing factor to
standing water conditions on the northeastern portion of the site.
The parcel is,subject to intermittent flooding as a result of a perched water layer as indicated by
the soil borings. The locations of the wetlands on site are to the west, south and east of the
proposed construction area and are protected by a 100-foot buffer in which there will be no
clearing. The only construction proposed to occur within the 100-foot buffer is for the new box
turtle nesting area. This construction would require a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Permit.
The area of construction is located upstream of the existing wetland areas, which have been
located and defined by the NYSDEC. The soil borings indicate that perched water in this area is
isolated and the final design will mitigate any perched water condition encountered during
construction.
94
Comment C-83
With respect to LWRP Policy 5.5 regarding the protection and conservation of the quality and
quantity of potable water, it is unclear whether the proposed action is consistent with this
policy due to the lack of clarity in the analysis on the issue of stormwater pollution prevention,
drainage,landscaping and irrigation in the DEIS.
Response C-83
As described in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIS, the proposed drainage system for the project is
designed to capture runoff from the constructed surfaces and recharge it into the groundwater.
The drainage system will be installed in accordance with the best management practices
described by the N-YSDEC. This system will prevent any surface discharge (water moving
overland and offsite) in excess of a two-inch rainfall. Instead, this water will be recharged back
into the groundwater.
During construction, this drainage system will be protected from excess silt and pollutants from
entering the system through management of an approved stormwater pollution prevention
plan. All of these components are subject to the final review and approval by the Village of
Greenport (should annexation occur) and the NYSDEC and must comply with their
recommended management practices. Water will be obtained from the nearby existing public
water main; there will be no potable water withdrawal or saltwater intrusion on the site, during
or post construction.
No irrigation is proposed as part of the development. See Responses C-34 and C-53 for
additional discussion.
Therefore,based.upon the foregoing,the proposed development conforms to this policy.
Comment C-84
With regard to LWRP Policy 6.1, there will be a physical loss of ecological components, and will
likely be degradation of adjacent ecological components and possible functional loss of wetland.
The proposed action is inconsistent with the policies above due to the proposed fragmentation
of habitat and may cause permanent adverse change to the wetlands hydrology. This has not
been adequately addressed in the DEIS.
95
Response C-84
The assertion by the commentator is not supported by the information and analysis contained
in the DEIS and this FEIS. This policy is intended to avoid adverse changes to the Long Island
Sound and Peconic Bay ecosystems by physical loss, degradation, and functional loss of
ecological components. The proposed action involves no physical disturbance or loss of
freshwater wetlands and the establishment of a 100-foot buffer will serve to minimize potential
degradation of these wetlands.
The proposed action does not result in any fragmentation of existing wetland habitats, as there
will be no disturbance to any freshwater wetlands located on or adjacent to the site. In addition,
the proposed 100-foot buffer(which will include the new box turtle nesting area located therein)
will serve to maintain a contiguous habitat corridor surrounding the margins of the wetland
habitats and the high-quality hardwood forests (i.e. red maple hardwood swamps and oak-
tulip-beech forests).
Potential impacts to wetland hydrology have been discussed in previous responses (see
Response C-51, C-52 and C-82). In terms of potential impacts to adverse changes to ecosystem
of the Long Island Sound or Peconic Bay, the proposed action is not expected to result in any
decrease in the volume of precipitation infiltrating into groundwater,but the distribution of this
groundwater contribution will be more concentrated, due to the proposed drainage system.
The proposed action is consistent with the Town's LWRP policy to avoid adverse changes to the
Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay ecosystems via conformance with State and Town wetland
setbacks, via proposed connection with the Village's municipal sewage treatment plant and due
to the proposed drainage system. Moreover, the proposed action does not include
encroachment into the freshwater wetland adjacent area (100 feet landward of the freshwater
wetland boundary) with the exception of the creation of the new box turtle nesting area, and,
therefore the proposed action is consistent with State and Town policies to avoid adverse
impacts to the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay ecosystems.
Comment C-85
The subject parcel is nearly surrounded by a N-YSDOS Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Area recognizing the ecological significance of the area. The complete Coastal Fish and Wildlife
Assessment Form is attached. Policy 6.2 has not been sufficiently addressed in the document.
96
The proposed action may be inconsistent with this policy. We cannot be certain until a habitat
impairment test has been conducted as described in the LWRP in this section.
Response C-85
Tlie proposed action is consistent with the Town's LWRP Policy 6.2 to protect the significant
coastal fish and wildlife habitats on Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. `Ihe proposed action
complies with State and Town wetland setbacks and the proposed action will not result in the
discharge of sanitary effluent within the watershed of these surface waters. The NYSDEC had
noted in its EAF that the consequences of a n-dnor encroachment into the adjacent area of the
freshwater wetland will probably not be felt at the regional level. In addition, the proposed
action will not result in disturbance to any of the high-quality red maple hardwood swamp or
oak-tuhp-beech forests associated with Moore's Drain. It is acknowledged that on page 167 of
the DEIS that the proposed action will create a new forest edge and will alter the forest
microclimate and abundance of invasive plant and wildlife species within the new forest edge.
However, the magnitude of the impact associated edge is expected to be minor and small as no
Federal- or State-protected species will be impacted and the 1-dgh-quahty oak�tuhp, secondary
forests or forested wetland that may be within approximately 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 New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form indicates
that Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's drain provide habitat for swamp cottonwood (Populus
heteropliylla), common and least terns (Sterna hirrunda and Sternula antillaruin), piping plover
(Charadrium inelodus), and wintering waterfowl. Page 171 of the DEIS states that the subject
property was surveyed for P. heterophylla and this tree species was not observed; however,
suitable habitat for P. heteropliylla is present in the wetland areas located on the westerri and
southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. Due to the
absence of P. heterop7iylla and preservation of its potential habitats, no adverse impacts to this
New York State-Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Common tern, least
terns, and piping plover forage and nest on maritime beaches;there are no maritime beaches on
or adjacent to the subject property therefore the proposed action will have no adverse impacts
on these species. The wintering waterfowl listed on page 2 of the Significant Coastal Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Narrative inhabit the shallow estuarine waters of Pi es Cove during
ip
November through March. By maintaining wetland setbacks, the proposed action will not
result in any loss of wetland area or degradation in water quality that could adversely impact
the estuarine habitat available to these wintering waterfowl. The proposed action will not
97
destroy or significantly impact any freshwater wetlands,maritime beaches, or shallow estuaries
that provide habitat. for swamp cottonwood, common and least terns, piping plover, or
wintering waterfowl. Accordingly, the proposed action does not result in habitat impairment
for these species and is consistent with Town LWRP Policy 6.2.
Comment C-86
On October 29, 2009 Planning Board staff conducted a field inspection of SCTM# 40.-3-1 to
determine the accuracy of wetlands as depicted on the survey titled Northwind Village,
Preliminary Alignment Plan,prepared by Barrett,Bonacci&Van Weele,P.C. and dated May 13,
2009. The field inspection was performed in conjunction with the review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Annexation By 7he Village of Greenport and Development of
Northwind Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The inspection indicates that the
wetland delineation lines as shown on the above referenced plat are inaccurate. On November
5, 2009 The Board of Trustees, the jurisdictional body of the Town of Southold Chapter 275
Wetlands and Shorelines,verified that the wetlands are inaccurate.
Response C-86
The Town of Southold claims that the freshwater wetla-nd boundary presented on the
preliminary alignment plan is inaccurate. If the Town has concluded that an area or areas of
freshwater wetlands exist on site above and beyond those confirmed by NYSDEC, it should
have notified the lead agency and the applicant immediately. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.3(e):
"Each agency involved in a proposed action has the responsibility to provide the lead agency with
information it may have they may assist .the lead agency in making its determination of
significant, to identifij potentially significant adverse impacts in the scoping process, to comment
in a timely manner on the EIS if it has concerns which need to be addressed and to participate, as
may be needed, in any public hearing. Interested agencies are strongly encouraged to make
known their views on the action, particularly with respect to their areas of expertise and
jurisdiction.
The freshwater wetland boundary was confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation on November 5,.2008. Mr. Marsh is the Regional
Manager for the Department's Bureau of Habitat and is responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law m* Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In addition, Mr. Marsh is responsible for
reviewing the accuracy of all freshwater wetland boundaries on project site plans for all Article
98
24 permit applications in Nassau and Suffolk Counties pursuant to the New York State
Freshwater Delineation Manual (NYSDEC 1995). Under the §275-2 of the Town of Southold
municipal code, the methodology used to determine a freshwater wetland boundary "shall be
the same methodology utilized in the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation(NYSDEC)Technical Methods Statement relating to the Freshwater Wetlands Act.
As noted in Response C-64, in the event that the annexation to the Village of.Greenport is not
granted, and the property remains witl-tin the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold, the Town
has indicated that the Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold, Chapter 275 of the Southold
Town Code would govern development of the property. The applicant has had its ecological
consultant, investigate the subject property once again to determine.whether wetlands, as
defined in Section 275-2 of the Southold Town Code, exist beyond the wetlands identified by
the NYSDEC.
Re-mispection of the property was conducted on December 9, 2010, by William Bowman, Ph.D.
of Land Use Ecological Services. Dr. Bowman found that the Town is correct in that there is a
stand of 0iragmites australis in the northeastern portion of the property and that Phragniftes is
listed as a wetland indicator species for freshwater wetlands in Chapter 275 of the Town Code.
However, Us stand of Phragmites is not a regulated freshwater wetland for several reasons.
First, the Phragmites stand is located adjacent to an outfall pipe that discharges stormwater from
CR 48. Stormwater from CR 48 collects in a drainage ditch located on the northern side of the
road and then is co nveyed to the south side of the road via a concrete culvert. Therefore, this
Phragmites stand,does not possess natural wetland hydrology and should not be classified as a
wetland. .Second, the Pliragmites stand is not permanently and directly connected to the red
maple-hardwood swamp located to the south contrary to the Town's assertion. Field
investigations indicate that there is not a permanent connection with the wetlands to the south
as the P7iragmites stand is separated from the wetlands by an upland forest dominated by black
locust, red maple, privet, and honeysuckle. During periods of high stormwater discharge from
CR 48, this Phragiifites stand does overflow with surface runoff flowing into this upland forest
and towards the freshwater wetlands. Overall, therefore, despite the presence of Phragniftes, the
site does not feature natural wetland hydrology and hydric soils necessary to classify the
Phragtnites as a freshwater wetland under the New York State Freshwater Wetland Delineation
Manual and §275-2(A)(Wetland Boundary) of the Town of Southold Code. Due to the absence of
hydric soils and natural wetland hydrology, the Piragmites does not meet the standards of the
New York State Freshwater Delineation Manual, as confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the
NYSDEC, or the definition and delineation procedures pursuant to§275-2(A)(Wetland Boundary)
99
of the Town of Southold Code. Furthermore,no other areas that could be classified as wetlands
under the Town of Southold Code were encountered during the additional site visit.
To summarize, the proposed action is consistent with the Town's policy of protecting its
freshwater wetlands. First, the proposed action is consistent with a "no net loss" wetlands
policy, as no proposed disturbance or residential development will occur within 100 feet of any
freshwater wetlands, with the exception of the construction of the new box turtle nesting area.
This construction will require a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Second, the 100-foot
buffer would consist of existing native communities including successional old fields and
southern hardwood forests. Third, the proposed action provides greater setbacks for proposed
structures (with the exception of the box turtle nesting area) than those required under §275-
3(1))(1)(a)of the Town code. For example,the Town requires a minimum 50-foot setback for the
installation of landscaping or gardening, while the proposed action provides a 100-foot setback.
The Town requires a minimum 100-foot setback for a residence, while the proposed action
provides a 110-foot setback. Accordingly, the assertions in the comment are not accurate.
Comment C-87
Policy 6.4 regarding protection of vulnerable fish,wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological
communities has not been adequately address in the DEIS.
Response C-87
The assertion in the comment is not consistent with the-information and analysis contained in
the DEIS and this FEIS. On pages 76-85 and 169-173, the DEIS discussed the potential impacts
to the vulnerable wildlife, plant, and ecological communities identified by the New York
Natural Heritage Program as potentially occurring on or near the subject property. These
species include:
Red Maple-Sweet Gum Swamp
Cat-tail Sedge
Swamp Cottonwood
Cranefly Orchid
Opelousa Smartweed
Swamp Smartweed
Orange-fringed Orchid
Velvet Panic Grass
100
Maryland Milkwort
Small-flowered Pearlwort
Cut-leaved Evening Primrose
Northern Cricket Frog
Tiger Beetle
Nuttalls and Smooth Tick-Trefoil
Green Parrot's Feather
Marsh Straw Sedge
Red Pigweed
On pages 76-77 and 169-170, the DEIS discusses potential impacts of vulnerable wildlife species
that were observed on the subject property during the biological inventory, or are expected to
occur on or could potentially utilize the subject property. Three species classified as New York
State (Species of Special Concern) were observed on or could potentially utilize the subject
property. These species include:
Eastern Box Turtle*
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
*Observed on the site.
Eastern box turtle was observed on the subject property and two box turtle nesting sites were
located on the subject property. In the late summer of 2007, a sharp-shinned hawk was observed
approximately 150 feet to the south of the southern property boundary in the forested
freshwater wetlands. Cooper's hawk could potentially utilize the site based upon the suitability
of the woodlands and nearby edge habitats for foraging and nesting of this species. Thus, the
DEIS addressed the protection of fish, wildlife and plant species,.as well as rare ecological
communities.
Comment C-88
The action is not consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan.
101
Response
The applicant has requested an annexation into the Village of Greenport. Furthermore, the
applicant also has a right to request such annexation and new zorung district. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as other Town of Southold plans, indicates a need for affordable
housing in the area. The proposed development would assist in fulfilling this need.
Moreover, the subject site is located in the Greenport West hamlet, as described in the Town of
Southold Hamlet Study. The Hamlet Study's recommendations for this hamlet include embracing
a diversity of housing types including attached single-family homes, townhouses and multi-
family dwellings. Irt addition,with respect to affordable housing,the Han-det Study states:
"The creation of affordable 'wor7cforce'housing opportunities is a priority. A new HALO zone is
recommended to facilitate this goal. Ihe parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to
accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of up to 114 acre.
Furthermore, "if appropriate infrastructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to 118 acre
within clustered subdivisions are acceptable."
At the time of the Hamlet Study, and at the time the environmental review process began for the
proposed Northwind Village development, the subject site was located within the new HALO
zone, as depicted on Figure 16 of the DEIS. The DEIS notes that the Town of Southold adopted
the Greenport Halo zone map on March 20, 2008, and according to this map, the subject
property is not situated withh-i the Greenport HALO zone, which is contrary to .the
recommendations of the Hamlet Study.
Comment C-89
The effect on the tax base is put forth in the DEIS as mitigation for the increase in required
services, yet the net increase in property tax received as a result of this development,whether it
be developed in the Town or the Village, will be a net loss to the Town when the increase in
services is added to the equation. It is a well-known fact that residential development does not
generate enough in property tax to pay for the services. Further, this development is proposed
as condominiums, which can potentially pay drastically less property tax than single-family
homes. Thus, the adverse impact to community services must be re-examined, and cannot be
assumed to be mitigated by property taxes.
102
Response C-89
The commentator makes conclusions regarding net tax loss that are not supported by the
information contained in the DEIS. Should the property be annexed, the proposed development
would pay property taxes to the Village, the Town and the School District. In addition, some of
the services typically provided by the Village would be handled by the development's
homeowners association. Such services include solid waste collection, snow removal and
internal roadway maintenance (see Response C-8).
Comment C-90
The full potential significant adverse impact to the schools was outlined as to the number of
students,but not analyzed in terms of cost versus taxes,nor mitigated.
Response C-90
See Response H-7 regarding school costs versus property tax revenue generated by the
proposed development.
Comment C-91
Further, a comparison of the impact to schools with and without annexations was presented.
The analysis is incorrect because it is based on a number of units at a size that would not be
allowed under current Southold Town Code. This analysis must be corrected to determine
whether the impact to schools would be greater or lesser with annexation. See the discussion
under "Alternatives" regarding the development allowed under Town zoning.
Response C-91
The number of public school-aged children generated by a project is based upon bedroom
count,not gross square footage, thus, the commentator is not correct. Therefore, the analysis in
DEIS Section 7.3 remains correct based upon the 50-unit plan.
Based upon the newlymprepared 44-unit plan (based upon the most-recent Town of Southold
HD zoning district regulations), the number of projected public school-aged children, based
upon the Rutgers Study,is 44(assuming each unit would contain four bedrooms).
103,
44 x 1.00 (single-family detached,4-bedroom, all values)=44 public school-aged children
The total number of school-aged children (public and private school) is slightly higher (51),
based upon 1.16 school-aged children per unit.
Comment C-92
The DEIS states that there will be no impact to the fire department. This is founded on
assumptions that are not backed up with facts. The DEIS points out that property taxes will
increase, implying that the increase property tax will cover increase demand for services, yet it
is common knowledge that residential development results in a net loss to municipal services
due to the higher demand for. services. A true analysis of the costs of the expected future
services against the amount of property tax paid into the fire district must be done to assume
that no significant adverse impact will occur or has been mitigated.
Response C-92
See Response C-89 with respect to net tax loss to municipal services.
Comment C-93
The DEIS attempts to assert no impact to police based on the fact that their community design
will provide "de-facto" security through lighting and location of buildings, and will conform to
New York Building and Fire Codes. There is no data to support any of these statements. The
claim that lights and neighbors can replace police officers is not supported by any evidence.
Also, all building must meet New York Building Codes,'not just those wishing to have to call
the police less often.
Response C-93
Contrary to the statements made by the commentator, the DEIS does not state that there would
be no impact to the Police.Department, nor would the design of the development "replace"
police officers. The DEIS does indicate, at page 232 (Section 4.5.3), that the design of the
proposed development, the proposed lighting and the location of the proposed buildings would
assist in providing additional security, through "de facto" neighborhood watch. Based upon
factors from the Urban Land Institute's Developinent Impact Assessment Handbook;(1994), public
safety requirements (i.e., full time equivalent police personnel) are 2.0 officers per 1,000
104
population. Since the proposed Northwind village community As anticipated to have a
population of 318, less than one additional police personnel would be required. However, it
should be noted that as of 2009 the Town of Southold had 72 full-time police personnel18 and a
total population (including the Village of Greenport) of 23,17.5.19 Therefore, Southold's ratio of
police personnel per 1,000 population is mu.ch higher (3.1) than the 2.0 reconunended, aiid
therefore,could cover the proposed development without additional hiring's.
in addition, the DEIS does not assert that just building to code would lessen the need for police
and fire protection services. The commentator is correct in that all new buildings must be built
to the latest New York Building and Fire Codes. However, the most-recent codes are much
more stringent and provide enhanced fire protection (with respect to materials, design and fire
protection requirements)than in previous codes.
Comment C-94
Claims in the DEIS of "'no irrigation at this time" are disingenuous in that they imply that at
some other time there may be irrigation. If there is going to be irrigation, it should be reviewed.
now for impacts to the water supply. If there is not going to be irrigation, the applicant should
be offering to place a deed restriction on the property preventing irrigation in the future (and
providing a landscape plan consisting entirely of drought-resistant plants).
Response C-94
No irrigation is proposed. Also, see Response C-53 and Appendix J for additional details
regarding landscaping and proposed plant species.
Comment C-95
The DEIS assumes the project, if not annexed, will not be able to hook up to the Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plant, and bases some assertions on this assumption. Other projects outside
the Village have hooked up to the.Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant, and pay a fee to do so.
This provides a financial bonus to the Village they would not receive if the property were
annexed.
New York State Division of Criminal Justice,Law Enforcement Personnel in 2009(page 17).
Long Island Power Authority Population Survey 2009(page 31).
105
Response C-95
The proposed development could be connected to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant
should it not be annexed to the Village of Greenport. However, with annexation, the
development would not be required to pay the out-of-district hook-up cost. This is one factor
which assists in allowing half the units to be affordable.
According to the applicant, in order to minimize the financial impact on the Village of
Greenport, the applicant is seeking infrastructure subsidies associated with the provision of
workforce housing from Suffolk County (see Response C-112, below). The applicant will also
work with the Village of Greenport to ensure that the Village does not incur a significant
financial impact associated with sewer connection(see Response C-5).
Comment C-96
The DEIS states that the proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, yet the
plans do not support this claim. There is no recreational area identified on the site. Further,
there is little available space illustrated on the site alignment plan that could accommodate any
significant recreation. This together with the claim that no irrigation is proposed leaves a lot of
doubt about what,if any, recreation is being provided.
Because little or no recreation has been shown to be provided at the proposed project, there
cannot be assumed to be no significant adverse impact to recreational services in the Town.
There will be an increase in demand on existing recreational facilities, and no discussion or facts
have been presented to be able to determine that significant adverse impacts on recreational
services will be mitigated.
Response Q-96
No active recreational facilities are proposed as part of the action. However, there is common
area on the site that can be used for passive recreation. Therefore, existing recreational facilities
located within both the Village and Town would be used by the future residents of Northwind
Village. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of year-round occupied housing units
in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport were 8,461 and 776, respectively. Of these,
there were 4,689 seasonal, recreational and occasional use housing units within the Town of
Southold and 237 such housing units within the Incorporated Village of Greenport.
106
Total population within the unincorporated portions of the Town of Southold was 20,599 in
2000, whereas total population in the Village of Greenport was 2,048. Based upon the 2000
Census, the average household size for the Town of Southold was approximately 2.40 and for
the Village of Greenport it was 2.42. Therefore, based on these factors, there is an approximate
total seasonal population influx of 11,254 people witl-dn the unincorporated portions of the
Town of Southold and 574 people within the Village of Greenport, for a total seasonal
population influx of 11,828. Therefore, the unincorporated portions of the Town of Southold
experiences a 55 percent increase in population during the summer season, while the Village of
Greenport experiences a 28 percent increase in seasonal population.
As indicated in the DEIS, implementation of the proposed action would generate 318 residents
who would be expected to utilize Town and Village recreational facilities. Since the Town and
Village recreational and facilities accommodate the normal seasonal population influx of close
to 12,000 people, the permanent increase of 318 individuals that is expected upon
implementation of the proposed action would not result in a significant adverse impact to local
recreational facilities.
Facilities and public areas located within the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport
include,but are not limited to, the following:
• Moore's Woods
® Ashamomaque Pond Preserve
• Inlet Point County Park
® Mitchel Park&Marina
-
• East Marion Orient Park
• Fanning Point Park
• Laurel Lake Park
• Tasker Park
0 Mattituck Creek Boat Launching Ramp
0 New Suffolk Beach
• Southold Town Beach
• Goose Creek Park
• Kenny's Beach
0 Peconic Dunes County Park
• Goldsmith's Inlet County Park
® Norman E.Khpp Park
0 Skipper Horton Park
107
a McCabe's Beach
® Emerson Park
• Cedar Beach County Park
Comment C-97
The high volume of cars entering and exiting that curve in the road from this site would
logically increase the risk of accidents. Traffic routinely travels at 60 miles per hour there,
sometimes faster, and there are-often long lines of traffic traveling from the ferry westbound,
making a left hand turn especially difficult. Add to the equation the large herd of deer that
crosses that road often, and the safety problems are obvious.
A new large development, Chffside Resort,which provides transient lodging, was completed to
the west of the proposed project, and open for business inmidto late summer, 2008. The traffic
study did not consider the effects on transportation from the new development. It will likely
have strong seasonal effects on the traffic in the vicinity of the proposed action and must be
taken into account when investigating adverse traffic impacts.
The sight line to the west was measured and is not adequate for a person pulling out of the
development to avoid a collision. The DEIS suggests that some vegetation clearing would
improve the sight distance.so that it would be adequate, yet no diagrams or measurements are
shown to support this claim. The road curves after rising up a hill near the proposed project,
and the drastic increase in the number of cars entering and exiting will be a safety issue. 'Even if
the sight distance of 800 feet can be attained by trimming some vegetation, that sight distance is
only long enough to avoid a collision. The sight distance data source cautions that "...in some
cases, this may require a major-road vehicle (aka "oncoming traffic") to. stop or slow to
accommodate the maneuver by a minor-road vehicle (aka "the car pulling out"). This should
cause a red flag of alarm — there really isWt a safe sight distance if people cars will have to hit
their brakes when people pull out. Traffic calming or road reconfigulation for this now busy
corner/hill would likely be better mitigation than a simple turning lane and trimming some
vegetation.
Response C-97
The site access is adequately designed to handle anticipated traffic levels and will not contribute
to a dangerous condition. As noted in the TIS, the development of the site as proposed will not
108
lead to an undue increase in the rate of accidents. See sight distance discussion at end of this
response.
Prior to the writing of the traffic study,both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold
were contacted in regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of the site to determine
the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a
significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in the study. Discussions held with
representatives of both municipalities revealed that they were not aware of any other
developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind condominium community.
Since the turning movement counts contained in the study were performed in August 2007,
these counts do not account for the traffic destined to and from the Cliffside Resort. The
applicant has since been made aware of the presence of this development. As such, the traffic
volume spreadsheets have been updated to include the traffic generated by the Cliffside Resort,
and the previous horizon analysis.year was also extended from,2008 to 2011. Furthermore, all
of the No-Build and Build capacity analyses for the three study intersections and the proposed
site access were rerun to reflect the inclusion of the Cliffside Resort other development and the
new horizon year. Details regarding the revised traffic volume spreadsheets and intersection
capacity analyses results can be found in Appendix G.
The results of these 2011 intersection capacity analyses indicate that the traffic due to the
proposed Nortlxvvind Village condominium development is anticipated to have no significant
impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. They will continue to
operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) D or better during all three peak time periods
studied and increases in delay due to the proposed Northwind development are slight.
Although the results indicate a decrease in LOS from C to D from the 2011 No-Build to the 2011
Build Condition for the northbound approach at the North Road/Chapel Lane intersection, the
delay experienced by drivers in this lane is only expected to increase by 1.9 seconds per vehicle.
The No-Build delay is very close to the LOS CLOS D threshold of 25.0 seconds, causing the
minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS D. Likewise, the results indicate a drop in LOS
from B to C for the northbound approach at the North Road/Queen Street intersection. The
delay experienced by drivers in this lane is only expected to increase by 0.3 seconds per vehicle.
The No-Build delay is very close to the LOS B/LOS C threshold of 15.0 seconds, causing the
minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. At the North Road/Moore's Lane
intersection, there was no degradation in LOS from the No-Build to the Build Condition during
the three peak time periods studied, and acceptable LOS C, C. and D are expected during the
Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M., and Saturday Midday peak hours. The operation of the
proposed site driveway on North Road was found to be LOS B, C, and C during the Weekday
109
A.M. Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively, under the new 2011
horizon year. All movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and
traffic exiting the site, do not cause any delay to through traffic on North Road (see Appendix
G).
The availability of adequate sight distance at the.proposed driveway was evaluated in detail in
the TIS. Evaluation methods followed those presented in the latest version of "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets' by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. This publication is the national standard utilized by most highway
agencies, including the Suffolk County Department of Public Works for evaluation and design
of roadway conditions. With the recommendations in the TIS, there will not be a sight distance
problem at the proposed site access.
Comment C-98
Another deficiency in the DEIS is the assertion that a.development of 128 units versus the
development that could happen under current Town zoning will only increase the traffic by
1.7%. It seems a stretch to assume three times the number of units will generate only a tiny
fraction of an increase in traffic. Three times the number of units will likely generate three times
the amount of traffic. The adverse impacts of traffic from the proposed action versus if it were
to be developed under current town zoning are not characterized accurately and cannot be
analyzed from the information contained in this document. Thus the claim of no significant
adverse impact from traffic is not supported in the DEIS.
Seasonal factors must be included in any traffic analysis.
Response C-98
The derivation of the 1.7 percent contained in the comment is unclear, and is incorrect, as all as-
of-right alternatives noted in the TIS are shown to generate traffic levels at rates which are far
more divergent from the proposed action. All trip generation presented was developed
utilizing Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This is a
nationally-recognized, authoritative source of trip generation information for various land uses.
It is noted that single-family homes generate traffic at higher levels, per unit, than townhouses
or condominiums.
110
The turning movement counts contained in the traffic study were performed in August 2007 at
the three study intersections. To supplement the August 2005 SCDPW traffic machine count
data, additional MR counts were collected for a full-week, including,a weekend, during the
month of August 2007 at several locations. August is considered to be a month when seasonal
traffic is at its peak. As such, all of the counts collected and contained in the traffic study reflect
the heavier traffic traversing North Road during the summer months, and seasonal factors are
not applicable.
Comment C-99
There is not enough parking provided on site and no other places to park anywhere near the
site. The notion that half the units will only have one car seems unrealistic given the tendency
of most households to have two cars. The site is not convenient for alternative transportation
(no sidewalk connecting to the village center for over a mile on a road with a narrow shoulder
and cars and trucks traveling fast (the speed limit is 50 mph), and is not near mass transit (the
nearest bus stop is almost two miles away), making it very likely that most households will
have two cars if there are two people living there. There may be some single person
households, however it seems unrealistic to assume that 64 of the units will be single person,
and there is no place for guests to park.
Response C-99
The study's parking determination was based on Village of Greenport Code requirements. The
Village of Greenport Code calls for'provision of 1.5 spaces per unit. The Preliminary Alignment
Plan prepared for the 128-unit North Wind Village provides parking at a rate meeting Village
Code. The Plan contains 192 spaces, meeting Village Code requirements (1.5 spaces per unit x
128 units=192 spaces required).
Comment C-100
The DEIS suggests mitigation for the increase in traffic will occur when the residents carpool to
work. This assumption is not supported with any statistics or studies, and the significant
adverse impact of traffic cannot be considered mitigated.
Response C-100
Section 4.6.9 of the DEIS indicates that some residents may opt to carpool to travel to work.
This is not identified as a mitigation measure, but as a potential alternative means of
transportation, nor was any credit taken for carpooling in the traffic analysis. The DEIS notes
that the potential for carpooling would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the development
on the surrounding road network.
Comment C-101
The suggestion in the DEIS that people will use bicycles or walk from this site regularly to
access the Village is also not based on facts. The only route to the Village is via CR 48 and there
are no sidewalks available for over a mile. A pedestrian would be walking along CR 48 in an
unlit narrow shoulder with many cars traveling 60 mph speeding past for almost a mile before
reaching the nearest sidewalk
alk on Moores Lane. From there it is well over a mile to the Village
center.
Response C-101
,Contrary to the comment, the DEIS does not indicate that residents would regularly walk or
bicycle to downtown Greenport. Page 177 of the DEIS suggests that the property is within
walking or bicycling distance of the downtown area. Further,Section 4.6.9 of the DEIS indicates
that some of the residents of Northwind Village may opt to use bicycles as a means of
transportation.
Moreover, the applicant will provide a shuttle bus from the subject property to local
destinations,including the railroad station,within the downtown area.
Comment C-102
The archeological study contains soil information(soil map) that does not appear to match with
the soil analyses done elsewhere in the DEIS.
Response C-102
The archeological study identifies Montauk, Raynham and Plymouth soils as being located on
the site. Section 3.1.2 of the DEIS indicates the presence of these soils (which are the
112
predominant soils) as well as other soils. Data for the DEIS was derived from the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Services'. website, bM://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, while
the archeological study used a somewhat less precise(due to the scale),paper map.
Comment C-103
The DEIS states that there will be no impact to surface water, yet completely ignores the fact
that the Village of Greenport STP effluent empties into the Long Island Sound. The track record
and current test results of the effluent should be reported to effectively evaluate the effect to
surface water that another 128 units will have on the Long Island Sound.
Response C-103
It is the responsibility of the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet the requirements of
its SPDES discharge permit. According to NYSDEC, a permit issued by the NYSDEC as part of
the SPDES program is designed to maintain New York's waters with reasonable standards of
purity. New York State law requires a SPDES permit before construction or use of an outlet or
discharge pipe for wastewater discharging into surface water or groundwater, and for
construction or operation of disposal systems such as sewage treatment plants..Therefore, since
the applicant received a letter of availability from the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant, it
is reasonable to expect that the Plant meets its SPDES discharge permit, and there would be no
significant adverse impacts to surface water.
Moreover, as noted in Response C-5, an inquiry with NYSDEC's Region 1 staff found that the
Greenport sewage treatment plant has been operated in compliance with the discharge limits
contained in its SPDES permit for at least the last three years. Since the plant has sufficient
unused capacity to accept the expected flows from the project, and has an established record of
meeting the discharge limits of its permit, it is reasonable to conclude that the flows received
from Northwind Village should not impact the performance or other characteristics of the plant,
and, therefore,should not result in a deterioration of Long Island Sound water quality.
Comment C-104
The Environmental Assessment Form is incomplete—the number of acres being cleared,habitat
types,etc.
113
Response C-104
An EAF was prepared that initiated the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
process. After the Part 1 —EAF was prepared by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF were
prepared. This led to the issuance of a determination of significance - -positive declaration,
indicating that a DEIS was to be prepared. A DEIS was prepared and accepted as complete and
adequate for public review by the lead agency, NYSDEC, in September 2009. Therefore, the
EAF portion of the environmental review process has been completed.
The subject of this HIS is the DEIS that was accepted by the NYSDEC. Table 1 of the DEIS
includes the site coverages at present and post-construction. In addition,Section 4.3 of the DEIS
specifically discusses the habitats that are proposed to be disturbed.
Comment C-105
.The alternatives were poorly designed and are not meaningful for several reasons. First, both
the development alternatives are very similar to the proposed action in their layout, design and
lot coverage by building and pavement. Neither alternative [50 units or 108 units] would
appear to make much of a difference in many of the adverse impacts due to their similarity in
impervious surface,location and size of buildings, and number of parking spaces.
Response C-105
Based upon comments received regarding the DEIS, the current Town of Southold HD zoning
district regulations were used to prepare a new alternative, representing a yield plan based
upon the most recent Town of Southold zoning code. As previously described, and included in
Appendix D of this FEIS, the Town of Southold yield plan generates 44 lots. The general
impacts of the 44 lots are discussed in Response H-15.
Comment C-106
An alternative demonstrating the difference in impacts if it were developed under an R-80
zoning requirement would be a more rational alternative to explore, especially given Town
planning documents that support developing this parcel at that density: Developing the parcel
under R-80 would provide greater protection to the sensitive wetland habitat adjacent, and be
more in keeping with the immediate neighborhood, as well as providing more habitat
protection to the sensitive lands adjacent.
114
Response C-106
The subject property is not zoned R-80, nor has the applicant requested R-80 zoning.
Furthermore,R-80 zoning was not included as an alternative in the Final Scope.
However, based upon comments received regarding the DEIS, the current Town of Southold
HD zoning district regulations were used to prepare a new alternative, representing a yield
plan based upon the most recent Town of Southold zoning code. As previously described, and
included in Appendix D of this FEIS, the Town of Southold yield plan generates 44 lots. The
general impacts of the 44 lots are discussed in Response H-15.
Comment C-107
Another alternative would be to assess the impacts of a development similar in unit size and
design to the proposed development,yet with significantly lower density:25 to 50 units.
Response C-107
A 50-unit development was studied in Section 7.3 of the DEIS. Another alternative, the yield
plan,-consisting of 44 units,in conformance with the current standards of the Town of Southold,
is contained in Appendix D and discussed within this FEIS(see Response H-15).
Comment C-108
The alternative for current zoning is a valid alternative but must be corrected and assessed
based on an accurate ate reading of the Town Code to be meaningful.
Response C-108
The yield plan, which depicts 44 lots has been prepared and is presented in Appendix D of this
FEIS.- A discussion of the associated impacts of such yield is included in Response H-15.
115
Comment C-109
The 108-unit alternative, as portrayed in the DEIS, is essentially the same as the 128 unit, and
provides no useful comparison of realistic alternative design or density. It likely would have
the same impacts as the 128 unit proposal.
Response C-109
An analysis of the impacts of the 108-unit alternative is included in Section 7.2 of the DEIS. This
alternative reflects the original site plan that the Town of Southold Planning Board approved in
1983, as noted on page 268 of the DEIS. The resolution regarding the adoption of the 108-unit
site plan is included in Appendix B of the DEIS. It is realistic to compare a proposed plan with
a previously-approved plan.
Comment C-110
This entire section is based on an incorrect and obsolete reading of the Town's code for the
Hamlet Density zoning district, and a lack of understanding about how yield is determined for
residential site plans in Southold Town. The number of units that would be allowed under
current zoning is unknown absent a yield map prepared to Town Code specifications. The
wetlands delineation is questionable, and would have to be reaffirmed by the Town's staff
person responsible for verifying wetlands delineations.
Response C-110
The yield plan has been prepared by the applicant addressing the revisions made to the Town
of Southold regulations for the HD zoning district, and to address a number of comments made
on the DEIS. The yield plan, based upon prevailing Town of Southold zoning, includes 44
residential lots (see Appendix D of this FEIS). This 44-unit plan assumes connection to both
public water and sewer. The 44 residential lots generally range in size from 10,000 square feet
to 21,269 square feet, with one lot at 55,120 square feet. The plan was prepared in accordance
with Section 240-10.B of the Town of Southold Town Code. This section states that the yield
plan is to be used for the determination of allowable density on.a property and is not to be used
for site layout or construction purposes.
In addition, The Town of Southold Planning Board has incorrectly asserted that the freshwater
wetland boundary on the project alignment plan is inaccurate. This freshwater wetland
116
boundary was confirmed by Mr. Robert .Marsh, Regional Manager for the NYSDEC Bureau of
Habitat on November 9, 2005. Mr. Marsh is responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
As noted in Responses C-59 and C-64, in the event that the annexation to the Village of
Greenport is. not granted, and the property remains within the jurisdiction of the Town of
Southold, the Town has indicated that the Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold, Chapter 275
of the Southold Town Code would govern development of the-property. The applicant has had
its ecological consultant investigate the subject property once again to determine whether
wetlands, as defined in Section 275-2 of the Southold Town Code, exist beyond the wetlands
identified by the NYSDEC.
Re-inspection of the property was conducted on December 9, 2010, by William Bowman, Ph.D.
of Land Use Ecological Services. Dr. Bowman found that the Town is correct in that there is a
stand of Phraginites australis in the northeastern portion of the property and that Phragmites is
listed as a wetla-nd indicator species for freshwater wetlands in Chapter 275 of the Town Code.
However, this stand of Phragmites is not a regulated freshwater wetland for several reasons.
First, the Phragmites stand is located adjacent to an outfall pipe that discharges stormwater from
CR 48. Stormwater from CR 48 collects in a drainage ditch located on the northern side of the
road and then is conveyed to the south side of the road via a concrete culvert. Therefore, this
Phraginites stand does not possess natural wetland hydrology and should not be classified as a
wetland. Second, the Pliragmites stand is not permanently and directly connected to the red
maple-hardwood swamp located to the south contrary to the Towns assertion. Field
investigations indicate that there is not a permanent connection with the wetlands to.the south
as the Piragmites stand is.separated from the wetlands by an upland forest dominated by black
locust, red maple, privet, and honeysuckle. During periods of high stormwater discharge from
CR 48, this Phragniftes stand does overflow with surface runoff flowing into this upland forest
and towards the freshwater wetlands. Overall, therefore, despite the presence of Phragmites, the
site does not feature natural wetland hydrology and hydric soils necessary to classify the
P hrogniftes as a freshwater wetland under the New York State Freshwater Wetland Delineation
Manual and §275-2(A)(Wetla,nd Boundary) of the Town of Southold Code. Due to the absence of
hydric soils andpatural wetland hydrology, the Phragmites does not meet the standards of the
New York State Freshwater Delineation Manual, as confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the
NYSDEC, or the definition and delineation procedures pursuant to§275-2(A)(Wetland Boundary)
of the Town of Southold Code. Furthermore,no other areas that could be classified as wetlands
under the Town of Southold Code were encountered during the additional site visit.
117
To summarize,'the proposed action is consistent with the Towns policy of protecting its
freshwater wetlands. First, the proposed action is consistent with a "no net loss" wetlands
policy, as no proposed disturbance or residential development will occur within 100 feet of any
freshwater wetlands, with the exception of the construction of the new box turtle nesting area.
This construction will require a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Second, the 100-foot
buffer would consist of existing native communities including successional old fields and
southern hardwood forests. Third, the proposed action provides greater setbacks for proposed
structures (with the exception of the box turtle nesting area) than those required under §275-
3(D)(1)(a) of the Town code. For example,the Town requires a minimum 50-foot setback for the
installation of landscaping or gardening, while the proposed action provides a 100-foot setback.
The Town requires a minimum 100-foot setback for a residence, while the proposed action
provides a 110-foot setback. Accordingly,the assertions in the comment are not accurate.
Comment C-111
The DEIS appears to be based on assumptions that do not take into account what an "as-of-
right" development would likely yield if the project were developed under the current zoning.
Yield for residential site plans in the FID zoning district in Southold must submit a yield plan
showing one unit per 10,000 s.f., including roads and other infrastructure. With no actual yield
map in hand, an estimate of the yield should take into account not only wetlands, but also the
road area and any other infrastructure that is required and affects the yield. A straight
calculation of buildable lands likely will produce a yield that overestimates the number of units
that would be allowed. Thus, it doesn't seem valid to suggest the traffic from 128 unit
development is only 1.7% higher than the traffic generated from a development under current
town zoning. 128 units could potentially be almost three times the number of units in the "as-
of-right" development.
Response C-111
The yield plan has been prepared indicating the capacity for a 44-lot development, assuming
that public sewer and water utilities are provided to the units through an out-of-district
connection to the Greenport Sewer District(see Appendix D).
118
Comment C-112
Affordable housing appears to be the main claim for benefits, in addition to taxes for the
Village.
a. The benefit of affordable housing will be fleeting if they are not made
"perpetually affordable."
b. Tax revenue has not been demonstrated to be greater than the cost of the services
to be required.
L Study after study has shown that residential development costs
municipalities more than they receive in taxes.
Response C-112
See Responses H-17, H-19, C-20 and C-79 regarding Suffolk County's support of the project
based upon the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program. The applicant
owns the subject property and has committed to providing 64 units of affordable housing based
upon the criteria discussed below. Page 14 of the DEIS noted that the applicant is proposing
that the affordability restrictions have a 30-year duration. However, the duration will be
determined by the Village of Greenport in its administration of the program.
The subject property is zoned for residential development, and is proposed to be developed for
residential purposes. As indicated in this FEIS, several typical services provided by the Village
(using property taxes), would be paid for by the future homeowners association. These services
include internal roadway maintenance, snow removal, and solid waste collection and disposal.
Thus, the Village would not be responsible for providing or paying for such services for
Northwind Village. In addition, based upon the yield plan, the 44 single-family homes would
yield more school-aged children than the proposed development. Therefore, the cost to educate
students from Northwind Village would be less than in a standard single-family subdivision on
the same parcel.
In addition, the applicant is working with Suffolk County regarding potentially obtaining an
infrastructure subsidy associated with the provision of workforce housing, and will also
continue to work with the Village of Greenport regarding costs associated with sewer
connection.
119
More specifically, iri order to minin-dze the financial impact on the Village of Greenport, the
applicant, in conjunction with the Village of Greenport, would seek infrastructure subsidies
associated with the provision of workforce housing from Suffolk County. According to Suffolk
County's website,
"Suffolk County, acting through its Department of Economic Development and Workforce
Housing, may issue bonds to fund certain approved infrastructure improvements for qualifijing
workforce housing developments. Such developments must contain, at a minimum, 20%
workforce housing units, i.e., 10% of the units availablefor those earning up to 120% of median
income. Ihese units must remain affordable for a period of at least 10 years.
Approved applications may be funded on a first-comefirst-served basis. 77le county reserves the
right to reject any and all applications, negotiate With applicants, recommend funding in an
amount less than requested, conduct site visits, interview the applicants, recommend funding in
an amount less than requested, conduct site visits, interview the applicant and development team
and request additional information. Vie County also reserves the right to take any actions deemed
appropriate to assure that programfunds are distributed throughout the county.
Quali/ying Development
A preference will be given for: a) developments that provide more than 20% of their units for
workforce housing; b) developments that seek to keep their units affordable permanently; C)
developments of teii units or more; d) developments built according to green standards; and e)
developments that meet the countys Smart Growth goals. All applications must provide a
supporting letterfi-om the supervisor or mayor of the applicable local municipality.
Qualiffing Infi,astructure Improvements
Qualiffing i mprovements must meet Suffolk County Department of Public Works'. Department
of Health Services' or town-standards, as appropriate. 7he following improvements may be
funded through this program: Sewage treatment plants, Roads, Sidewalks, Curbs, Parking, or,
Lighting, among others."
The applicant will apply to the County's program with the Village's support, depending upon
funding availability.
Moreover, the applicant is committed to participate financially in infrastructure improvements
that may be required to connect the property to Greenport's sewage collection system.
120
Comment C-113
The site is not within a quarter mile of community resources, there is no evidence the homes
will meet Energy Star for Homes requirements, and the provision of affordable housing is not
definitive.
Response C-113
The site is not within one-quarter mile of community resources; however, the applicant will
provide a shuttle bus for use by residents. Although no specifics have been determined at this
time, the shuttle bus would transport residents to and from local destinations, including the
downtown Greenport area.
As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant is willing to indicate that the homes would
meet EnergyStar for Homes requirements. In addition, the applicant is seeking Leadersl-dp in
Energy and Environmental Design ("LEED") certification for the development. LEED
certification is issued by the United States Green Building Council ("USGBC"). According to
the USGBC:
"the LEED green building certification program encourages and accelerates global adoption of
sustainable green building and development practices through a suite of rating systems that
recognize projects that implement strategies for better environmental and health
peiforman.ce...LEED is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted
benchmar1c for the design, construction and operation of high-peiformance green buildings.
LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and
measurable impact on their buildi ngs' peiformance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach
to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental
health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and
indoor environmental quality."
It should be noted that the project sponsor is a licensed engineer, an AICP certified planner and
a LEED accredited professional. See pages 176-179 of the DEIS for additional details regarding
LEED.
In addition, to the EnergyStar program, the applicant is proposing to incorporate renewable
energy technologies (including solar power) and green building techniques into the project
design in order to lower energy needs and costs. With respect to solar power, as the site plan
and the buildings have not yet been designed, the location of solar panels, etc. cannot be
121
specifically determined. However, the applicant will use solar power for supplemental water
heating. Regarding green building techniques, page 179 of the DEIS outlines techniques for
incorporating environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient techniques into building design
prepared by the American Institute of Architects.20 Such techniques are as follows:
0 Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation;
0 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.,bike paths and storage, pedestrian links, car
shares;
0 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;
0 Specify energy-efficient windows;
® Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use.-
and
a Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by
owner or tenant for use.
The applicant has also agreed to provide an electric car charging station on-site.
The provision of affordable housing is definitive, as explained throughout the DEIS, and
specifically on pages 13 through 17 of the DEIS. One-half (64) of the housing units within the
proposed development would be affordable, workforce housing units based upon Suffolk
County's Workforce Housing Program requirements. Potential income and eligibility
requirements are discussed on pages 14 through 17 of the DEIS.
20 Affordable Green Guidelines at http://www.designadvisor.org/gteen—critera.html
122
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
Hon.David Nyce,Mayor
December 11,2009
Comment C-114
The Village of Greenport conducted a.public hearing regarding the KACE DEIS on November
12, 2009 at the Greenport Third Street Firehouse in the Village of Greenport. The purpose of the
November 12, 2009 hearing was to provide residents of the Village of Greenport with the
opportunity to make comments regarding the KACE DEIS and to enable Village residents to
hear the comments that were being made about the KACE DEIS by other Village residents. The
only hearing that was conducted by the DEC on the KACE DEIS was held by the DEC at a
location in the Town of Southold which is about ten miles from the Village of Greenport and
several miles from the neighborhood and property that will be directly impacted by tl-ds project.
Response C-114
The comment is noted. The N-YSDEC hearing was noticed and conducted in accordance with 6
NYCRR Part 617.
Comment C-115
The KACE DEIS is not sufficient in the analysis of the impact on threatened species and the
proposal of a realistic means of mitigating that impact. A more thorough analysis identifying
habitat and realistic possibilities for mitigation should be provided. The Village of Greenport
emphasizes the comments regarding the destruction of the habitat of threatened species, and
recognizes the habitat destruction is the biggest problem facing threatened species that are
mentioned in the KACE DEIS and the species which were omitted, including but not limited to
box turtles and other species.
As noted in the November 23, 2009, Report by the Town of Southold Planning Department box
turtles will be harmed by habitat destruction caused by woodlands that are converted to
housing and the KACE DEIS should be amended to reflect those considerations.
123
Response C-115
The DEIS provides sufficient analysis of the potential presence of threatened species on the
subject property and potential impacts to these species.As required by in the Final Scope for the
DEIS, the. applicant conducted surveys for vulnerable wildlife, plant, and ecological
communities identified by the New York Natural Heritage Program and discussed potential
impacts to any species potentially occurring on or near the subject property. This analysis and
discussion is presented on pages 76-85, 169-173, and Appendix N of the DEIS. The wildlife,
plant, and ecological communities discussed in the DEIS include:
Red Maple-Sweet Gum Swamp
Cat-tail Sedge
Swamp Cottonwood
Cranefly Orchid
Opelousa Smartweed
Swamp Smartweed
Orange-fringed Orchid
Velvet Panic Grass
Maryland Milkwort
Small-flowered Pearlwort
Cut-leaved Evening Primrose
Northern Cricket Frog
Tiger Beetle
Nuttalls and Smooth Tick-Trefoil
Green Parrot's Feather
Marsh Straw Sedge
Red Pigweed
During the biological inventory of the subject property, three species classified as New York
State (Species of Special Concern) were noted. The definition for "Special Concern" status
under Section 182.2(i) of 6NYCRR Part 182 is that these species "warrant attention and
consideration but current information, collected by the department, does not justify listing these
species as either endangered or threatened". Potential impacts to these vulnerable wildlife
species are discussed on pages 76-77 and 169-170 of the DEIS. In addition, please refer to the
provided responses to the GreenMan-Pederson and Town of Southold. Planning Board
comments. The New York State Special Concern species addressed in the DEIS include:
124
Eastern Box Turtle*
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
*Observed on subject site.
By establishing a 100-foot buffer area to minimize potential impacts to freshwater wetlands, the
proposed action is maintaining 6.4 acres of successional hardwood forest and 0.3 acres of
successional old field habitats, including an existing box turtle nest site, and is providing an
appropriate location for an additional box turtle nesting area in order to replace a site that
would be eliminated by the proposed residential development. In fact, the proposed action
maintains 58 percent of the upland forests located on the* subject property along with 100
percent (3.9 acres) of the hardwood swamps and moist woodlands. Both the hardwood forests
and old fields located within the buffer area will provide habitat for eastern box turtles and
sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawk that is contiguous with the mature red maple-hardwood
forests and oak-tulip forest that are located downslope of the freshwater wetland boundary.
Furthermore, the highest quality habitats on and adjacent to the subject property exist within
the mature red maple-hardwood swamps and oak-tulip stands located downslope of the
freshwater wetland boundary. In contrast, the successional old fields and southern hardwood
forests have re-grown on the site subsequent to historical clearing. These old fields and
successional forests certainly provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species, as discussed in the
DEIS. However, the proposed action chose to situate the development activities in these
habitats to provide a sufficient buffer for the mature forested wetlands and minimise impacts to
downstream aquatic and estuarine ecosystems, such as Moore's Drain, Pipes Cove, and the
Peconic Estuary.
As stated in the DEIS, eastern box turtles are in decline throughout the eastern United States
with population reductions of 50 - 75 percent since the 1940s-1950s. Eastern box turtles inhabit
a variety of ecological communities including moist woodlands, pastures, and marshy
meadows. The proposed action.will result in the preservation-of 0.6 acres of habitat for eastern-
box turtles including 6.4 acres of successional hardwood forest, 3.9 acres of red-maple
hardwood swamp, and 0.3 acres of old fields. In addition, two existing box turtle nest sites
were observed during field inspection of the subject property. One of these nest sites is located
within the 100-foot buffer and will be preserved. The other box turtle nest site will be lost
during the proposed development and, accordingly, the applicant proposes to create a new box
turtle nesting habitat within the 100-foot wetland buffer as mitigation. Therefore, the applicant
125
acknowledges the potential impact to the eastern box turtle and is addressing it through the
provision of additional nesting habitat(see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle
nesting area location).
In order to avoid a potential loss of box turtle nesting 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 set forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural Heritage
Program 2009). The nesting site would be located on the western portion of the project site as
shown in Appendix C of this FEIS. The western portion of the project site was selected as both
observed nesting sites are found on this side of the property. This site was also selected.because
1) it is located within the 100-foot jurisdictional area of the N-YSDEC-regulated freshwater
wetlands, 2) is adequately sunlit and does not feature a tree or shrub canopy, and 3) possesses
well-drained sandy soils. The selected location for the proposed nesting site is open and
exhibits successional old field vegetation. The approximate location of the woodland edge is
shown on the map provided in Appendix C of this FEIS. The proposed nest site must be
located in the old fields located to the north of this woodland edge to ensure that the nest site
receives adequate southern exposure to the sun throughout most of the day.
The creation of box turtle nesting would include removal of tall, herbaceous vegetation and
organic soil layer from a 400-SF area to expose native, sandy soils. This area would 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 would 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 avoid destruction of any box turtle nests during construction, the existing nest site
would be surveyed by a qualified ecologist prior to site clearing to determine if any box turtle
nests and eggs are present. Eastern box turtles typically lay eggs between early June and mid
July. The young turtles hatch 87- 89 days later, typically in September. Therefore, surveying of
the nest site is only necessary if site clearing is projected to occur between June 1 and October 1.
The existing nest site to be -disturbed during construction will be surveyed for nests within one
week of site clearing (if clearing occurs between June 1 and July 15) or during the second week
of July(if clearing occurs between July 15 and October 1).
126
If any shallow depressions typical of box turtle nests are observed in the nest site, the nest
would be excavated by hand and the eggs re-located to either the other existing natural box
turtle nesting area or the proposed mitigation nesting site. Any observed box turtle nest would
be gently excavated by hand using a small, flat-edge trowel. Soil would be gently scraped from
the surface with no more than 0.5 inches of soil removed at a time. Box turtle nests are typically
2.5 to 3.5 inches in depth. The depth of the nest shall be recorded. Each egg shall be carefully
removed and transferred to a well-padded bucket. Typically, box turtle nests contain four-to-
five eggs. A small hole identical in depth to the original nest would be dug in the new nest
location. The eggs shall be placed right side up in the new nest and covered with loose soil.
Further discussion of the box turtle nesting site is provided in Sections 3.3.3, 4.3.2 and 5.3 of the
DEIS and in previous responses to comments herein (see Responses C-47, C-66, and C-70,
among others).
Comment C-116
While the DEIS proposes that the new housing provides affordable home ownership, Smart
Growth concepts encourage adaptive reuse. An example of a viable alternative that was not
Considered by the KACE DEIS, and which along with other alternatives should have been
considered is community investment into the existing housing stock in the Sandy Beach area of
the Village of Greenport provides an opportunity for the extended use of existing housing stock
(year round of modest affordable housing rather than seasonal ownership) rather than clearing
woodlands to construct new housing.
Response C-116
The applicant owns the subject property and has the right to request the annexation,zoning and
proposed development. The applicant does not own any properties that would allow for
adaptive reuse for afforda ble housing. The SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCI�R §617.9(b)(5)(v)
indicate that alternatives 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, as indicated in 6 N-YCRR §6,17.9(b)(5)(v)( g'): "for private
project sponsors...[s]ite alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or.under option to, a
private project sponsor." Therefore, the commentator's suggestion that the applicant consider
investment in existing housing stock in another part of the community (Sandy Beach) is not
reasonable orfeasible, since the applicant does not own or control such property(ies) in that
area of the Village.
127
Comment C-117
The area that is proposed to be annexed into the Village of Greenport is within an area that has
the potential for creating a significant impact on the Peconic Estuary system. In an ongoing
effort to revive and maintain the waterways around Long Island, the Pecomic Estuary Program
has several ongoing efforts, one of which is revitalization of the historic spawning habitat of
alewives. Alewives are a salt water fish that migrates to fresh water ponds via streams to
spawn. One of the spawning habitats for alewives has been identified as Silver Lake via
Moore's Drain, which is in the area of the territory that is the subject of the proposed
annexation. There is presently an ongoing project to revive Moore's Drain as a habitat for the
alewives and the proposed project connects to Moore's Drain. The Peconic Estuary Program
should be involved in the discussion regarding the annexation and project which it has not been
to date.
Response C-117
All aspects of N-YSDEC's SEQRA review of this project were coordinated with the Peconic
Estuary Program. The following documents were sent directly to Vito Minei, Program Director,
with requests for comments and concerns as appropriate:
Positive Declaration&EAF Part 111: 10/05/2006
Draft Scope: 05/11/2007
Final Scope: 06/29/2007
Notice of Completion of Draft EIS, Complete Application
and Notice of SEQR Hearing 09/28/2009
DEIS: 10/01/2009
As stated previously in Responses H-1 and H-5, the proposed action will result in the
preservation of all permanent and seasonal freshwater wetlands on the subject property and
establishes a 100-foot buffer area to minimize potential impacts to water quality,habitat quality,
and hydrology within these wetlands. The only structure proposed to be situated within the
100-foot buffer area is the proposed box turtle nesting area. This will require a NYSDEC
Freshwater Wetland Permit. Although the specific mechanism has not been determined,,the
applicant intends to ensure the protection of areas designated for preservation by a legal vehicle
such as an easement or deed covenant.
128
The Preliminary Alignment Plan (see Appendix G of the DEIS) demonstrates that the proposed
development will not encroach into the freshwater wetland adjacent area. Accordingly,
regional impacts to fish habitat in Moore's Drain, Pipes Cove, and the Peconic Estuary are not
anticipated. Furthermore, the red maple-hardwood swamps -located on and adjacent to the
subject property do not provide suitable deep,permanent water for the spawning of alewives.
Comment C-118
The Village has obtained a report from Robert Grover of GPI, which is attached as Exhibit C to
this letter, and the Town of Southold produced a significant document which addressed in
detail the loss and destruction of wetlands, forest and habitat that will be caused by the project,
a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit G to this letter.
There are several issues raised by these reports which are a concern to the Village of Greenport,
and which were not suitably addressed by the KACE DEIS, specifically that all wetlands, forest
and habitat are fully and properly identified, as well as the destruction of wetlands, forest and
habitat that will be caused by the project will be fully indicated. The loss of wetlands,forest and
habitat that is identified in the DEIS as well as the Village and Town reports is of a significant
concern to the Village of Greenport. The replacement of the wetlands, forest and habitat or the
mitigation of the damage to the wetlands, forest or habitat do not seem to be either adequate or
realistic, and the DEIS should be modified to include an adequate plan of mitigation and
replacement.
Response C-118
Sections 4.2.5 and 4.3 of the DEIS describe the proposed impacts to the wetlands and the
ecological habitats. Sections 4.3.2 and 5.3 d iscuss the replacement of the eastern box turtle
nesting area that would be lost during construction. Supplemental landscaping would replace
some of the forest area with native trees and shrubs, which would provide shelter and food for
some wildlife species. See Appendix J for a list of potential species to be used within the future
landscaping plan. It must be reiterated that the proposed action involves no loss of freshwater
wetlands habitat and would provide a minimum 100-foot buffer area to these wetlands that will
result in the preservation of 6.4 acres of upland forest, specifically successional southern
hardwood forest, and 0.3 acres of old fields. The only construction within the 100-foot buffer
area.involves the creation of a new box turtle nesting area, which will require a Freshwater
Wetland Permit from the NYSDEC.
129
Comment C-119.
The traffic study that is contained in the DEIS is insufficient and incorrect on several significant
items that have a direct bearing on the accuracy of the report and the DEIS. The first of these is
that the traffic study that is contained in the DEIS is largely based on an underlying assumption
that there will be only one car generated for each housing unit that is developed. The traffic
study and the KACE DEIS should be redone with a revision of several of the assumptions that
are relied on by the study which similar to the one car per unit assumption are unrealistic.
The assumption that there will be one car per unit should be amended to reflect a revised
assumption that there will two cars for each housing unit that is developed. The two cars per
unit is the more common case,particularly since the project is not near any commercial center.
The traffic study should also be amended, as stated by Schneider Engineering, so that it is based
on current or updated data,not the outdated data that the report must be done based on current
or updated data.
It is also noted that the outdated data on which the DEIS traffic study was based does not
include the effects of several large developments that have been completed in the area of the
subject property and the DEIS traffic study should be corrected to reflect those corrections and
the DEIS should not be reviewed or considered until these corrections are made for that reason.
Response C-119
The TIS does not assume that there will be one car generated for each housing unit developed.
The trip generation for the proposed is based on the "Trip Generation" report by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. This publication is the nationally recognized authoritative source for
trip generation for numerous land uses, including residential. These trip generation rates are
based on the compilation of numerous field studies of operation developments and not on any
assumptions that one car will be generated for each housing unit. At the time of the writing of
the traffic study, both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted in
regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of the site to determine the presence of
any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic
to warrant consideration in the study. Discussions held with representatives of both
municipalities revealed that they were not aware of any other developments planned in the
vicinity of the proposed Northwind Village condominium community. It has since been
brought to the Attention of the applicant and its traffic consultant, that a new large
130
development, Cliffside Resort, which provides transient lodging, was completed to the west of
the proposed project, and opened for business in mid- to late summer, 2008. Since the turning
movement counts contained in the study were performed in August 2007, these counts did not
account for the traffic destined to and from the Cliffside Resort. As such, all of-the traffic
volume spreadsheets have been updated to include the traffic generated by the Cliffside Resort,
and the previous horizon analysis year was also extended from 2008 to 2011. Furthermore, all
of the No-Build and Build capacity analyses for the three study intersections and the proposed
site access were rerun to reflect the inclusion of the Chffside Resort development and the new
horizon year. The results of these 2011 intersection capacity analyses indicate that, as
previously concluded, the traffic due to the proposed Northwind Village condominium
development is anticipated to have no significant impact on the operation of the three
unsignalized intersections analyzed. See Response to C-97 for additional details regarding the
updated traffic study.
The study's parking determination was based on Village of Greenport Code requirements. The
Village of Greenport Code calls for provision of 1.5 spaces per unit. The Preliminary Alignment
Plan prepared for the 128-unit North Wind Village provides parking at a rate meeting Village
Code. The Plan contains 192 spaces, meeting Village Code requirements (1.5 spaces per unit x
128 units=192 spaces required).
Comment C-120
The KACE DEIS claims that Smart Growth principles are guiding many aspects of the proposed
annexation and the development of the project. The location of the territory that is proposed to
be annexed and developed,however,is not consistent with Smart Growth principles.
The reason for this is that Smart Growth principles call for high density residential development
within walking distance of a Village center. The property that is the subject of the proposed
annexation and development, however, is located more than two miles from the Greenport
Village center. Pedestrian access to the subject property, a cornerstone of the Smart Growth
concept, is at best difficult and dangerous. The main road in the area, which is the road that
would provide access to the Village of Greenport, is County Road 48, and that road has a
hazardous narrow shoulder in the area of the project and the nearest sideway is more than one
mile from the territory to be annexed and developed.
The DEIS also states that the proposed development supports Suffolk County's Smart Growth
principles and that many LEED Neighborhood Certification criteria will be met. Section 4.4.1
131
The information that is given to meet the DEIS claims that the project will meet those criteria
such as the location of the project with respect to the Greenport Village Schools and Greenport
Village Center and other criteria, is incorrect. The claims contained in the DEIS with respect to
Smart Growth and the LEED program are therefore incorrect or unfounded, and that erroneous
information must be corrected before the DEIS can be considered or reviewed.
Response C-120
The applicant has designed the proposed Northwind Village development to be compliant with
LEED standards and is pursuing LEED certification, as discussed on pages 19 and 176 through
179 of the DEIS and reiterated in Response C-113 herein. The project sponsor is a licensed
engineer, is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and is a LEED-accredited
professional. The applicant is designing the project so that the residences would meet Energy
Star for Homes requirements. Although the proposed development is not located in the
downtown area, it still meets many LEED principles. For example, the site is located within a
half-mile of existing water, sewer and road infrastructure, the site is within one-half mile of
green spaces, the development is compact, erosion control will be used during construction (as
it is required), it will meet Energy Star for Homes requirements, there will be no development
in the wetland setback areas(development of the units would occur at least 10 feet from the 100-
foot setback), and the development will provide a significant amount of affordable, workforce
housing (without goverrunent subsidy). Pages 176 through 179 of the DEIS describe both the
LEED and smart-growth aspects of the proposed project. In addition, the applicant has
conurfitted to incorporating renewable energy into the proposed development through the use
of among other technologies, solar power (for supplemental water heating). The applicant has
also agreed to provide an electric car charging station on-site. Furthermore, as part of the
proposed action, the applicant will provide a shuttle bus to the downtown area and other local
destinations (specifics to be determined) that would serve to transport residents of Northwind
Village. This concept was discussed on page 247 of the DEIS.
As indicated in Sections 2.4 and 4.4.1 of the DEIS, the Suffolk County Planning Department
outlined the principles of smart growth as they relate to Suffolk County in a report titled Smart
Growth through Smart Communities:Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and
Villages produced in March 2000 (see Appendix N of this FEIS). The following highlights the
proposed project's consistency with the eight principles identified in the report:
132
1. Direct development to strengthen existing communities.
7he proposed project serves to strengthen the existing community by: (1) developing affordablelworkforce
housing on a site that has been identified by the Town of Southold as suitablefor this type of development;
(2) creating jobs through construction and maintenance activities; (3)providing affordable and workforce
housing for the working families of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold; (4) generating tax
revenue to both the Village and the Town; (5) providing an attractive community and preserves open
space; (6) creating housing opportunities for a range of Village and Southold residents, which will in turn
generate year-round spending in the commercial areas of the Village and Town; and (7) providing a
model for sustainable development and green residential buildings for Long Island and will generate a
portion of its energyfi,om on-site renewable sources.
2. Encourage mixed land uses and mixed use buildings.
Zoning in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport contains predominantly single-use zoning
districts. Given the planning efforts of both the Town and Village, it has been recognized since the
enactment of zoning laws in the Town that this subject parcel is an ideal location for medium-density
multi-Jamily housing as proposed. 77his is supported by the Town of Southold Planning Board's approval
of a 108-unit multi-family housing development on the subject site in 1983.
3. Encourage Consultation between Communities.
7'he proposed project has been reviewed and examined by the Town of Southold, the Village of Greenport,
and Suffolk County. Vie project sponsor has solicited comments fi-om all interested parties.
4. Ta:ke advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing'opportunities.
7'he proposed project takes advantage of compact building sizes by offering multi-family units in sizes
rangingfi,om 850 squarefeet to 1,500 squarefeet. Fifhj percent (64 homes) of the proposed project will be
workforce housing and restricted as to sales price, purchase income qualifications, and resale price. 771is
would create an opportunity to provide more than double the total number of affordable homes (22) built
in the Town of Southold to date.
7he variation in building sizes, number of bedrooms (one to three), and income qualifications would
create a range of housing opportunities for households in every stage of the lifecycle.
133
5. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices.
While public transportation options are limited in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport,
every effort will be made to offer residents alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. For example, a
private shuttle service will be provided to key employment and retail centers in the Village and Town. As
the project is adjacent to the Route 48 bicycle route, the community design will encourage bicycle use.
Given that 50 percent of the proposed homes will be workforce housing, with potential priority given to
those who live andlor work in the Village or Town, it is likely that carpooling will be a viable option.
Finally, an electric car charging station, powered by a renewable energy system, will be providedfor use
by the residents of the proposed project.
6. Create Pleasant Environments and Attractive Communities.
Vie proposed project will be designed in keeping with existing community character and current
architectural practices for multi-family residential units, including variation in exterior facades. Visual
renderings of the proposed units can befound in Appendix S of the DEIS. Ihe layout of the development;
architectural design of the units, and inclusion of open space will ensure an attractive and pleasant
community.
7. Preserve Open Space and Natural-Resources.
Over 10.5 acres of open space are proposed to be preserved in the natural state, equating to 61.1 percent Of
the site. Although the specific mechanism has not been determined, the applicant intends to ensure the
protection of areas designatedfor preservation by a legal vehicle such as an easement or deed covenant.
Furthermore, the proposed action includes creation of a new box turtle nesting area to replace one that
would be lost during construction. In addition, the multi-family building types proposed will limit new
low-density, sprawling development patterns characteristic'of the Town of Southold. Multi-family
housing generally preserves more open space than an equal number of single-family detached homes built
on large lots. Finally, the proposed project is intended to be designed to USGBC LEED Homes, Energy
Star, and USGBC LEED Neighborhood Development standards.
8. Make development decisions predictable,fair and cost effective.
774is principle is the responsibility of the local municipality with land use authority, and it encourages
municipalities to streamline the permitting process, particularly in order to facilitate higher density
developments such as the proposed project.
134
Comment C-121
The Village of Greenport has received an opinion from its utility counsel, attached as Exhibit F,
which indicates that the Village of Greenport will not be obligated to provide electric service to
the subject property. The Village of Greenport instead, if the Village desires to provide electric
service to the subject property, will not be obligated to provide electric service to the property,
will be required to apply to the Long Island Power Authority for permission and to the New
York State Public Service Commission, for approval, to sell electricity in what is now a Long
Island Power Authority franchise territory. The KACE DEIS should be amended to include this
information which is not presently correctly stated in the KACE DEIS and the impact that will
result should be property indicated in the KACE DEIS.
With respect to the cost of the supply of power the impact will be neutral or the cost of supply
of power may decline slightly,based upon a report by William Freitag.
The Village also received a report from Jack Naylor, P.E., Exhibit E however, which indicates
that there will an initial cost of not less than $795,200 to the Village to service the subject
property, which will be required to be included in the electric rates of the Village which is a cost
that was not reflected in the Freitag Report and which must be contained and analyzed in the
KACE DEIS.
The KACE DEIS is-inaccurate with the representation that is made with respect to the Greenport
Electric Utility, the fact that the Village will not be required to provide this service and the
impact on the Village of Greenport is approved to provide the service to the development on
the subject on annexation.
Response C-121
LIPA has indicated its ability to serve the site. See correspondence in Appendix P of the DEIS.
Comment C-122
The Village of Greenpor I t maintains that it will not be obligated to provide sewer service to the
subject property if the area is annexed into the Village of Greenport The DEIS should also be
amended to reflect accurate information on the Greenport Village Sewer system.
135
The Naylor Report that is annexed as Exhibit E to this letter indicates that the infrastructure
improvements to the sewer system that would be required for the Village of Greenport to
provide sewer service to the subject property would be at least $395,000. In the event that the
subject property is developed without being annexed the developer would be responsible for
this entire cost. In the event-that the property is developed after it is annexed into the Village of
Greenport the infrastructure cost will be the responsibility of the Village of Greenport, and the
addition of the subject property to the Village sewer system would cost the Village and its
residents the full$395,000.
Response C-122
Iri two letters dated March 26, 2001 (from the Village of Greenport) and November 6,2006 (from
Cameron Engineering) the Village has stated that they are "prepared to provide sewer service"
for the subject project (see Appendix J of the DEIS). These letters indicate that a) there is
sufficient capacity in the Village sewage treatment plant; and b) that the Village has a suitable
means for collecting the sewage. The Village would not be responsible for constructing the on-
site sewage collection system. This cost would be borne by the developer of the project. In
addition, the applicant is committed to participate financially in infrastructure improvements
that may be required to connect the development to Greenport's sewage collection system, as
indicated in Response C-5.
Comment C-123
The example of Sandy Beach raises another inaccuracy or insufficiency in the DEIS as it fails to
address that that annexation and development for the purpose of a connection to the Village of
Greenport sewer system has the potential of creating significant problematic precedent for the
Village of Greenport because the Village of Greenport has not provided sewer service to the
Sandy Beach area due to the prohibitive cost of doing so. If the subject property is annexed and
sewer service is provided by virtue that the area is located within the Village of Greenport, this
may establish a dangerous precedent for the Village of Greenport with respect to the Sandy
Beach property owners or other property owners in the Village of Greenport that are not
presently serviced by the Village of Greenport sewer system.
Response C-123
In two letters dated March 26, 2001 (from-the Village of Greenport) and November 6,2006 (from
Cameron Engineering) the Village has stated that they are "prepared to provide sewer service"
136
for the subject project. These letters indicate that a) there is sufficient capacity in the Village
sewage treatment plant; and b) that the village has a suitable means for collecting the sewage.
With respect to the "prohibitive cost" of providing sewer service, it is unclear as to how the
comparison between the proposed project and the Sandy Beach Development is being made.
Without any knowledge as to the cause of the "prohibitive cost" of Sandy Beach, it is
understood that the developer of'the proposed project would be responsible for any project
costs up to the connection to the Village Sewer District collection system. As a result, and
recognizing the fact that there is currently available capacity, there would be minimal cost to the
Village of Greenport. Also, see Response C-5.
Comment C-124
The DEIS is also insufficient as it does not consider or address the capacity of the Greenport
Village wastewater treatment plant or sewer system or the ability of the system to absorb the
significant increase in demand and volume that would be created by the project if the subject
property was developed and connected to the sewer system. The DEIS with respect to
analyzing the impact on capacity must also address the several significant projects that have
been developed and connected to the system since the annexation petition was filed in 2005.
Response C-124
In accordance with correspondence from Cameron Engineering and Associates,LLP(November
6, 2006) and a confirmation by Jack Naylor of the Village of Greenport Department of Utilities
(see pg 225 of the DEIS), the Village Treatment Plant currently has sufficient capacity to accept
the additional flow from the proposed development. Furthermore, according to the site plans
(Appendix G in the DEIS), there is a Village sewer main located adjacent to the subject property
to the north. As a result, there will be minimal cost for the connection of the proposed
development, all of which is to be borne by the developer. The cost of any on-site sanitary
infrastructure would also be borne by the developer. See Response C-5 for additional
discussion of sewer infrastructure.
Comment C-125
The Village Code of the Village of Greenport provides that properties inside the Village of
Greenport obtain free sewer hook-ups and that properties outside of the Village of Greenport,
such as the property that is proposed to be annexed, are assessed a significant fee for a hook-up
137
to the Village of Greenport sewer system. This fee' is necessary in order to preserve the capacity
of the Greenport sewer system and wastewater treatment plant. The Village Engineer, Jack
Naylor, P.E. has indicated in a report to the Village, Exhibit E that the potential hook-up fees
from the project if it is developed without annexation will be between$1,700,000 and$1,950,000.
In the event that the subject property is developed while it is located in the unincorporated area
of the Town of Southold, even if there are fewer units as claimed by the applicants, there will be
significant revenues in the form of sewer hook-up fees that will be realized by the Village of
Greenport. In the event that the subject property is annexed into the Village of Greenport and
then developed, the Village of Greenport may realize no revenues from sewer hook ups at all,
and in fact will bear significant costs for the extension of service.
Response C-125
The Village would not be obligated to pay for the on-site sewage infrastructure. This cost
would be borne by the developer and would be inclusive of everything up to and including the
connection to Village Sewer Main at the north end of the property. Also see Response C-5.
Comment C-126
The DEIS claims that the annexation and development of the subject property will generate a
significant financial benefit to the Village of Greenport. This claim is potentially erroneous as
the DEIS is insufficient in its analysis of all the potential financial and other burdens that will be
placed on the Village of Greenport if the property is developed after it is annexed into the
territory of the Village.
Response C-126
Currently, the Village of Greenport receives no taxes from the subject property as it is not
located within the Village boundaries. Upon development, the DEIS (at page 24) indicates that
the development would generate over $83,000 in taxes to the Village annually. Based upon the
current rate (and same assessed value), the property taxes received by the Village would be
over $87,000, annually. This is almost 10 percent of the total existing property tax revenue
generated in the Village. Aside from property taxes, the Village raises money in other ways
including zoning fees, building permits, application review fees, recreation fees, licenses, etc.
Therefore, the applicant and/or homeowners would also be obligated to pay for such services
outside the parameters of property faxes.
138
In addition, several typical services provided by the Village (using property taxes), would be
paid for by the future homeowners association. These services include internal roadway
maintenance, snow removal, and solid waste collection and disposal. Thus, the Village would
not be responsible for providing or paying for such services for Northwind Village.
Comment C-127
The DEIS has failed to even consider the significant stress.that the development of the subject
property would place on the Village of Greenport's Village zoning, planning and historic
preservation boards as well as the costs of the various professionals and additional,staff that the
Village will be required to hire in order to process and/or consider the applications that will be
filed with the Village regarding this project if the property is annexed into the Village prior to
its development. The Village of Greenport has approximately 1,200 homes, so that when the
development is completed,the homes in the subject property will increase the number of homes
in the Village and, therefore, the administration and staffing requirements of the Village by
more than 10 percent, placing a significant burden on the Village building and planning
departments.
The costs to the Village of Greenport in the consultant fees, staffing, administrative and
overhead costs, legal and professional fees, and hearing and meeting costs, may, in fact,
significantly outweigh any increase in revenue that will be generated b the annexation and
development.
Response C-127
See Response C-126.
Comment C-128
The current agreement between the Village of Greenport Fire Department and the Town of
Southold provides that the Village of Greenport and the Village of Greenport Fire Department
may recover some or all of the increase in expenses and the burden on the Village of Greenport
Fire Department that may be incurred by an increase in the number of calls in the East/West
Fire Protection District.
139
This potential for an increase in the amount billed to the Town of Southold if the subject
property is not located in the Village of Greenport exists because the contractual co fisideration
under the agreement for protection to the District is based on a ratio of the equalized assessed
value of the property in the Fire Protection District and the equalized assessed value of property
in the Village, with an adjustment for an increase in the,ratio of calls and for a change in the
ratio of assessment.
Therefore, if the subject property is developed without being annexed, the contract between the
Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold allows for an adjustment in fees due to increase
of volume of calls or an increase in the equalized assessed value of property in the District
relative to the equalized assessed value in the Village of Greenport.
In the event that the subject property was first annexed and then developed, there would be an
increased burden on the taxpayers of the Village of Greenport because of the increase in fire and
ambulance service that will be required to address the additional calls to the subject property
and the additional equipment that will be necessary to address those calls. Because taxes are
based on assessed valuation and not number of calls, the balance of the Village will carry an
additional tax burden to cover an extremely dense housing project, two miles from the Village.
The.recent history of the Greenport Fire Department has proven that dense development such
as that which is proposed in the application greatly increases.both the number of calls and the
type and intensity of those calls and the response that is required.
Response C-128
Any development of the subject property will have the potential to increase the number of fire
and ambulance calls that the Greenport Fire District overall would have to respond to. The
applicant has met with the Fire Chief of the Greenport Fire Department to discuss the project
and correspondence and material are included in Appendix P of the DEIS. The East/West Fire
Protection District is under the auspices of the Greenport Fire Department. The overall
Department responds to calls within both the Incorporated Village of Greenport and within the
East/West Fire Protection District. In 2007, almost one-quarter of the total calls were from
Peconic Landing and San Simeon Nursing Home(facilities that cater to older adults).
Should annexation not occur and the applicant develop the property, there would be
approximately 44 units with a population of 166 persons as opposed to the proposed 128 units
with a population of 318 persons.
140
While the proposed development would increase the population, the site would also have a
substantially increased assessed value. Therefore, the development would be paying additional
taxes to the Greenport Fire Department to assist in addressing the potential increase in calls. In
addition, whereas almost half the homes in the town were built before 1960, the new homes
would be built to prevailing New York State Building and Fire Code.
Also, see Response C-127.
Comment C-129
Imbedded in the issue and therefore the Village of Greenportrs comments on the DEIS is
KACE's demand for preferential zoning and the underlying assumption that the various Boards
of the Village of Greenport will exercise their discretion to grant first the preferential zoning
that will be required, to provide the subject property with Residential 2 zoning with
multifamily status, and the numerous variances and other approvals that will be required.
The Village of Greenport wishes to state for the record that the Village has not approved and
the Village has not indicated approval of any particular zoning for the territory proposed to be
annexed, that the Village of Greenport has not reviewed or considered a decision in this matter
in any manner, and that the Village of Greenport is not in any way constrained in its actions
toward the developer in this matter.
The Village of Greenport maintains independent jurisdiction and view of its ability to determine .
density, wetland setbacks, and other important issues regarding this project, should the subject
property be annexed into the Village of Greenport at any time in the future.
Response C-129
The matter of the request for specific zoning was discussed with the previous administration
and was part of the application that was begun in July 2005. The requested zoning is not
"preferential."". Should annexation occur, the Village has the responsibility to zone the property.
The Village has the right to zone the property as appropriate, within the confines of its powers.
This specific case is different from typical zoning requests since the parcel is not currently
situated within the boundaries of the Village. It is not governed by any Village zoning.
However, as with any other zoning or rezoning request, the applicant has the right to request a
specific zone,but the.Village is not obligated*to grant such request.
141
Comment C-130
The KACE DEIS is insufficient because it does not consider independently, the annexation and
the development. All of the services that are required for the project may be obtained by the
developers for this project,but at a different cost than that after annexation or if providedby the
Village. The proposed development and its required zoning may never be approved by the
Village, and the annexation should be considered separately for that reason so that the
underlying question as to whether the only merit to annexation is to save the developer money
at the Villages expense can be considered.
Response C-130
To consider the annexation and the development separately would be considered segmentation
with respect to SEQRA. Segmentation is defined in 6 N-Y.CRR§617.2(ag) as "the division of the
environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed under
this Part as though they. were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual
determination of significance." According to the regulations, except in special circumstances,
considering only a part, or segment, of an overall action is contrary to the intent of SEQR.
The action being proposed, annexation, zoning and development, is a "whole action" that
cannot be segmented with respect to environmental review. Based upon the information
contained in htW:/Iwww.dec.ny.govlpe��ts/45577.htrd "[r]eviewing the 'whole action� is an
important principal in SEQR; interrelated or phased decisions should not be made without
consideration of their consequences for the whole action, even if several agencies are involved
in such decisions."
Therefore, contrary to the commentator's suggestion, reviewing the annexation separately from
the zoning and development is not appropriate under SEQRA regulations.
Furthermore, Section 7.3 of the DEIS provides an analysis of development of the site within the
Town of Southold under the 'Hamlet. Density ("M") zoning district. This alternative
constitutes a review of development of the subject site without annexation. The concept of
development under existing zoning (no annexation) has been further refined mi the yield plan,
based upon the most-recent HD zoning,which is presented in Appendix�D of this FEIS.
142
Comment C-131
The former Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District, Dr. Charles Kozora,
appeared at the first public hearing on the Annexation Petition in 2005 and spoke in opposition
to the annexation. The transcript of that 2005 hearing is made a part of the DEIS comments as
Exhibit H (under separate cover) and the Superintendent's conu-nents as to the costs of
increased staffing and other re sources should be addressed in the DEIS. The current
Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District, Michael Comanda, spoke at the
November 12, 2009 Greenport Public Hearing and his comments are included in the transcript
at Exhibit A.The DEIS does not have accurate information as to the number of children that will
be generated by the project and the costs.of those children to the School District.
Response C-131
Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS includes a projection of number of school-aged children generated
from three different sources (Rutgers Study, National Center for Education Statistics, and the
Town of Southold). The projected numbers of students to be generated from the proposed
development ranges from 2 6 to 52. Therefore, the average estimate of school-aged children
generated by the project based upon the three studies is 40 students.
As per the 2009-2010 New York State Property Tax Report Card, the budget for Greenport
UFSD was-$13,820,704, of which $9,663,287 (almost 70 percent) was raised from property tax
levy. It should be noted that the total budget for the Greenport UFSD includes costs associated
with special education. Therefore,based on a total enrollment of 625 students in the 2009-2010
school-year, the approximate cost per student raised by property taxes alone is approximately
$15,461 (which includes costs associated with special education). Based' on the foregoing,
approximately $618,450 needs to be raised in property taxes to support the enrollment of 40
students in the Greenport UTSD. Furthermore,based upon the.assessed value of the proposed
development ($489,000 in 2008), as discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, and according to the
Town of Southold Assessor's Office, who indicated that the 2010-2011 School District tax rate is
approximately $623.00 per $1,000 of assessed value, the proposed project would generate
approximately$306,647 for the Greenport School District. Therefore, the total additional cost to
the District would be $311,803. However, if one applies the more recent data for multifamily
development in Suffolk County, the proposed development would generate 23 school-aged
children.21 Using this analysis, the additional cost to the School District would be $256,910±,
Kamer,Pearl M.,Ph.D.,Multifamily Housing on Long Island.*Its Impact on Numbers of School-Age Children and School District Finances,Long
Island Housing Partnership,2010. The study showed a ratio of 0.18 school-aged child per multifamily dwelling unit in Suffolk County.
143
which would yield an annual revenue over expenses of $189,890-+. Therefore, the taxes
generated by the proposed development., assuming 23 school-aged children, would exceed the
total pupil expenditure.
It is also important to note that the as-of-right development (without annexation, within the
Town of Southold) would generate a total of 44 school-aged children and approximately
$162,727 in taxes to the school district. Therefore, based on the. foregoing, the as-of-right
development would accrue an additional cost of$517,557±to the school district, approximately
$205/754±higher than the proposed project.
Comment C-132
The annexation and development will create significant negative impacts on the ability of the
Village of Greenport as the provider of emergency services under the Fire Protection District
Agreement as are more fully described above. These impacts have not been addressed in the
DEIS and the DEIS should be amended to review the potential impacts on the District and the
Village as the provider of these services to the Fire Protection District.
Response C-132
The DEIS was deemed complete and adequate for public review by the lead agency on
September 28, 2009. This means that the lead agency was satisfied that the DEIS, includes all of
the information that was requested in the Final Scope. Once a DEIS is deemed complete and
adequate, the lead agency determines whether to hold a public hearing. In this case a public
hearing was held on October 28, 2009. Comments were received at the public hearing and the
comments period was left open until December 12, 2009. While the DEIS is not specifically
amended,ended, this HIS provides responses to all substantive comments.that were received during
the public comment period.
The issue of fire protection was addressed in the DEIS in Sections 3.5.2 and 4.5.2. The applicant
and its consultants have exchanged. correspondence and the fire department has preliminarily
reviewed plans for the proposed development. The applicant has also indicated, on,page 259 of
the DEIS, that he will work with the Greenport Fire Department(specifically the East-West Fire
District) to ensure that the design of the proposed development, including the interior
roadways,meets department requirements.
144
Comment C-133
The DEIS states in the last paragraph of page 111 that the Village has continued to express
support for this project, and refers to a brief filed in Feb of 2006,the time the litigation began,by
the then mayor. In the ensuing three and a half years, there has beennosupport voiced by any
Village elected official. Thus, this statement is either disingenuous in the extreme or simply
false and the DEIS should be amended to be accurate with respect to this point.
Response C-133
As previously noted in Response C-12, the prior administration specifically supported the
proposed project, as demonstrated in its letter, included in Appendix F of the DEIS. The current
administration has submitted a comment letter that is addressed within this FEIS. This letter
does not express either support or opposition to the project, but comments on the DEIS and
requests additional information so that a future determination can be made.
145
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT EXHIBIT A
Jacqueline Dubai
Comment C-134
For the young people that work and breathe life into the community here,their homeownership
should not be so unfathomable. Personally, I would more than welcome the opportunity to
purchase a home in a place that I love. I strongly feel this project would afford me the
opportunity to do so. (Pages 5 and 6)
Response C-134
The comment is noted.
146
Michael Comanda
Comment C-135
Greenport does have space for the number of students for the study. I believe it was 50
students. We do have space for these students. It does cost about $16,000 to educate students
and$60,000 to educate special education students. Twelve percent of our current population is
classified and 12 percent of 50 is 6 students. That costs $360,000 and . I understand
condominiums are calculated at 50 percent of full value. At my calculation, and my
explanatims,I believe that puts a tax burden on the.Greenport community. (Page 7)
Response C-135
Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS includes a projection of number of school-aged children generated
from three different sources (Rutgers Study, National Center for Education Statistics, and the
Town of Southold). The projected numbers of students to be generated from the proposed
development ranges from 26 to 52. Therefore, the average estimate of school-aged children
generated by the project based upon the three studies is 40 students.
As per the 2009-2010 New York State Property Tax Report Card, the budget for Greenport
UFSD was $13,820,704, of which $9,663,287 (almost 70 percent) was raised from property tax
levy. It should be noted that the total budget for the Greenport UFSD includes costs associated
with special educatim. Therefore,based on a total enrolment of 625 students in the 2009-2010
school-year, the approximate cost per student raised by property taxes alone is approximately
$15,461 (which ii-acludes costs associated with special education). Based on the foregoing,
approximately $618,450 needs to be raised in property taxes to support the enrollment of 40
students in the Greenport UFSD. Furthermore,based upon the assessed value of the proposed
development ($489,000 in 2008), as discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, and according to the
Town of Southold Assessor's Office, who indicated that the 2010-2011 School District tax rate is
approximately $623.00 per $1,000 of assessed value, the proposed project would generate
approximately$306,647 for the Greenport School District. Therefore, the total additional cost to
the District would be $311,803. However, if me applies the more recent data for multifamily
development in Suffolk County, the proposed development would generate 23,scl-iool-aged
children.22 Using this analysis, the additional cost to the School Districtwould be $256,910±,
which would yield an annual revenue over expenses of $189,890±. Therefore, the taxes
22 Kamer,Pearl M.,Ph.D.,Multifamily Housing on Long Island.,Its impact on Numbers ofSchool-Age Children and School District Finances,Long
Island Housing Partnership,2010. The study showed a ratio of 0.18 school-aged child per multifamily dwelling unit in Suffolk County.
147
generated by the proposed development, assuming 23 school-aged children, would exceed the
total pupil expenditure.
It is also important to note that the as-of-right development (without annexation, within the
Town of Southold) would generate a total of 44 school-aged children and approximately
$162,727 in taxes to the school district. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the as-of-right
development would accrue an additional cost of$517,557±to the school district, approximately
$205,754±higher than the.proposed project.
148
Bob Egger
Comment C-136
I think the DEC has been a little lax in their measurements of wetland space. (Pages 9 and 10)
Response C-136
This comment provides no justification that the NYSDEC was "lax" in its delineation of
freshwater wetlands on the subject property. The freshwater wetland boundary on the subject
property was confirmed by Mr. Robert Marsh of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation on November 9, 2005. Mr. Marsh is the Regional Manager for the
Department's Bureau of Habitat and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of
Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands Act) of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
Comment C-137
I have a concern with this housing being outside the hamlet center with very little opportunity
for transportation. lam a big believer of workforce housing and providing people with an
opportunity to stay in our town. I think this is a good idea in the wrong place. There is no
transportation.
Response C-137
As part of the proposed action, the applicant will provide a shuttle bus to the downtown area
and other local destinations that would serve to transport residents of Northwind Village. 11-ds
concept was discussed on page 247 of the DEIS.
Comment C-138
I do have some concerns about the impact on the schools. If we are talking about 256 units—I
think that is the number—that equates to a lot more than 50 students coming to the school.
Response C-138
The total number of proposed dwelling units is 128, not 256 as indicated in the comment.
Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS presents a detailed analysis of school-aged children projection using
149
several different sources, including Residential Demographic Multipliers:Estimates of the Occupants
of New Housing—New York, a study conducted in 2006 by Rutgers University, data from the 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
Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003. The number of school-aged children ranged from
26 to 52. Therefore, an average of 40 school-aged children was used in the DEIS evaluation.
Furthermore, as noted in Response H-7, if one applies the more recent data for multifamily
development in Suffolk County, the proposed development would generate about 23 school-
aged children.
150
Doug Moore
Comment C-139
The reality is if you want affordable housing, it has to be small, compact, and closer together.
Inevitably, I think the Town and Village have to consider some kind of high-density housing to
relieve some of the difficulty.
The project is not in the local confines of the hamlet, it is out on the North Road. I think it
should be handled by the Town and Town rules. (Page 11)
Response C-139
The comment is noted. The subject property is not, at present, located in the Village of
Greenport. It is within. the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold. The applicant is
requesting that the subject property be annexed into the Village, as it directly adjacent to the
Village Greenport boundary and would receive many of its services from village sources.
151
Mary Moore
Comment C-140
We do really recognize the young people, their ability of living out here and the expense of it,
and those that could have workforce housing. But I object to the idea of Greenport annexing a
piece of land that is not connected to the Village.
I don't understand why the project can't go through the Town of Southold rather than having
this be a part of Greenport. It really is separate, and I think it will be detrimental to the Village
taxpayers. (Page 15)
Response C-140
The subject property is located directly adjacent to the Village of Greenport boundary and the
applicant has requested that it be annexed to the Village. The applicant's position is that in
order to provide affordable housing units without governmental subsidy, being in the Village
would permit the density required to meet this goal. Furthermore,many of the services for this
property are already provided by the Village of Greenport.
152
Howard Macry
Comment C-141
If these people have a normal number of children and they put them in school, you pay$16,000
to$22,000 a head for those kids.It is going to cost you money. That is not going to be a tax plus.
(Page 17)
Response C-141
See Response H-7.
153
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT,EXHIBIT B
Comment C-142
On page 16 of the TIS, it is indicated that accident data was obtained from the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works, through December 31, 2006, the latest full three-year period
available from the County. Updated accident data should be obtained, as the provided accident
data is almost tl-Lree years old. Although the report indicates that the County does not have
more recent accident data for the studied intersections, to our knowledge, the New York State
Department of Transportation Accident Location Information System contains complete
accident data throughout Long Island through March 31; 2009.
Response C-142
As per Dunn Engineering Associates, the accident data obtained from the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works through December 31, 2006 for the traffic study was the latest full
3-year period available from the County at the time of the writing of the study. Unless there
have been major geometric changes or roadway improvements completed since that period to
North Road and/or the study intersections, any updated accident.data will be similar to that
which has already been provided in the traffic study. As this is not the case, there is no reason
to believe that the accident patterns have changed and therefore, the data in the TIS remains
relevant to the site.
Comment C-143
On page 22 of the TIS, it is indicated that information on trip generation rates was obtained
from the ITE Trip Generation Publication, 7th Edition. Since the 8th Edition is the current
accepted standard, Dunn Engineering Associates should verify that the generation rates have
not significantly changed or update the TIS if they have.
Response C-143
Dunn Engineering Associates advised that at the time of writing, the 81h Edition was not yet
available. For Land Use 230 (Residential Condominiums/Townhouses), the trip generation
rates contained in the 81b edition are the same as the ones in the Th edition. Accordingly, there
would be no difference in generation despite the edition used.
154
Comment C-144
On page 24 of the TIS, it is indicated that the distribution of future trips generated to and from
the site can be found in Figure 4. An analysis of the provided automated traffic counter data
and turning movement counts reveals that the directional flow of roadway traffic on the studied
roadways is not the same during all studied peak hours. A separate trip distribution should be
provided for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. All intersections capacity analyses should
be updated accordingly.
Response C-144
Dunn Engineering Associates has advised that the directional distribution utilized for a
residential development should not be modeled after the varying.directional flow of traffic on
area roadways during the various peak hours. The directional distribution should be based on
the likely destination of vehicles leaving the site. As a residential development, this site is a
traffic origin. Most vehicles leave in the morning and arrive back in the evening, for example.
They have to arrive back from where they went. For example, 55 percent of exiting vehicles are
expected to leave to the west. As vehicles exit in the morning at a rate five times higher than
they enter, they must be returned from that direction in the evening when they arrive at a
greater rate than they exit. Dunn Engineering Associates has always performed directional
distribution analysis in this manner and such results have been universally. accepted by
reviewing agencies.
Comment C-145
The volume summaries contained in the "Intersection Capacity Analyses Results" section of the
report indicate that the existing year traffic was from 2007.and that the horizon year will be
2008. Since it is currently the end of 2009, the traffic volumes from 2007 should be adjusted to
the present day by applying the ambient growth factor of 2.0% for the two years that have
passed since the original counts. Additionally, the DEIS indicates that the construction is
proposed to last a total of 24 months (2 years), and as such, the horizon year analyzed should.be
2011.
155
Response C-145
Per Dunn Engineering Associates, the capacity analyses were rerun for the 2011 No-Build
Condition and the 2011 Build Condition at the three study intersections and at the proposed site
access drive. All of the 2007 existing volumes were, adjusted to the 2011 horizon year by using
the linear ambient growth factor of 2.0 percent over four years (from 2007 to 2011) to account
for normal background traffic growth and the traffic generated by ,the Cliffside Resort
development was also included in both the 2011 No-Build and Build conditions. The capacity
analyses results reveal that all movements at the three study intersections and the proposed site
access will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). Although the northbound
approach of the North Road at Chapel Lane intersection is expected to slip from LOS C in the
2011 No-Build Condition to LOS 1) in the 2011 Build Condition during the weekday P.M. peak
hour, the delay experienced by northbound vehicles will only increase by less than 2
seconds/vehicle upon completion of the North Wind Village development. Similarly, the
northbound approach of the North Road at Queen Street intersection is expected to slip from
LOS B in the 2011 No-Build Condition to LOS C in the 2011 Build Condition during the
weekday P.M. peak hour. However, the delay experienced by northbound vehicles at this
intersection will only increase by 0.3 seconds/vehicle.
Details regarding the revised traffic volume spreadsheets and intersection capacity analyses
results can be found in Appendix G of this FEIS.
Comment C-146
We have found that the submitted site plans are satisfactory, and we do not have any comments
at this time.
Response C-146
The comment is noted.
156
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT,EXHIBIT C
Robert Grover,Director
Environmental and Coastal Sciences
Greenman—Pederson,Inc.
November 25 2009
Comment C-147
On page 28, the DEIS states that the Magothy aquifer is the source of potable water "in the
vicinity of the project site." This is incorrect. It is widely known that the Magothy formation
under the North Fork contains only saline, non-potable water. The only potable water-bearing
aquifer in the project area is the Upper Glacial aquifer. In addition, the source site for this
information cannot be checked, as it is not listed in the references section.
Response C-147
'11-te commentator misrepresents the statement in the DEIS. The text on page 28 of the DEIS
indicates that the Magothy aquifer is one of the lithologic units that underlies the site. It also
generically states that the Magothy is a typical source of potable water on Long Island and in
the vicinity of the project site.
The source of the information was inadvertently omitted from the bibliography. The source is
as follows:
Smolensky,D.A.,Buxton,H.T., and Shernoff,P.K., 1989,Hydrologic framework of Long
Island,New York:U.S:Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-709,3
sheets, scale 1:250,000.
Several pages from this source are reproduced in Appendix K of the DEIS.
Comment C-148
The groundwater discussion presented on Page 51 is generic to western Suffolk County and not
applicable,therefore,irrelevant to the North Fork. Is should be deleted.
157
Response C-148
The commentator again misrepresents the information in the DEIS. The overall groundwater
discussion is a summary of a portion of The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan or 208 Study. The groundwater discussion on page 51 of the DEIS does
concern Suffolk County as a whole. However, the next several paragraphs go on to narrow the
discussion to Suffolk County, west of Riverhead, and then to the North Fork and the subject
site, which is shown to be Groundwater Management(Hydrogeologic) Zone IV. The discussion
regarding Hydrogeologic Zone IV discusses the specifics of the Greenport area and notes that
there is the potential for saltwater intrusion due to pumping.
Comment C-149
On Page 54, it is stated that "groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site exhibits a north-
northeasterly flow direction." This is not possible. The entire property is located within the
watershed of Moore's Drain. As such, groundwater must flow towards the stream system, and
then southerly towards the Peconic Estuary.
Response C-149
The commentator is correct. Groundwater flow in the vicinity of the site exhibits a south-
southeasterly flow direction.
Comment C-150
Page 76 acknowledges the important fact that the Eastern Box Turtle is a designated New York
State Species of Special Concern. This fact is not disclosed in Appendix N, which needs to be
rectified. We will present additional comments on this critical issue as we continue
chronologically through the DEIS review.
The DEIS also acknowledges that the Coopers Hawk and the Sharp-shinned Hawk are
designated as New York State Species Special Concern. As with the box turtle, these raptors'
state designated status is overlooked in Appendix N.
158
Response C-150
As discussed in Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS, field investigation of the subject property indicated
the observation or potential presence of three species designated by New York State as Species
of Special Concern(Eastern Box Turtle, Sharp-shinned Hawk, and Cooper's Hawk). Eastern box
turtle was observed on the subject property and two box turtle nesting sites were located on the
subject property. In the late summer of 2007, a sharp-shinned hawk was observed
approximately 150 feet to the south of the southern property boundary in the forested
freshwater wetlands. Cooper's hawk could potentially utilize the subject site based upon the
suitability of the woodlands and nearby edge habitats for foraging and nesting of this species.
The State classifications of these species are presented on pgs. 76 and 77 of the DEIS and the
known or potential presence of these three species on the subject property is presented in
Appendix N of the DEIS. These three species were not included in the discussion of-rare
animals and plants presented in Appendix N of the DEIS, as this list includes only the
endangered, threatened, or rare species which the applicant was requested to discuss by the
NYSDEC based on the New York Natural Heritage Program database of the vicinity of the
project site.
A revised appendix has been prepared in which the Special Concern status of eastern box turtle,
sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper's Hawk is reiterated and every reference to these species is
followed by(New York State-Special Concern) (see Appendix H of this FEIS).
Comment C-151
The DEIS is correct in stating that the project site surface habitat for Cooper's Hawk. In
addition to the cited Greenport area nesting confirmation, we have seen recent nesting by this
species in virtually identical habitat in Southampton and Islip.
Response C-151
The comment is noted.
Comment C-152
On page 164, the DEIS acknowledges that 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
forest", and that there will be a "permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals,
159
herpetiles, and songbirds..." We agree. Unfortunately, the DEIS is totally insufficient in the
analysis of potential measures to avoid,minimize,or mitigate those serious impacts.
Also, page 164 of the DEIS-states that successional old fields are a secure habitat type in New
York State. This is a questionable assertion, Edinger et al. aside, statewide, but it is clearly not
true on Long Island, where this habitat.type is virtually endangered. This is highlighted by the
troubling fact that a large suite of successional old field-dependent wildlife is rapidly
disappearing from the island.
Response C-152
The applicant acknowledges that successional old field habitats are likely to be less abundant on
Long Island than upstate New York. However, the Greem-nan-Pedersen comment provides no
support for its assertion that this habitat type is "virtually endangered." GPI appears to be
confusing two similar ecological communities, successional old fields (as defined by Edinger et
al.) and maritime grasslands (as defined by Edinger et al.) or Long Island grasslands (as defined
by the USFWS). Successional old fields are sites that have been previously cleared, typically for
agriculture, and have subsequently re-grown. Successional old fields often contain a higher
proportion of herbaceous wildflowers, such as goldenrods. Irl contrast,maritime grassland are
don-dnated by native upland grasses such as bluestems, switch grass, and Indian grass. Native
grasslands axe located on sites that are too well-drained to support woody trees and shrubs and
experience frequent natural or anthropogenic disturbance, such as fires or mowing. The old
fields present on the subject property are not dominated by these native grasses. Furthermore,
the small stands of these grasses that are present are becoming overtaken by woody brambles
(Rubus sp.) and herbaceous forbs such as goldenrods.
GPI does not indicate in their comment which old field-or grassland-dependent wildlife should
have been addressed in the DEIS. Presumably, GPI is referring to birds such as the eastern
meadowlark, Henslow's sparrow, vesper sparrow, short-eared owl, upland sandpiper, and
bobolink. The old field habitats present on the subject property do not provide suitable habitat
for these species due to 1) the abundance of goldenrods and brambles in these fields and 2) the
small size of these old fields. The DEIS discusses the potential adverse impacts to vulnerable
species which may utilize the successional old field habitats, such as eastern box turtle, sharp-
shinned hawk, and Cooper's hawk, on pages 77, 78, 165, and 170. In addition, the DEIS
provides mitigation measures for the potential impacts to eastern box turtles on page 169
thereof.
160
Comment C-153
Staying on page 164, the DEIS states that "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..." The operative work here, of course, is "commonplace". That
populations of commonplace species are stable is largely self-evident. It is the non-
commonplace species, including those listed as Special Concern; as well as other discussed
herein, that are not stable and in fact, a-serious issues with the proposed project.
Response C-153
On page 265, the DEIS indicates that the SEQRA-mandated No Action alternative would avoid
potential adverse environmental impacts such as the loss of successional old field habitats and
successional southern hardwood forests. An alternative site plan to avoid disturbance of these
habitats would require construction to be located closer to the freshwater wetland habitats
present on the subject property. The red maple-hardwood swamps associated With Moore's
Drain represent the highest quality ecological habitats present on the site. Accordn gly, the
proposed action seeks to minimize potential impacts to these habitats. Based upon this, the
applicant has designed the site to limit activities (including construction, clearing, site grading
and ground disturbance) within the N-YSDEC jurisdictional area and the area associated with
Moore's Drain. In fact, most construction activities and permanent structures will be situated
outside the N-YSDEC jurisdictional area. However, the applicant is proposing the development
of a box turtle nesting area in the western portion of the subject site. The development of this
nesting area is within the N-YSDEC's jurisdiction and will require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit
(see Appendix C of this FEIS for the proposed Box Turtle nesting area location and Advisory
Guidelines for Creating Turtle Nesting Habitat, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife,
February 2009). This box turtle nesting area is proposed to mitigate potential impact to the box
turtle, as described in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response U-12 of this FEIS.
Comment C-154
Finally on page 164, the DEIS states that "no sensitive species with be impacted." Obviously,
this is incorrect. Not only will three Special Concern species be adversely impacted, which will
be further discussed below, but numerous neotropical migrants, also extremely sensitive, will
potentially be impacted,as discussed below in the comments on Appendix N.
161
Response C-154
The commentator is misrepresenting the information in the DEIS. The word "sensitive" was
used as a'synonym. for Federal- or State endangered or threatened species. The DEIS clearly
does not attempt to avoid discussion of potential adverse impacts to sensitive resources as the
DEIS presents the potential impacts to eastern box turtle, sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper's
hawk on pages 169-170.
Comment C-155
On Page 166, the DEIS states that the clearing of the various habitats for construction of the
project "has the potential to degrade the quality" of the mature forests associated with Moore's
Woods. This is correct, if not understated, and is another example of a serious adverse impact,
the avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of which has not been adequately addressed.. This is
further apparent at the bottom of page 166, and the top of page 167, where these "indirect
impacts" are further detailed.
Response C-155
The DEIS states on pages 166-167 that the proposed action will result in the permanent loss of
6.6 acres of successional old field and successional southern hardwood forests and that the
creation of a new forest edge may result in a degradation of the nearby woodlands due to
presence of lights in parking areas and buildings, altered microchmate, and increased
abundance of predators and invasive competitors. This section provides adequate scientific
references for the assessment that microclimate changes in forest habitat will extend
approximately 240 feet into the forest (i.e. Gehlhausen et al. 2000) and that these edge effects
will be more pronounced on the south- and east-facing edges thaia the i-i
orth- and west-facing
edges (Fraver, 1994). GPI's assertion that this impact is "understated" is not substantiated by
any scientific references. Minimization and mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of
potential edge effects are discussed on page 257 of the DEIS. The encroachment of these edge
effects on the freshwater wetlands will be minimized by the establishment of a 100-foot wetland
setback buffer located landward of the wetland boundary. The only construction to be
undertaken withh-i the 100-foot setback area is the creation of a new box turtle nesting area. In
addition, the proposed action includes the planting of a row of native conifer trees along the
perimeter of the project site to shade the new forest edge. Lastly, on page 267, the DEIS
indicates that the SEQRA-mandated No Action alternative would avoid potential adverse
environmental impacts such as the potential edge effects on adjacent forests.
162
Comment C-156
On page 169, the DEIS states that the wetlands of Moore's Woods will not be affected by runoff
due to sand filtration. This does not apply to chloride, however, which is not attenuated by
sand. The roadway associated with the proposed project will require application of deicing
salts. The chloride component of these salts, greater than.60%of the total,Will all find its way to
the wetlands and to Moore's Drain, due to the shallow nature of the groundwater flow known
to exist in this area.
Response C-156
GPI is'correct in indicating that chloride from road deicing agents is not well attenuated by
soils. The proposed.action would follow both the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold's
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policies which seek to reduce the use of road salt and
use alternatives, such as sand,where practicable.
In addition, as noted on page 256 of the DEIS, the proposed action would adhere to the
recommendations of the NURP Study, one of which is to evaluate various salt/sand ratios
currently to determine which mixture offers the maximum safety for the public with the
minimum impact upon groundwater under most storm conditions. The applicant will advise
the Homeowners' Association that no de-icing salts are to be used. However, there is the
potential in the future that, if icing is a problem on roadways, the Homeowners' Association
may decide that de-icing salts must be used for safety reasons. However, the use of de-icing
salts on icy roads does not represent a unique or significant adverse environmental impact.
Comment C-157
The DEIS proposes to mitigate the adverse impacts to the Eastern Box Turtle by attempting to
create a box turtle nesting area. This is doomed to failure. First, the project roadway will
reduce the property's box turtles as they will be subject to greatly increased mortality form
vehicles. Second, the proposed landscaping maintenance will subject the turtles to mortality
from mowers. Third, the domestic pets and human drawn wildlife (i.e., raccoons, rats, etc) will
undoubtedly predate any turtle nests on the property.
163
Response C-157
The proposed eastern box turtle nesting site is not "doomed for failure" as suggested by GPI.
The box turtle nesting site construction and maintenance will follow guidelines for creation of
box turtle nesting habitat set forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Program 2009;see Appendix C of this FEIS). Box turtle nesting sites consist of exposed
or sparsely vegetated sandy patches within or adjacent to woodlands or fields. The dependence
of box turtle nesting sites on early successional habitats results in nesting sites being short-term
in nature, as the site becomes less suitable for nesting as vegetation colonizes the nesting site.
Historically, these exposed sites were likely created in woodlands/fields after fires. Due to fire
suppression practices, box turtles now often nest in utility right of ways, along road margins,
and in abandoned gravel/sand mines where the nests are often disturbed by ATVs and mowing
equipment. The existing box turtle nesting sites on the subject property are already "doomed
for failure" without maintenance, as vegetation is rapidly colonizing these sites. Furthermore,
the subject property already has high numbers of raccoons and predation on these existing
nesting sites by raccoons is likely high. In addition, as previously discussed, Page 167 of the
DEIS acknowledges that the proposed action is likely to increase the abundance of cats (as well
as native predators),'which may impact wildlife. Furthermore, there are other residential uses
(both large and small), with the potential for having pets, located in the vicinity of Moore's
Woods and other undeveloped land in the area. Accordingly, the proposed maintenance of the
existing nesting site and the creation of a new box turtle nesting site within the 100-foot wetland
buffer will prolong the lifespan of these nesting sites.
Page 169 of the DEIS acknowledges that the proposed action may result in increased mortality
of adult box turtles when box turtles travel into the proposed development. Box turtle
mortality would occur when turtles that become trapped within the site's curbed roadways are
run over by automobiles or turtles may be killed by lawnmowers during maintenance of
landscaped areas. In order to minimize this, a small earthen and timber rise will be installed
along the perimeter of the proposed development to minimize box turtle mortality. During site
grading, a six-to-eight-inch vertical rise created from non-CCA timber posts (either two four-
inch by four-inch posts stacked or a six-to-eight-inch diameter piling laid horizontally on the
ground and imbedded slightly into the ground surface) will be installed along the perimeter of
the proposed development. These posts or pilings shall be anchored in place with reinforcing
bar driven through the posts/pilings and into the ground. During site clearing, an excavator
will be used to bury the posts/pilings approximately two inches into the ground and the backfill
behind the -posts/pilings will create a gentle slope on the landward side of the timber
164
posts/pilings. This will create a vertical barrier for turtles moving from the woodland towards
the development,but will allow any turtles within the development to return to the woodland.
Comment C-158
The DEIS states that the proposed location of the box turtle nest is shown on the site plan in
Appendix G. We cannot find it.
Response C-158
The location of the proposed box turtle nest is shown in Appendix C of the DEIS. However, at
the request of the NYSDEC, it has been relocated from approximately 10-to-15 feet from the
landward edge of the NYSDEC jurisdictional area to approximately 50 feet from the landward
edge of this area(see Appendix C of this FEIS for the revised location).
Comment C-159
Although the Eastern Box Turtle issue is a critical problem for the project, we are equally
concerned about the impacts on the other two Special Concern Species, Sharp-sl-dmed Hawk
and Coopers Hawk.
Response C-159
Potential impacts to sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks are discussed on page 170 of the DEIS.
The sharp-shinned hawk could potentially utilize the subject property, as a sharp-shinned hawk
was observed,in the forested wetlands approximately 150 feet to the south of the southern
property in late summer of 2007. Cooper's hawk also could potentially be present based upon
the suitability of the woodlands and nearby edge habitats for foraging and nesting of this
species. Specifically, the most recent New York State Breeding Bird Atlas did not report any
known sharp-shinned hawk nesting on Long Island. Accordingly, the proposed action is not
likely to have any adverse impact on nesting sharp-shinned hawks. None of the mature oak-
tulip forest and red maple-hardwood swamps will be cleared during the proposed action, and
potential nesting locations within the woodlands will be preserved as stated on page 170 of the
DEIS. The DEIS states that edge effects resulting.from the proposed clearing will degrade the
habitat .quality within the adjacent woodlands. Accordingly, the applicant acknowledges that
potential nesting sites located immediately adjacent to the proposed clearing limit may no
longer be suitable for Cooper's hawk nesting. See additional responses,below.
165
Comment C-160
Although some sources state that Sharp-shinned Hawks prefer to nest in evergreens,.
particularly hemlocks, the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (2008) states that it nests in mixed,
coniferous, and deciduous forests. Therefore, we believe that the project site provides suitable
Sharp-shinned nesting habitat under existing conditions.
Response C-160
The New York State Breeding Bird Atlas (2008) indicates that there were no confirmed,
probable, or possible nesting sites for sharp-shinned hawk in Nassau or Suffolk Counties.
Moreover, no sharp-shinned hawks were observed on the site. Accordingly, sharp-shinned
hawk was not included as a species expected to breed on or near the subject property.
Accordingly, the proposed action is very unlikely to breeding and reproduction of this species.
Comment C-161
Sharp-shinned Hawks have been steadily declining on Long Island over the past 10 years. This
is especially evident in the records maintained of migrating hawks at the Fire Island Hawk
Watch. This decline is alarming, but the 72% decrease in 2009 from the long term average is
particularly troubling. Many ornithologists in New York State are calling for this species to be
designated as "Threatened" in the State.
Response C-161
The comment regarding the decline of the Sharp-shinned Hawk population on Long Island is
noted. GPI provides no scientific support for its statement that ornithologists are calling for the
sharp-shinned hawk to be designated as threatened in New York State.
Comment C-162
As a rule,accipiters,the genus to which both Sharp-shinned and Coopers Hawks belong, do not
tolerate human presence near their nests. The proposed clearing up to or near the wetland
setback will introduce just such presence, and likely foreclose on nesting opportunities by these
Special Concern Species on the property.
166
Response C-162
The most recent New York State Breeding Bird Atlas did not report any known sharp-shinned
hawk nesting on Long Island. Accordingly, the proposed action would not be expected to have
any adverse impact on nesting sharp-shinned hawks. None of the mature oak-tuhp forest and
red maple-hardwood swamps will be cleared during the proposed action, and potential nesting
locations within the woodlands will be preserved as stated on page 170 of the DEIS. The DEIS
states that edge effects resulting from the proposed clearing will. degrade the habitat quality
within the adjacent woodlands. Accordingly, the applicant acknowledges that potential nesting
sites located immediately adjacent to the proposed clearing limit may no longer be suitable for
Cooper's hawk nesting.
Comment C-163
It is important to note, also that Sharp-shinned Hawk are more prevalent on Long Island in
winter than they are in the summer. During the winter season, the Sharp-shinned form loose
nighttime aggregations, or roosts,in habitats like Moore's Woods. In the daytime, they disperse
to their various feeding areas,but return to the roost each evening. It is important to verify that
the proposed property or adjacent woodlands do not support such a roost.
Response C-163
As stated previously, the DEIS acknowledges the potential for an impact to forest habitat
adjacent to the proposed clearing limit due to various edge effects such as presence of lights in
parking areas and buildings, altered n-dcrochmate, and increased abundance of predators and
invasive species. Under the proposed-action, potential winter roosting sites within the mature
oak-tuhp forest and red maple-hardwood swamps will be preserved. The DEIS states that edge
effects resulting from the proposed clearing will impact the habitat quality within the adjacent
woodlands. Accordingly, the applicant acknowledges that woodlands located immediately
adjacent to the proposed clearing lin-Lit may no longer be suitable for nighttime hawk roosting
due to the presence of lights in parking areas and buildings. This increased nighttime lighting
is not likely to significantly impact the potential for Moore's Woods to support either Cooper's
or sharp-shinned hawks, as the impacted forest edge (estimated to be 240 feet in width)
accounts for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+
acres). However, considering that the New York State-Species of Special Concern could
potentially utilize the subject site, to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the proposed
project on these species,outside lighting fixtures will comply with"dark-skies" standards.
167
The Town of Southold, iri it Planning Department website, includes "Lighting Guidelines to
Prevent Light Pollution in Site Plans and Street Lighting (Making a lighting plan that is 'Dark
Sky Friendly'), which are The Dark Sky Society's Guidelines Jor Good Exterior Lighting Plans. A
copy of these guidelines is included in Appendix K. of this FEIS. The guidelines indicate that
good lighting practices help to: promote safety; save money; conserve natural resources; be
better neighbors; retain community's character and reduce skyglow; protect ecology of flora
and fauna; and reduce health risks. With respect to developing a good lighting plan, the
guidelines discuss lighting location, direction and spread, bulb types, "shut-off" controls,
heights of fixtures, amount of light, -etc. The applicant has agreed to comply.with these
guidelines even if the subject property is annexed to the Village of Greenport.
Comment C-164
Regarding the wetlands on the property, they are associated with Moore's Drain, which is a
surface water body connected to the Peconic Estuary. As such,Moore's Drain and its associated
wetlands may be subject to the regulatory program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Also,
it is likely that Federal jurisdictional Wetlands extend out beyond the limits of the New York
State delineated wetlands. It appears that there may be Federal Wetlands near or within
portions of the proposed roadway. These wetlands need to be delineated so a determination of
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction can be made.
Response C-164
GPI correctly indicates that the freshwater wetlands located along the western, southern, and
eastern margins of the property are likely subject to the regulatory program of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers ("USACOE"), as these wetlands are hydrologically connected to
Moore's Drain and the Peconic estuary. The wetland delineation manuals used by the NYSDEC
(New York State Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1995) and the USACOE (Federal
Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987) provide very similar guidance on deterrnmiation of the
freshwater wetland boundary. Accordingly, the wetland delineation by the USACOE is not
expected to differ significantly from the freshwater wetland boundary presented on the project
site plans and confirmed by the NYSDEC. It is important to note that the USACOE do not
enforce a regulated buffer or adjacent area located landward of the wetland boundary.
Accordingly, the jurisdictional authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers does not extend
beyond the freshwater wetland boundary and thus all regulated activities occur outside of the
USACOE's jurisdictional area.
168
Comment C-165
The project proposed property annexation by the Village of Greenport and further proposes
that the Village establish R-2 zoning for the property. However, even in the event that
annexation and R-2 zoning are approved, the applicant will require a variance to permit the
development of more than two units in a building. It appears to us that the need for such a
variance will represent a self-imposed hardship, since the two prior steps, annexation of the
property and establishment of R-2 zoning, would occur at the request of the applicant. It is our
understanding that such self imposed hardships are generally not eligible for a variance.
Response C-165
The commentator is incorrect in stating that.self-imposed hardships are generally not eligible
for a variance. The criterion of self-created hardship is only one of five criteria used in
determining whether a variance should be granted. Furthermore, according to New York State
Town Law (267-b(3)(b)(5)) and New York State Village Law ((7-712-b.6.(5)), although
consideration is relevant, whether an alleged hardship or difficulty is self-created does not
preclude the granting of an area variance.
Comment C-166
The project proposed 23 buildings containing 128 dwelling units. We believe that this proposed
development is overly ambitious for the size of the property, and would set a bad precedent, in
terms of density,for other potential developments and redevelopments in the Village.
Response C-166
The comment is noted. Should annexation occur, the Village will be obligated to classify the
property into a specific zoning district.
Comment C-167
We disagree with the density calculations. We do not believe it is appropriate to use, the
property's wetlands, which are not developable, in the density calculations. Furthermore, we
question whether it is even appropriate to use the 100-ft. NYSDEC regulated wetland adjacent
area since it is unlikely that development of this buffer would be permitted. If the wetland
acreage is discounted from the calculations, then the proposed density increases from the 7.44
169
units per acre, claimed by the applicant, to 9.65 units per acre. If the wetlands and the adjacent
area are discounted, the density increases to 19.25 units per acre.
Response C-167
The commentator is incorrect, as there is nothing in the code of the Village of Greenport that
states that the density calculations must remove the area of the wetlands—or the buffer—from
the overall buildable property. The density calculation properly includes the entire property.
Comment C-168
We do not believe that all of the appropriate alternatives have been investigated. There should
be an alternative plan for annexation with a different Village of Greenport Zoning designation
(e.g., R-1) and another alternative plan for development under the R-2 zoning with no variance
requirements. This second alternative is particularly relevant considering self-imposed nature
of the variance that would be requested.
Response C-168
The applicant has evaluated a proposed action and the alternatives that were identified as part
of the Final Scope. An additional alternative that is compliant with the most recent Town of
Southold FM zoning district is included in this FEIS. No other alternatives are proposed.
According to 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(v), 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."
Irt addition, a Draft Scope was produced by the applicant, which was the subject of a public.
scoping session. The request for evaluation of an alternative plan considering annexation and
development under a different zoning designation (e.g., R-1) was not mentioned at that time.
Therefore, such alternative was not included in the Final Scope. Furthermore, according to 6
NYCRR§617.8(g):-
"All relevant issues should be raised before the issuance of afinal written scope. Any agency or
person raising issues after that time must provide to the lead agency and project sponsor a
written statement that identifies:
(1) the nature of the information;-
170
(2) the importance and relevance of the information to a potential significant impact;-
(3)
mpact;(3) the reason(s) why the information was not identified during scoping and why it
should be included at this stage of the review."
None of these steps were undertaken with respect to requiring the analysis of an additional
alternative,especially at this stage of the SEQRA process.
Comment C-169
Addition of the two alternatives described above could potentially mitigate many of the
acknowledged, unmitigated impacts identified above as well as additional adverse impacts
pointed out herein..
Response C-169
The comment includes none of the specific information prescribed in 6NYCRR Part 617.8(a)
(and listed in Response C-168) as being necessary for consideration of new issues after the final
scope for the DEIS is approved.
Comment C-170
As noted above, this inventory should also include special status of any inventoried species.
This should begin with the three Special Concern Species identified in the main body of the
DEIS.
Response C-170
As stated previously, a revised appendix has been prepared in which the Special Concern status
of eastern box turtle, sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper's Hawk is reiterated and every reference
to these species is followed by(New York State-Special Concern) (see Appendix H of this FEIS).
Comment C-171
In addition to the Special Concern Species, there are numerous avian species identified on the
property that are listed on the American Bird Conservancy's Watch List and/or the Red List
171
maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
These should all be identified and discussed.
Response C-171
Three of the .avian species identified on the property are listed on the American Bird
Conservancy's Watch List including wood thrush (Catharus mustelinus), blue-winged warbler
(Vermivora pinus), and prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor). Each of these species is on the
American Bird Conservancy's Yellow List indicating that these species are declining or rare in
the continental United States. Blue-winged warbler and prairie warbler prefer shrubby habitats
and fields; accordingly, the clearing of 6.65 acres of old fields and successional hardwood
forests will result in the loss of habitat for these species. Wood thrush prefer moist woodlands
with developed forest canopy and understory layers. Suitable habitat for wood thrush on the
project site is largely located within the freshwater wetland boundary; therefore, the preferred
habitat for wood thrush will be preserved under the proposed action.
Contrary to the comment, none of the avian species identified on the property are listed on the
Red List maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources as near threatened, vulnerable, or endangered. Therefore, no discussion is
warranted.
Comment C-172
Furthermore, the avian inventory contains numerous neotropical migrants, which spend a
critical portion of their life cycle, either migration stopover or breeding, on the property. The
vast majority of these neotropical migrants are now in serious decline. The neotropical
migrants on the inventory should be identified, and those in decline should be discussed,
particularly with regard to the potential impacts of loss of habitat.
Response C-172
The avian species potentially impacted by the proposed project will include both resident and
migratory species. Forty-two of the fifty-nine bird species observed or expected to utilize the
subject property are considered to be neotropical migrants. These neotropical migrants are
listed below. The clearing of 6.65 acres of successional old fields and hardwood forests will
result in the loss of habitat for both resident and migratory species. As stated in Response C-
171, both the blue-winged warbler,and prairie warble utilize the old fields and surrounding
172
shrubs on the subject property, and will lose these habitats under the proposed action. The
forty-two neotropical migrants observed or potentially expected to utilize the subject property
are presented in the following list.
Sharp-shinned Hawk*
Cooper's Hawk*
Red-tailed Hawk
American Kestrel*
Mourning Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Acadian Flycatcher
Alder Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher*
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
White-eyed Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
House Wren
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Hermit Thrush
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Blue-winged Warbler
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia.Warbler* .
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Prairie Warbler*
Black-and-white Warbler
American Redstart
Ovenbird
Common Yellowthroat
Scarlet Tanager
Chipping Sparrow
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Red-winged Blackbird
173
Brown-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Baltimore Oriole
American Goldfinch
*Not actually observed on the subject site.
Species of neotropical migrant birds vary considerably in their habitat requirements ,and
tolerance of human activity. Accordingly, the proposed action is likely to result in: 1) a loss or
decrease of species (such as ovenbird and scarlet tanager) that are intolerant of human activity
on and immediately adjacent to the property, 2) no change or an increase in the abundance of
some species that are tolerant of human activity or prefer open habitats or forest edges created
by development(such as house wren or catbird), and 3) an increase in human commensals and
which directly benefit from human development (such as American robin and brown-headed
cowbird). The magnitude of the impact on Moore's Woods associated with loss of on-site
habitat and alteration of the -forest edge on habitat is expected to be minor and small as the
high-quality oak-tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within approximately
240 feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated
with Moore's Woods (300+acres).
Comment C-173
We disagree with the breeding activity characterizations of many of the species listed in the
inventory. The following species, listed on the inventory as not-expected, can definitely be
expected to use the property for breeding:
• Coopers Hawk
• Black-and-white Warbler(occasionally)
• Yellow-billed Cuckoo
• Great Homed Owl
-
• Easter Wood-Pewee(occasionally)
• Prairie Warbler
• Chipping Sparrow
• Red-winged Blackbird
174
Response C-173
The eight bird species listed by GPI in this comment were not recorded by the 2000 New York
State Breeding Bird Atlas as bird species known to nest in the survey block where the subject
property is located (Block# 7155C). Therefore, these species were not listed as "expected" to
breed in the provided table in Appendix N of the DEIS. However, these species are known.to
breed on Long Island and in other portions of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold.
Since suitable habitat for these birds does exist on or adjacent to the subject property, it can be
assumed that these additional eight species may utilize the subject property for'breeding.
Comment C-174
There are numerous other bird species.that have evidently been overlooked, but that would be
expected given the availability of existing habitat on the property.
Importantly, there are many wetland specialists that have been overlooked, but are clearly
expected given the high quality wetlands associated with Moore's Drain.
Response C-174
In these comments, GPI states that numerous bird species, particularly wetland species, have
been overlooked from the DEIS. The DEIS indicates that 59 species of birds are expected to be
found on and adjacent to the subject property. This number is consistent with the number of
upland bird species observed at nearby Inlet Pond County Park (75 species) and the New York
State Breeding Bird Atlas for the Greenport Area (58-70 species). Clearly, it is not possible to
characterize every bird species that may visit a particular site. However, GPI only suggested the
inclusion of nine bird species in the site inventory in the comment on page 7 of its
correspondence to the Village of Greenport. Of these birds, six species may potentially utilize
the subject property. The potential impacts to the six bird species suggested by GPI that are
likely to occur on the subject property are described in the response to the next comment.
Comment C-175
Following are the species that should be considered for addition to the avian inventory:
• Green Heron
• Wood Duck
175
® Red-shouldered Hawk
• Solitary Sandpiper
• Rusty Blackbird
• Eastern Kingbird
• Cedar Waxwing
• Indigo Bunting
• Brown Thrasher
Response C-175
As described below,the applicant acknowledges that suitable habitat exists on or adjacent to the
subject property for green heron, wood duck, rusty blackbird,eastern kingbird, cedar waxwing,
and brown thrasher. However,none of these species were observed during field investigations.
a. Green heron may utilize the wetlands adjacent to the subject property, as these birds
may forage in nearly any aquatic habitat. However, the wetlands adjacent to the
subject property are clearly not typical habitat for these birds due to the absence
permanent open water (and accordingly.an absence of fish) and dense emergent
vegetation. With the exception of the new box turtle nesting area, the project will
maintain a 100-foot buffer between the proposed development and the wetland
boundary and, therefore,no adverse impacts to green heron habitat are expected.
b. Wood duck may utilize the wetlands adjacent to the subject property, as these birds
often utilize freshwater wetlands at the upper ends of tidal creeks. The freshwater
wetland located on the subject property are not expected to provide habitat for wood
duck and the amount of suitable wood duck habitat located immediately adjacent to
the subject is small and limited to the freshwater wetland located to the southwest of
the subject property. With the exception of the new box turtle nesting area, the
project will maintain a 100-foot buffer between the proposed development and the
wetland boundary and, therefore, no adverse impacts to green heron habitat are
expected.
c. The red-shouldered hawk is not commonly observed on Long Island. The 2000 New
York State Breeding Bird Atlas reported no confirmed or possible red-shouldered
nests on Long Island between 2000 and 2005 and the Fire Island Hawk Watch has
not recorded a migratory red-shouldered hawk since 2001 (www.battaly.com/fire).
176
Accordingly, this species is not expected to be found on or adjacent to the subject
property.
d. Solitary sandpipers are observed on Long Island during migration along the banks
of freshwater ponds and creeks. The absence of open water habitats on and
immediately adjacent to the subject property indicates that solitary sandpipers are
not likely to be present. However, solitary sandpipers are likely to utilize other
portions of the Moore's Draffi and Pipes Cove ecosystems. Accordingly,no adverse
impacts to solitary sandpipers are expected from the proposed project.
e. Rusty blackbirds utilize forested wetlands during both migration and wintering
periods. Accordingly, the subject property provides suitable habitat for rusty
blackbirds, although this species was not observed during field inspections of the
subject property.
f. Eastern kingbird typically utilizes open habitats including fields, shrublands, and
forest edges. Accordingly, the subject property provides suitable habitat for eastern
kingbird, although this species was not observed during field inspections. The
proposed action will result in a permanent toss of suitable habitat for Eastern
kingbird on the site. As noted in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS, the successional old fields
that provide habitat for eastern kingbird and brown thrasher on the subject property
are classified as "demonstrably secure" in New York State indicating that these
habitats are abundant throughout the State (Edinger et al. 2002). Furthermore,
eastern kingbird and brown thrasher populations are,considered to be stable and are
classified by the IUCN as species of"Least Concem."23
g. Cedar waxwings are often observed in areas with fruiting trees and shrubs in open
habitats such as fields, shrublands, and forest edges. Accordingly, the subject
property is provides suitable habitat for cedar waxwings, although this species was
not observed during field inspections. The proposed action will impact the cedar
waxwings. However, this species is very tolerant of suburban habitats and is likely
to continue to utilize the project site for foraging habitat after the completion of
construction.
23 A species is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered,Endangered,Vulnerable
or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant species are included in this category, according to
http://Www.birdlife.org/datazone/"`species/t--erms/index.htm1.
177
h. Indigo buntings utilize open habitats including shrubby fields, roadsides, and
woodland edges. Accordingly, suitable habitat for indigo b-Lu-iting is present on the
subject property. However, this species is not recorded by the 1980 or 2000 New
York State Breeding Bird Atlas for the Greenport area. Accordingly, this species is
not expected to utilize the subject property.
i. Brown thrashers typically utilize open, shrubby habitats including thickets,
shrublands, and brushy woodland edges. . Accordingly, the subject property
provides suitable habitat for brown thrashers, although this species was ,not
observed during field inspections. The proposed*action will result in a permanent
loss of suitable habitat for brown thrashers. As noted in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS, the
successional old fields that provide habitat for eastern kingbird and brown thrasher
on the subject property are classified as "demonstrably secure" in New York State
indicating that these habitats are abundant throughout the State (Edinger et al. 2002).
Furthermore, eastern kingbird and brown thrasher populations are considered to be
stable and are classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
("JUCN") as species of"Least Concern."
178
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT EXHIBIT D
Bollam, Sheedy,Torani&Co.,LLP
December 2,2009
Comment C-176
The cost of the capital improvements related to the 128 new homes, will not have an impact
(increase or decrease) on "current" billings [respect to electricity usage] to the Village's existing
customers.
Response C-176
The comment is noted.
Comment C-177
If in the future, the Village requests NYPA to review its base rates and rate structure, the
recovery of the improvement costs could be included in the calculation of the new base rates.
The impact on future customer billings (to both existing Village customers and the 128 new
homes) cannot be determined at this time.
Response 0-177
The comment is noted. In addition, LIPA has indicated its ability to provide electricity to the
site (see Appendix P of the DEIS).
Comment C-178
With the addition of new customers, certain other costs will inherently increase. These costs
include, but may not be limited to, (1) meter reading costs, (2) billing and cash collection costs,
and (3) accounting costs. We believe that the incremental costs to be incurred as a result of the
128 new homes will be insignificant.
Response C-178
The comment is noted. In addition, LIPA has indicated its ability to provide electricity to the
site(see Appendix P of the DEIS).
179
Comment C-179
We also believe that any incremental costs incurred as a result of the new homes will be
recovered in their entirety by the "base rates" for the residential rate class..There will be little, if
any,impact on the Village's existing customers, as a result of these increased other costs.
Response C-179
The comment is noted. In addition, LIPA has indicated its ability to provide electricity to the
site (see Appendix P of the DEIS).
180
VILLAGE OF GREEPORT EXHIBIT E
Village of Greenport
December 4,2009
Comment C-180
Electrical Infrastructure Cost Estimate for providing electrical service to new KACE
Development as provided by Braun Engineering,P.C. is$795,200.00.
Response C-180
The comment is noted. However, the applicant has received a letter of availability and service
provision from LIPA(see Appendix P of the DEIS).
Comment C-181
Based upon the development of condominiums and based upon current "pre-upgrade"
connection. costs, the amount of capital funds which the Village would miss out on by
annexation is in excess of $2.0 million. This amount will increase substantially once upgrade
costs are figured into the capital contribution.
Response C-181
According to correspondence with Cameron Engineering, the Village's sewer consultant (see
correspondence with Cameron Engineering dated November 16, 2009 in Appendix J of the
DEIS) there is sufficient capacity at the sewage treatment plant to accommodate the proposed
development. In addition, there are Village sanitary mains existing at the north end of the
project site (along North Road). The Village would not be obligated to pay for the on-site
sewage infrastructure. This cost would be borne by the developer and would be inclusive of
everything up to and including the connection to Village Sewer Main at the north end of the
property.
See Response C-5 with respect to discharge limits and Greenport's sewage treatment plant
SPDES permits. In addition, the applicant is committed to pay for infrastructure improvements
that may be required to connect the proposed development to the sewer collection system.
181
Furthermore, according to the applicant, in order to minimize the financial impact on the
Village of Greenport, the applicant will seek infrastructure subsidies associated with the
provision of workforce housing from Suffolk County(see Response C-112).
Comment C-192
In case we would be "obligated" to provide the sewer infrastructure, looking at the size of tl-ds
complex, it is roughly twice the size of the Cliffside project (68 units). Reported costs for the
construction of wastewater collection and pumping facilities on the site were $80,000 for sewer
construction and $190,000 for the pumping station. Adjusting for size the cost would be
approximately$397,5.00.
Response C-182
The Village would not be obligated to pay for the on-site sewage infrastructure. This cost
would be borne by the developer and would be inclusive of everything up to and including the
connection to Village Sewer Main at the north end of the property. See Responses C-5 and C-
181.
182
VILLAGE OF GREEPORT EXHIBIT F
Law Offices
Duncan,Weinberg,Genzer&Pembroke,P.C.
Tom Rudenbusch and Natalie Karas
December 11,2009
Comment C-183
While the parcel is uninhabited, a developer has proposed a small multi-family residential
development and he has requested electric and sewer utility services from the Village.
Response C-183
The applicant has requested connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
applicant has not requested electric service from Greenport, and has a letter of availability and
service provision from LIPA(see Appendix P of the DEIS).
Comment C-184
Assuming the Village is successful in annexing the parcel, the Village (1)may need to obtain the
agreement of LIPA to provide utility services and (2) will need to demonstrate to the PSC the
economic feasibility of providing utility service to the parcel and obtain the PSC's authorization
under the Public Service Law.
Response C-184
The comment is noted. In addition, LIPA has indicated its ability to provide electricity to the
site (see Appendix P of the DEIS).
183
VILLAGE OF GREEPORT,EXHIBIT G
REVIEWED SEPARATELY—SEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
RESPONSES EARLIER IN THIS DOCUMENT
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT,EXHIBIT H
Comment C-185
I have to disagree that there would be no change in the school district. I am also perplexed that
when Mr.Kontokosta talked about enrollment trends,he focused on K through 3, and it is true
that we have had a 20 percent decline in enrollment in,K through 3. But we are not a K through
3 school district. Weare in a K through 3 building. We are K through 12 district, and in the last
five years we have had 10 percent increase in enrollment K through 12.
Response C-185
According to the New York State Department of Education website (www.nysed.gov) and the
school reports for the Greenport Union Free School District for the school-years 1999-2000
through 2008-2009,the following are the enrollments:
e 1999-2000: 628
0 2000-2001: 658
0 2001-2002: 652
0 2002-2003: 651
0 2003-2004: 668
0 2004-2005: 679
0 2005-2006: 676
9 2006-2007: 661
0 2007-2008: 637
0 2008-2009: 621
Dr. Kozora s comments were made in August 2005, subsequent to the 2004-2005 school year,
which had the highest enrollment in a decade, as can be seen above. Prior to that date, Dr.
Kozora is correct in indicating that there was a 7.5 percent increase in enrollment since the 1999-
2000 school year. However, since that time, enrollment throughout the district has been in a
184
steady decline. Since the 2004-2005 school year enrollment has declined 8.5 percent, to a figure
slightly below that of 1999-2000.
Comment C-186
According to Michael and Dino Kontokosta, this 128 unit project will be collectively assessed at
between $400,000 and $500,000. If I were to use the highest estimate of $500,000, that would
generate$275,000 in new revenues.
Response C-186
See Response H-7. The assessed value was estimated by the Town of Southold Tax Assessor as
$489,000 in 2008, as discussed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS. Based upon the 2010-2011 School
District tax rate of approximately $623.00 per $1,000 of assessed value, the proposed project
would generate approximately$306,647 for the Greenport School District.
Comment C-187
A more realistic model would be used of a number of students a housing project would
generate. When I met with the Kohtokostas on Monday, they agreed that the Cedar Fields
project that was developed in the late '80s was similar. The Cedar Fields project has 39 units
that come from this development. This proposed project has 3.3 times as many units as the
Cedar Fields project, If we use the same ratio, we'd have an additional 115 and a half students,
but we won't count half bodies, so let's go with 115.
Response C-187
See Response H-7. Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS includes a projection of number of school-aged
children generated from three different sources (Rutgers Study, National Center for Education
Statistics, and the Town of Southold). The projected numbers of students to be generated from
the proposed development ranges from 26 to 52. Therefore,the average estimate of school-aged
children generated by the project based upon the three studies is 40 students. If one applies the
more recent data for multifamily development in Suffolk County, prepared by Dr. Pearl M.
Kamer on behalf of the Long Island Housing Partnership, the proposed development would
generate 23 school-aged children.
185
Comment C-188
However, a more accurate and actual cost for additional students would be $14,000 per student
because we have fixed costs that remain the same, such as bonding indebtedness or the heating
of the building. So the initial students approve the economies of scale and they actually reduce
our per pupil costs while the overall costs.
Response C-188
ti
See Response H-7 for per pupil expenditure information.
Comment C-189
Now the question arises, what is the financial impact to the district and to the taxpayers? The
increase of our student population by 17 percent will increase our state aid as an additional
revenue of $175,000; that, combined with the $275,000 of additional revenue from the taxes,
would come up to $450,000 in additional revenues from this project. However, the expenses of
the 115 students that will reduce per pupil costs to $14,000 generates an expenditure of $1.61
million. We deduct the revenue of$450,000, and we have a net increase of $1.16 million in the
amount of money that needs to be raised by taxes. This in itself would result in a 14 percent tax
increase when the project is complete. It would raise the tax rate in Greenport School District
by$17.16 per hundred.
Response C-189
See Response H-7.
186