Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix B - FEIS
Appendix B X51 �q 1 � LF - L k V�.E c�Ct.. !I "M V \ 1 B y ! 'NJ - '�� ��.!\•� ^yw. �W�.-�.Y.\C �Q Y.�4. _e'v... Q.v.c� Cc.�1c�v��' . Gr"�,,, ..W 5 i Ac - 1 LL G �+ft5 f w1 S a NJ C- GWS Lh] t'�� � r. � 4 a�.. G•..s GU 4�`� C�� S C. Yt 10 S t--C- i \_A ---- f� f�l Q� ---------- _0 .---- -t � ._�_Q-L�\-Com._ . . 1�-��-c�•-)�--� c\C v'v�cc v��_ ... ._.C_J_ c_�-_�.4�.c. - _. - - . - _ - I _ _ i vo t,(-- i (� -""--_' .---_� � �_ - • t T CLQ_ -�.._._ � 1--._��'l._ �,__�__. '�_- ��- - - - �, •�_s-_ _ ` ozk- 7-11 _. .. _ : .. _- ��_B mow-,�.u..�• .' c,,.��- �,�,.�_...�e.,� 45 cz, _ ` S t3 ` ill Ii _�.ir_ s-_ .s,_,-�1-!�'�_. Irl Iift - ...__-.___....._� _ i� I s I� L Ii I �tt Ei E I r� �I I' ' ...... .... ... . ..Gey __. �L L � t <zh 6� S �., C� r��n•.S C o c� C-- 4Q 4Q I € z %,] C- Ct, ©vim CO- ;ki C1 i, F�-A s C—ay.�c�v 1 C-v �.� � � 4.,�c� �4•n,� t`c. [ `o-r� C.�•r0.}�F.S F: jj. \.-C\' f-' � � %r ck b ` w c_wt �Ac- C.. I C-NnC.G - �, �.t. G b r fr�"C t-►�.�\6 tee'` C.rq{v�S :. l.+-.Z \\ \ � {� V- \ p a O Y+ Ct\$ 4 �C.S G7 �1 C—V)u„t•..n\ 4 � tt _ t� oti.\ \r.o •i..�,�- t�T,c �.� . �� Cr..rid�c_t o� ---.5-� .c......... k - € - - - ��E._c�s._ c •�.s -- o C.IS.Nr*"O - . ..:._ rcu ..�.....__. ..... . .._ - fl I L—Ik __...- ---- - - __._ I I�-��cc��5.. .__��cs L - ._._Z._ss L�.G_Cy _._ __._.:�.•-�� - ..-....��..1��[:.�.,r�c.�. \� i' kley e... Ck Lt Ll _ V James Dinizio Jr. 39 Sound Road Greenport NY 11944 Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst NYS DEC Region 1 SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, New York 11790-3409 Dear Ms. Aicher, 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 life long resident of Greenport, I believe I have an understanding of both sides of the issue and while 1 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 environment. 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 live there someday. Thank you for listening. Respectfully Yours James Dinizio Jr. 631-477-0184 David S. Corwin corwin@optonline.net Greenport, NY 11544 November 12, 2009 - Nov 1 62009 Village of Greenport _. ._ 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Subject: Kace Village of Greenport Annexation DEIS Ladies and Gentlemen: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement notes in the Executive Summary that the project form of ownership will be a"Co-Op" with the village not having to supply services. The DEIS should address the from 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. 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. The existing sewer line along County Road 48 should be evaluated for condition and available capacity. It is said 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. As part of the Village of Greenport the project would need to be suppled 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 LLPA 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 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 effect the present allocation,NYPA charges, and adjustment charges for exceeding the existing electric allocation. The DEIS notes that a variance will be required for the layout of the proposed project from the existing 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. 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. 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. 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 be examined in more detail. 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. Respectfully yours, Air U,' David S. Corwin Cc: Sherry Aicher,NYSDEC November 16, 2009 Wendy Quinn-Pacholk 618 Carpenter Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Sherri Aicher, I was misinformed about the correct time of the Village Board meeting involving the KACE Management plans to develop the parcel of land just east of San Simeon by The Sound Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation on Route#48 in Greenport that was held at 6:00 PM on Thursday night November 12, 2009, 1 showed up at 6:45 PM for a 7:00 PM meeting time. I wish to submit this letter to the "pro side" of the issue. I first want to disclose the fact that KACE Management, at their HarborFront Inn located at 209 Front Street, Greenport, employs me. That has nothing to do with rimy support of their Route#48 development project. 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. My daughter is serving her country as an Ensign in the United States Navy and desires to return to the North Fork when her tour of duty is up and my son is in his last semester earning a Master's Degree in Homeland Security and longs to raise a family some day right here on the North Fork in Greenport. The KACE project could possibly afford them that opportunity. As for myself, I am a third generation Greenporter, I have lived in Greenport for all but four years of my life. My husband, Eugene and I would love the opportunity to sell my family homestead, downsize and purchase one of the new homes in the development for ourselves without moving out of Greenport. My father, William J. Quinn, served on the Greenport Village Board for over twelve years of his life and he would support this project. He loved Greenport and would encourage anyone who desired to settle here to be able to afford to purchase his or her own home here. My mother Gertrude V. Quinn, his widow also supports this plan. 1 November 16, 2009 Last but certainly not feast 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. I have worked since I was fourteen years old for many a family and company/corporation and the KACE Management family is just that a family that I am proud to work for. I hope to work for them until I retire. 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 deserve the right to develop the property they own in. a manner that serves the local people and those who desire to be "locals". In closing, please take my comments times the other three in my family that 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 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. Apparently there were only a few residents that spoke out with concerns for this project at the meeting, so please rule in favor of the majority of the residents that didn't take the opportunity to raise concerns for the project and vote in favor of the majority of residents that are for the project. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this matter. It will put Greenport back on the map of progress not "business as usual" afraid to take a risk. The liability is on the developers, not the village. Please accept my strong heartfelt support. Respectfully, Wendy Quinn Pacholk Lifelong Greenport Resident 2 Nprld,hFo rtHousing Affiance,, Inc. (FORMERLY THE GREENPORT HOUSING ALLIANCE) 1 16 SOUTH STREET ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR ALL GRHENPORT, NEW YORK i 1944 (631)477-1070 FAX (631)477-1769 SECTION 8 DEPARTMENT (631) 477-8688 NFHA@OPTONLINE.NET HARRY LATNEY, PRESIDENT TANYA PALMORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 8, 2009I' '} ' E_ 70 - J Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst NYS DEC Region 1 SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook , New York 11790-3409 RE: KACE LI, LLC Workforce Housing Greenport, NY Dear Ms. Aicher, 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. NFHA has been providing affordable housing and a wide array of housing services to residents of the Town of Southold for over 25 years. Our offices are acutely aware of the need for affordable housing in this community. Although our agency has made progress in addressing this issue, the high cost of land and the local zoning regulations make the provision of significant affordable housing a nearly impossible task. The sponsors of the KACE LI project have designed a unique project that surmounts the usual barriers to affordability. We understand that the project will set aside one half of the units as affordable under the Town and County definitions and further will restrict the price of the resale of these units to maintain their status over the years. 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. FUNDED BY NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY RENEWAL AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND PROVIDER December 8, 2009 Page 2 of 2 For all of the foregoing reasons we urge the Department of Environmental Conservation to approve the KACE LI application. Thank you for your consideration. y truly yours, Barry La2hey, President 01 2009 November 29,2009 DEC 012009 Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst 1 NYS DEC Region I Office U SUNY at Stony Brook 2008 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,NY 11790 Re: DEIS Comments—Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and the . Development of Northwind Village, Town of Southold Dear Ms. Aicher, Please accept the following comments on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and the Development of Northwind Village, Town of Southold. Our review found the following issues in the Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, June 29, 2007, Description of Proposed Actions, were not fully addressed in the DEIS: 1.1.2. Project Purpose,Needs and Benefits: The need for Affordable Housing is not fully discussed: ➢ 80-120%Area Median Income for Nassau/Suffolk Census area identified as parameter. This delineates a population earning $80-120,000/pa for a family of four. How does that fit with Greenport Village and Southold Town incomes? With affordable housing need as compiled by Southold Town Affordable Housing inventory? ➢ Greenport Village does not appear to perceive a need for affordable housing because of its rejection of another affordable housing development in October 2008. A two-year discussion of the proposed project was heated and negative. The Greenport Gateway development was to be sited on Front Street in the commercial district of the Village and involved construction on a developed site with no negative environmental impacts as noted in its SEQRA documents. 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project: 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? l.2.1 Location: 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? 1.3.1 Annexation: This process not fully discussed. Especially omitted is discussion of Greenport Village's willingness to change zoning from HD to R2 even if the annexation were to be granted. 1.3.2 Proposed Zone Change_This 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. 1.3.3 Overall Site Layout: This is unclear because 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. ➢ 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. ➢ 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 environmental impact. 1.3.4 Access and Road System: There is no site plan that would indicate roadways, traffic circulation within the development or specific access points for cars, trucks or emergency vehicles. 1.3.5 Parking and Traffic_Control Facilities: This section only identifies the number of parking spaces (1.5 X 128), not their specific location within the development nor 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 project? 1.3.6 Traffic Levels: This is 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. 1.3.7 Grading and Drainage: 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 regrading will have any possible unintended consequences. This entire subject is inadequately explored. 1.3.8 SgnLtm Disposal and Water Sppply. 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. 1.3.9 Site Landscaping and Buffer Areas: 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 tune."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. 1.40 Construction Schedule and Operation: This section lacks details. ➢ Three phases of construction are indicated. Will each phase encompass one, two and three-bedroom units? Is it possible that market rate units will all be built in 1st and 2°d 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. 2.1.1 Topography—_Existing Conditions: There is inadequate discussion of soil composition with regard to the impact of proposed buildings on the site's soil strata. 2.4.1 Surface Waters: There is an insufficient exploration of important water sources and flows. The DEIS only indicates what flows north and south. 2.4.4 Sanitary Flow: There is no discussion of sanitary flow connection costs. Will the costs vary if the development is inside Village limits vs. in Southold Town? 3.4.5 Public Transportation: There is no access to any public transportation in contradiction to the"smart growth" strategy espoused. 4.3.4 SmLtga Flow: There is no discussion of the connection to the Greenport Village sewage treatment plant in terms of increase in effluent discharge into Long Island Sound. In addition, if the connection is not authorized, septic systems or an on- site sewage treatment plan 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. 4.4 Land Use and Zoning: This section 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 entity. 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." Therefore it is critical that the DEIS address fully all the issues as outlined in the Final Scope. This DEIS is deficient in all the issues we have listed above. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at 631-298-8880 VneSerely, k Wills Chair of the Land Use Committee North Fork Environmental Council Pos.:Office Boz 569 ` �'� '11 Post Office Box 1792 1 y Bridgehampton,NY 11932G :�"� 1 ; Southold,NY 11971 Tel:631.537.1400 �� `� Tel:631.765.6450 Fax:631.537.2201 FOR THE EAST END Fax:631.765.6455 November 18, 2009 President25 Robert S.DeLuca Sherri Aicher Chairman Environmental Analyst[ William S.McChesney,Jr. NYS DEC Region 1 Office SUNY at Stony Brook Vice Chairman 50 Circle Road Ann Colley Stony Brook,NY 11790 Board Members Re: DEIS Comments-Proposed Annexation by the Village of Harris A.Barer Greenport and the Development of Northwind Village Town of Katherine Leahy Birch Southold W.Marco Birch Wilhelmus B.Bryan Mark Burchill Dear Ms.Aicher, Andrew Goldstein Gregory Hoogkamp Please accept the following comments on behalf of Group for the East End in Ronald S.Lauder response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Sandra R.Meyer Annexation by the Village of Greenport and the Development of the Northwind Christopher Pia Village,Town of Southold, Peter Schellbach John Shea For the record,Group for the.East End is eastern Long Island's largest John C.Waddell professionally staffed environmental advocacy and education organization.Since Mary walker 1972,we have represented the conservation and community planning interests of some 2,000 member-households,businesses and individuals from across our region. Groin f En ' mm n focus on the following topics: 1) o is - 1) The Need to Address Town of Southold Newly Adopted Zoning Standards in Relation to the Hamlet Density Zone 2) The Need to Address the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Updated Sanitary Code 3) Deficient Analysis of Section 4.3 Water Resources of the DEIS 4) Deficient DEIS Response and the Need to Address Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 barge Impacts (Completed by DEC) S) As-of-Right-50-Unit-Alternative-Suggested Amendments We protect and restore the environment of eastern Long Island through education,citizen action and public advocacy. founded in 1972 www.groupfortheeastend.org 56' Post Consumer/iO Bamboo Fibers FOR THE EAST END The subject parcel's ecological integrity cannot be understated. It provides habitat for a variety of flora and fauna while the integral wetlands present on the subject site are valuable to Moore's Drain,which is listed as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources. Given the subject site's ecological significance it is imperative that the DEIS make all efforts to examine appropriate, up-to-date alternatives to the proposed action in an effort to mitigate potential for adverse impacts. Additionally, 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. 1)Alternative that Addresses Updated Hamlet Density Zone Requirements 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 parcel's allowable total gross floor area. The second code amendment that was passed creates mandated open space set- asides.2 Under these new requirements,the proposed density would be reduced, which would provide greater potential for reduced overall impact of high intensity development. The restrictions were codified to allow the Town of Southold to assure a diversity of housing stock,promote moderate-cost dwellings,meet the needs of the existing population,and protect groundwater,open space and community character. Given the Town's proactive movement to fulfill the aforementioned, h DIS at mi 'mom should providC an Alternative h illustratCs g 121an in conformance_with th,C5e new standards. 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." 2 local Law 2-2009 entitled,"A Local Law in relation to Design Standards_ and Regulations for Site Plans in the Town of Southold." 50'% ?oA Consumer/5(T"°.Bamboo Fibers - Rnlmr-k; \f FOR THE EAS T.ENO 2) Suffolk County Department of Health Services Updated Regulations The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also amended its standards.3 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. The 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 unit's associated sanitary waste should be reexamined. 3) Deficient Analysis of Section 4.3 Water Resources (Final Scope) 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 question, "What will be the sanitaryflow impacts if connection to the sewer district is not authorized"was not covered within the DEIS. For instance,will a sewage treatment plant be required onsite to manage flow? How might this produce an impact? 4) Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 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 therefore will not create impacts. This conclusion applied to each and every acknowledged large potential impact is concerning given what 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. Particularly,3. Impact on Water (page 4) states, "The 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." 3 Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Other Than Single-Family Residences.July 15, 2008 (Corrected November 20, 2008) 50'%,Post CBamboo Fibers FOR THE EASE' END This same section further states that if a large impact were created to the wetland - "such and impact would be of regional significance,given Peconic Bay's designation as a National Estuary, Critical Environmental Area, and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat" Lastly,the DEC notes that, "It should be possible to control the Impacts of encroachment into the wetland and adjacent area through the development of a careful design for a realistically sized project and careful management of the construction process"(5). However,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 alterna 've that illu5trates a reduced density with an alternative lot-layout Ihat 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" 5)As-of-Right-5 0-Unit Alternative-Suggested Amendments 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 ofAlternatives 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 al ativ h ld be amgnded to in r he area of natural y=gUtion and to fUrther decrease the amoLint to building. men an rgadway coverage o that h ten ial for impacts to the wetlands and-natural areas are further reduced. Conclusion In conclusion,the DEIS requires a more thorough and honest evaluation of the potential large impacts that may afflict this ecologically sensitive parcel. The presence of significant wetlands that are connected to regionally significant 56 L'nst QR4uIRl'Fi$0°s.Bamboo Fibers GUP iI FOR THF EAST END water resources demands that the above comments are incorporated into the DEIS. Thank you for your careful consideration of our comments. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at (631) 765-6450 ext. 211.or at ihartnagel@eastendenvironment.org. Si cerefr J nn Hartnagel Environmental Advocate Encl: Southold Amended HD Zoning Regulations Suffolk County Department of Health Services Updated Sanitary Code 50".1,F'nst Consumer{;E}"� 6ambeio Fibers COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STBVB LEvY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES July 15, 2008 (Corrected 11./20/08) Humayun J. Chaudhry, D.O., M.S. Commissioner of Health Services Vito Minei, P.E. Director of Environmental Quality Suffolk County Department of Heath Services 7/13108 OFFICE Non-medical office 0.06 dfsf --space � O 06 gpd/sf RECREATION Bath house%omfort 5 gpd/occupant +5 5 gpd/occupant 5 Food service' + d/3hower/occu ant+ station Food service � p Food service4 Bowling alley/tennis 100 gpd/co� service4 or alley Food ice4 100 gpd/court or alley+ court/racquetball Food service Miniature golf 15 gpd/parking space Food service4 15 gpd/parking space+ Food service i 15 gpd/skater +5 Ice/roller SkatingRik 15 gpd/skater +5 " � ngpd/specatori Food service gpd/specator +Food service Recreation 15 gpd/parking space Food service" 15 gpd/parking space+ Food service Spa/Fitness Center/ Karate/Dance/etc.. 0.1 gpd/sf 0.2 gpd/sf 0.3 gpd/sf (w/shown&amenities) Spa/Fitness Center/ Karate/Dance/etc. 0.1 gpd/sf 0.1 gpd/sf Lit/0 showers&amenities Marina 10 gpd/boat slip Food service4 10 gpd/boat slip+Food service OTB 5 gpd/person Food service" 5 gpd/person+Food service Theater 3 gpd/seat Food service" 3 gpd/s4at Food service Horse Farm' 0.04 gpd/sf+ 10 0.04 gpd/sf+ 10 d/stall d/stall Cam Ground 10 10 gpd/camper+5 Camp gpd/camper 5 gpd/shower/camper gpdshower/cam er RESIDENTIAL Single.Family Residence 300 MLd 300 gpd, Two Family Residence 500 gpd 600gpd Rooming house 75 d/bed 75&2d/bed Motel/Hotel unit up to 400 sq.fL gross floor 100 gpd/unit 100 gpd/unit area Motel/Hotel unit >400 s .ft grDsa floor area 150 gpd/unit 150 gpd/unit Housing Unie up to 600 150 gpd/unit; .A. ss floor area gP 150 gpd/unit Housing Unie between 601-1200 sq.ft. gross 225 gpd/unit 225 gpd/unit floor area Page 13 Suffolk County Department of Heath Servtoes 7/15108 . r k - - ,r;r inti 1 sa ,..... M-4--a- Housing . ' 'Housing Unit > 1200 304 gpd/unit s -ft, gross floor area gp 300 gpd/unit PRC unit up to 600 _%,ft. gross floor area{io} I00 100 gpd/unit gpd/unit PRC unit between 600- 1200s areaE�o) A, gross floor 150 gpd/unit 150 gpd/unit RETAIL Pry store 0.03 d/sf 0.03gpd/sf Wet store w/o Food (Hair salon,pet shop wlo 0.03 gpd/sf 0.07 gpd/sf. 0.1 gpd/sf animal boarding,eta SCHOOL IBoo rd'ng school/ 75 gpd/capital 2.5 gpd/capita' 77.5 gpd/capitat tory Da School S d/ca ita 2.5&Wcapita 7.5 d/ca ita MISCELLANEOUS Car Wash 0.04gpd/sf Car wash process wate j7 0.04gpd/sf Laundromat 0.03 gpd/sf Laundromat process 0.03gpd/sf water Funeral Home 0.05 gpd/sf Funeral Home process 0.05gpd/sf water, House of Worship 1.5 gpd/seat+5 1.5 gpd/seat+5' (w/meeting rooms) gpd/occupant�far 2.5 gpd/occupantt gpd/occu1t'+2.5 meetinR rooms -gpd/occu ant' House of Worship 1.5 gpd/seat 2.5 gpd/occupant' 1.5 gpd/seat+2, 5 (w/o meeting rooms) d/occu ant Public S!2222! 0.04 d/sf 0.04 gpdlsf Animal boarding' 0.03 gpd/sf+10 0.03 gpd/sf+ 14 d/animal d/anirnal ' Occupancy ratings can be determined using New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code -Table VII-765 as a guide. General industrial buildings may contain up to 15%related office space without applying a proportionate office density loading or flow rating to the space. If office space exceeds 15%of gross floor area,then a proportionate office density Loading or flow rating must be applied to the entire office space. 3 Single or means disposable plates,silverware&cups. Takeout seating is for waiting patrons and is not convertible to full seating or for density credit at full service restaurants. Food(kitchen}flow is added according to the type of food service in the establishment. Public storage density and/or design flow may be reduced if restrictive covenants are recorded on the parcel. 6 Motel/Hotel with Kitchenettes,Apartments,Condominiums,Mobile Homes,Trailers,or Co-Ops. 7 Process waters require a separate permit and s req sep p disposal facilities—Consult Department. A separate sewage disposal system shall be provided for wastewater generated from animal boarding or kennel areas. 4 A grease trap shall be provided for this installation which is sized at 20 gpd/bed, 10 PRC units exceeding 1200 sf of gross floor area shall be considered a single-family residence and assigned a density and hydraulic load of 300 gpd/unit. Note:The above table is subject to amendment from time to time as data becomes available to the Department. The table will be republished as an addendum to these standards If and when revised. Page 14 WHEREAS,there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 16th day of December, 2008 a Local Law entitled"A Local Law In Relation to Desi n Standards and Regulations for Residential Site Plans in the Town of Southold" and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard,Now therefor be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law In Relation to Design,Standards and Re ulations for Residential Site Plans in the Town of Southold"reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2_2009 A Local Law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to Desian Standards and Regulations for Residential Site Plans in the Town of Southold". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Section 1. Legislative Intent The Town of Southold"s Comprehensive Plan, comprised of a series of planning initiatives undertaken over the past 20 years, establishes a group of fundamental goals that together provide the underpinnings of Southold's future vision. These goals are: 1. To preserve land, including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes. 2. To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets surrounding the countryside. 3. To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. 4. To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports a socio-economically diverse community. 5. To increase transportation efficiency and to create alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roads in the Town. The Town Board of the Town of Southold recognizes that the local community can absorb a finite amount of development in order to achieve the goals set forth above. The development that occurs will result in irreversible changes to the land and the community. The Town of Southold is engaged in a process for comprehensive planning for the hamlets located in the Town, and in 2005 adopted the Town of Southold "Hamlet Study". The Hamlet Study represents a unique exercise in Southold's long tradition of community planning as it was prepared by stakeholders from each hamlet representing a cross-section of the community. The primary goal of the Hamlet Study was to balance and accommodate an appropriate degree of growth in each hamlet. Since the adoption, the hamlet stakeholder proccss has been re-convened and the stakeholders are active in working with the Planning Board and staff to plan for the future of the hamlets. Presently, there are two applications for residential site plans before the Planning Board. These projects, if approved in their present form, would yield a significant change in the character of the hamlets in which they are proposed. The proposed project in Cutchogue contains the second-largest number of residential units proposed in a single development in the Town of Southold in recent memory. The impact of this development on the existing community and character of the hamlet is likely to be profound. The proposed project in Southold, while not as large in number of units, is large in scale and size of buildings. The Planning Department, faced with these applications, advised the Town Board that the current residential site plan regulations are inadequate to deal with the proposed developments. The current residential site plan regulations lack residential design standards and cluster requirements. The Town Board, Planning Board, Planning staff, and Code Committee reviewed the high density residential zoning, including Hamlet Density (HD) and Hamlet Business (HB), and proposed amendments. A public hearing was held on the proposed Code amendments on September 23, 2008. Thereafter, the Town Board, Planning staff and Code Committee met on several occasions to review the public comments and further discuss appropriate amendments to the town code. These proposed amendments are designed to assure that residential development in the residential zones is consistent with the plans for the hamlet, is compatible in scale with the hamlet, and will comprehensively meet the long-range goals of the Town. These amendments intend to assure a diversity of housing stock, promote moderate-cost dwellings, meet the needs of the existing population, and protect.groundwater, open space and community character. The business zones that allow residential. development have been removed from the proposal at this time, as the Planning Board, Town Board, and Code Committee have agreed that it is appropriate to examine the business zones and their uses comprehensively in the near future. Section 2. CODE AMENDMENTS Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold § 280-137. Standards for residential site plans. The P.gWse of these residential site plan standards are to provide for a diversity of housing stockpromote moderate-cost dweRings, meet the needs of the existing population and protect groundwater, open,space and community character. A. The Planning Board's review of the application and plans with respect to residential site plans shall include their compliance with the following:. (1) The requirement that the applicant attend a presubmission conference, at which time the applicant, the Planning Board and planning staff shall discuss the salient design features of the application. At such conference,the applicant shall be provided with a copy of the then- existing design manual as adopted by the Planning Board. (2) The applicable provisions of this chapter. (3) Where applicable, Town Law § 274-a and General Municipal Law § 239-m. (4) Construction standards and specifications of the Town highway specifications, Chapter 161 of the Code of the Town of Southold. For the purposes of residential site plans, one dwelling unit is the equivalent of one residential lot. (5) The requirements of the existing resources and site analysis plan(s) (ERSAP)and the allowable density of dwelling units as calculated using the yield plan criteria for standard subdivisions set forth in §§ 240-10A and B(2) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land. (6) The provisions of Article XI, Cluster Development, of Chapter 240 of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land, as may shall be applied by the Planning Board i its dis * residential site plans in residential districts, and may be ap liped by the Planning Board to residential site plans in business districts. lands.seeiiie qualities of open In doing so,the Planning Board shall establish conditions on the ownership,use and maintenance of such open lands as it deems necessary to assure the preservation of the natural and scenic qualities of such open lands and shall not permit the use of such lands for the fulfillment of the park and recreation requirement. The procedures set forth in Article XI, of Chapter 240, Subdivision of Land, shall govern except as modified herein. To the extent that this provision may be construed to be in conflict with Town Law§ 278 regarding clustered development, Town Law§ 274-a regarding site plan review, or Town Law § 267, 267-a, 267-b or 267-c regarding the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals,this provision supersedes and amends such sections insofar as they place any limitation on the Planning Board's application of such clustered development to residential site plans or the requirement of the fulfillment of the park and recreation requirement. (a) Design re uirements where cluster development is re uired: 1. Oben space i. Where required, cluster development design shall set aside a percentage of buildable land as open space in accordance with the schedule for Open Space. Buffers and,Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the„end of this chapter;in Attachment 6. ii. Oen Mace shall be ve etatedwith no more than 15%of the land area to be irrigated. iii. Open space shall remain open and free of any buildings or structures, except those structures related to the use of the oRgn space, including but not limited to s lit rail fences signs and boundary markers. iv. The location, use and„design of the open space areas will be determined by the Planning Board using the ERSAP, as set forth above, and as set forth and„regulated in§240-1 OC and §24044. 2. Minimum setback i. The setback from the property line to„all;structures shall be in accordance with the schedule for Open Space,Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the end of this chapter. 3. Minimum buffer i. The buffer area shall be in accordance with the schedule for Open Space,Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans at the end of this chapter (7) [Reserved.] (8) Design considerations: (a) The location,arrangement, setbacks, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, structures, landscaping, lighting, and signs, in keeping with the character of the community; (b) The adequacy, safety and convenience of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including driveways, rights-of-way, curb cuts,intersections,pavement surfaces, traffic controls, and designated areas for access to public transportation; (c) The adequacy, safety and convenience of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and circulation, including sidewalks, walkways,and pedestrian/vehicle conflict points; (d) The sufficiency,convenience and appearance of off-street parking and loading areas, including visitor, employee and overflow parking,parking and storage for trailers, boats,and recreational vehicles, and the provision of alleyways; (e) The provision of and adequacy of emergency lanes, exits, tap streets,other safety zones, and the provision of fire hydrants to promote the public safety; and (f) The proximity of recreational facilities and open space. (g) Garages should be set back from the front fa ade of the building. Two-car gavages should either have a separate door for each bgy. or have the appearance of an individual door for each bay. B. SEQRA review. The Planning Board shall comply with the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA),Article 8 of the Environmental.Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617. [Added 8-2-2005 by L:L. No. 12-20051 C. Within 10 days after accepting the avnlication,the Planning Board shalf forward the application to the Architectural Review Committee fouzeview. The Architectural Revdew Committee shall review the application at their next regularly scheduled meeti�and make a written recommendation to the Planning Board on the site plan within 10 business days of that meeting reeeipt of the -e f.. al If the Committee fails to make a recommendation within this time period, the project shall proceed to the Planning Board for consideration without Committee review. [Added 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12-2005] D. Preliminary hearing requirement. Prior to and in addition to the public hearing required by § 280-131H,the Planning Board shall hold a separate preliminary hearing on the application with notice provided pursuant to Chapter 55,Notice of Public Hearings. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L.No. 12-2005] E. Affordable housing requirement, Every new residential site plan involving the creation of five or more dwelling units shall comply with the requirements of § 240-1013(2)(c) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land, pertaining to the provision of affordable housing, except in the Hamlet Density zgWny district the number of units to be set aside as moderate-income family dwelling units OMIFDU) is reduced from twenty_percent to ten percent. The requirements applicable to lots within a subdivision in that subsection shall apply equally to dwelling units in affected residential site plans. F. Park and recreation requirement. The provisions of§ 240-53 of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land,pertaining to the reservation of parkland in subdivisions, shall apply equally to residential site plans approved under this chapter, except the fee per lot therein shall herein be applicable to each dwelling unit. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L.No. 12-2005] G. Performance bond requirement. The provisions of Article IX, Bonds and Other Security, and Article X, Required Public Improvements; Inspections; Fees, of Chapter 240, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Southold, shall apply equally to residential site plans approved under this chapter. Pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10, § 280-137B, C and D herein supersedes and amends New York State Town Law § 274-a regarding site plan review to the extent that the Planning Board is empowered to impose affordable housing,park and recreation and performance bond requirements in the residential site plan review process. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12- 2005] H. Phased development. The Planning Board shall permit the phased development of residential properties that meet all other applicable standards, but shall condition the approval of the development of any permitted phase upon the maintenance of the undeveloped phases in their undeveloped condition, and shall prohibit all clearing and site preparation on such undeveloped phases until such time as development is permitted. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L.No. 12-2005] I. Planning.Board authority to vary requirements for setbacks, building length, separation and courts, and open space. [Amended 8-2-2005 by L.L. No. 12- 2005] (1) The Planning Board shall have the authority to reduce or amend yard setback requirements for individual buildings in favor of a perimeter setback for entire groups of buildings,to require that setbacks from interior streets be varied, and to.reduce or amend the requirements of §§ 280-107 and 280-108, and to reduce or amend requirements for 9ILen space. In making these decisions,the Planning Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant, as weighed against the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In making such determination, the Planning Board shall also consider: (a) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the amendment; (b) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other, than the sought variance; (c) Whether the variance is substantial; (d) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district;.and (e) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which shall be relevant to the decision but shall not necessarily preclude the proposed amendment or variance. (2) This provision supersedes and amends New York State Town Law §§ 267, 267-a, 267-b and 267-c insofar as these sections give such authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 3. Chapter 2.80 is further amended_ as follows: 280-4 Definitions BUFFER-- A natural or landscaped vegetated area along the boundaries of a_subdivision, visual screening through the growth of,dense lot or parcel, designed to provide natural vrsual vegetation,and ideally including evergreens. A new Attachment 6 is added to Chapter 280. .280 Attachment S Town of Southold Schedule for Open Space. Buffers and Setbacks for Cluster Development Residential Site Plans Size of Minimum open Minimum Minimum buffer proR= space set-aside setback inin feet 2 (acres) (as a percent of feet r total land area of ro'ect <15 20 30 20 15-39 30 35 25 >39 - I SO 115 150 'Perimeter setback from property line to all structures including driveways,patios &decks(includes the buffer area). Setback must be ve_L ted.Where open space is between the property line and the buildings, the buildings must be setback from ;the open space>a minimum of 10' as measured from the edge of structure to the nearest edge-of open space. The portion of the setback not encompassing-,.the buffer area is excluded from the open space calculation. 2 The buffer is located within the minimum setback. The buffer begins at the propegy line and extends in towards the interior of the parcel. The area of the buffer shall be included in open space calculations; At the discretion of the Planning Board,buffers can either be "non-disturbance"meaning the buffer area is left in its natural state and vegetation is not cut or removed or a buffer can be planted and landscaped according to a plan a roved by the Planning Board. Section 4. APPLICATION This local law shall apply to ALL [new and pending] applications for residential site plans in the Town of Southold. Section 5. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. WHEREAS there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York, on the 16'' day of December, 2008 a Local Law 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" and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard,NOW therefor be.it d RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law In Relation to Zoning Amendments to limit the size of dwellina units in Residential Site Plans in the Hamlet Density District in the Town of Southold"reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 1 2009 A Local Law 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". BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: Section 1. Enactment 1. Legislative Intent The Town of Southold's Comprehensive Plan, comprised of a series of planning initiatives undertaken over the past 20 years, establishes a group of fundamental goals that together provide the underpinnings of Southold's future vision. These goals are: 1. To preserve land, including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes. 2. To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets surrounding the countryside. 3. To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment;to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. 4. To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that supports a socio-economically diverse community. 5. To increase transportation efficiency and to create alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roads in the Town. The Town Board of the Town of Southold recognizes that the Iocal community can absorb a finite amount of development in order to achieve the goals set forth above. The development that occurs will result in irreversible changes to the land and the community. The Town of Southold is engaged in a process for comprehensive planning for the hamlets located in the Town, and in 2005 adopted the Town of Southold "Hamlet Study".. The Hamlet Study represents a unique exercise in Southold's long tradition of community planning as it was prepared by stakeholders from each hamlet representing a cross-section of the community. The primary goal of the Hamlet Study was to balance and accommodate an appropriate degree of growth in each hamlet. Since the adoption, the hamlet stakeholder process has been re-convened and the stakeholders are active in working with the Planning Board and staff to plan for the future of the hamlets. Presently, there are two applications for residential site plans before the Planning Board. These projects, if approved in their present form, would yield a significant change in the character of the hamlets in which they are proposed. The proposed project in Cutchogue contains the second-largest number of residential units proposed in a single development in the Town of Southold in recent memory. The impact of this development on the existing community and character of the hamlet is likely to be profound. The proposed project in Southold, while not as large in number of units, is large in scale and size of buildings. The Planning Department, faced.with these applications, advised the Town Board that the current residential site plan regulations 'are inadequate to deal with the proposed developments. The current residential site plan regulations lack residential design standards and cluster requirements.The Town Board, Planning Board,Planning staff, and Code Committee reviewed the high density residential zoning, including Hamlet Density (HD) and Hamlet Business (HB), and proposed amendments. A public hearing was held on the proposed Code amendments on September 23, 2008. Thereafter, the Town Board, Planning staff and Code Committee met on several occasions to review the public comments and further discuss appropriate amendments to the town code. These proposed amendments are designed to assure that residential development in the residential zones is consistent with the plans for the hamlet, is compatible in scale with the hamlet, and will comprehensively.meet the long-range goals of the Town. These amendments intend to assure a diversity of housing stock, promote moderate-cost dwellings, meet the needs of the existing population, and protect groundwater, open space and community character. The business zones that allow residential development have been removed from the proposal at this time, as the Planning Board, Town Board, and Code Committee have agreed that it is appropriate to examine the business zones and their uses comprehensively in the near future. This proposed law places restrictions on the size of dwelling units in the HD zoning district. This district is the densest residential zoning district in the Town, and such restriction will serve to achieve the aforementioned goals. Section 2. CODE AMENDMENTS Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold is amended as follows: §280-137 A (7). Maximum amount of building area and size of buildings in the Hamlet.DensijX Zoning District i. The maximum amount of total building area on a parcel shall be limited to the yield as determined by a yield plan multiplied by 1,200 s.f. Yield shall be determined pursuant to 240-l OB). The resulting total building area ma then be divided into structures. ii. At least 50%of the total number of units proposed must not be larger than 1,200 s.f livable floor area. The.,remainiM building area may be distributed among units of varvinL sizesprovided the total number of dwelling units built does not exceed the yield as determined by the yield plan. Each unit built may have mR to 400 s.f. incidental floor area in addition to the.livable floor area. . iii. Total building area for the„purpose of this section is the cumulative amount of livable floor area, as defined below, of all_dwellings. Total building_area does not include clubhouse or similar amenities structures. iv. Livable floor area per unit for the purpose of this section is the total area of all floors, including all spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit, with no deduction for hallways stairs, closets; thickness of interior walls, or other interior features. Livable floor„area per unit shall exclude incidental floor area. Incidental floor area shall include but not be limited to garages,,unenclosed porches and deck& and shall not include unfinished basement area and unfinished attic area. Section 3. APPLICATION This local law shall.apply to ALL (new and pending] applications for residential site plans in the Town of Southold. Section 4. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. i MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS � P.O. Box 1179 MARTIN H.SIDOR �Q Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: 1,E KENNETHJ.CREMERS co Town Hall Annex ARDS 54375ta a Route 25 GEORGE I]_SOLOMON D (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) JOSEPH L.TOwNSEND 'YevU ,� Southold,NY Telephone: 631765-1938 Faz: 631765-3136 PLANNING]BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i i November 23, 2009 Ms. Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region I Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook,New York 11790-3409 Re: Comments from the Town of Southold on the Northwind Village DEIS. Dear Ms. Aicher, Please accept for the record the following g comm n e is from the Town of Southold regarding the i Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the"Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and Development of Northwind Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County",New York. These comments were written and compiled by Heather Lanza,AICP, Southold Town Planning Director; and Mark Terry, Southold Town Principal Planner; with the input of the Southold Town Planning Board,the Southold Town Assessor's office, and the input and endorsement of the Southold Town Board. The comments are as follows: 1. Ge©Ian, Soils.Topography Impacts to wetlands by alteration of topography and soils. � 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. One soil boring(test hole B3)found groundwater only five feet from the surface(results from test holes dug March 20,2008), and moist soil at 22 inches and attributed to perched water. The soil maps r illustrates the Raynham soil type,the same that yielded high groundwater and moist soil near the surface, stretching in a band across the center of the property and also occupying the northeast 1 corner. 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. Specifically page 43 states that"the test holes revealed that in the areas of the proposed buildings, there are quality soil conditions that are well-suited to standard construction procedures"yet the table on the preceding page(Table 4)shoves that Raynham soils are "Very Limited"in their suitability for Dwellings with Basements due to their shallow depth to saturation, and Very limited for roadways due to the same reason and also due to frost action (roads will suffer many potholes and need repair often). 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 no where 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. i 2.Water Resources 2.1 Groundwater 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. f' 2.2 Water usage The DEIS states"no irrigation at this time"yet does not preclude the possibility of irrigation in the future. To assess the impact to 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 ho 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 2 of"lawn and landscaping"are proposed as part of this project. Lawns are water-dependent and are typically irrigated in communities such as this which will presumably have a Homeowners' Association own and maintain the grounds. j 2.4. Stormwater Runoff Section 4.2.4,Page 159 SWPPP and stormwater runoff discussion From the information submitted in the DEIS,we are not able to determine whether any potential f 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. Dust The DEIS and Preliminary SWPPP state that dust will be controlled during construction,but does not provide details about how it will be controlled. Depth of drywells Page xii. In the fourth paragraph 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? Dow 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. 2.5 Surface Water,Wetlands,Floodplains Impact to surface water and groundwater. i 3 C f r i i 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 sewage 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.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. E Impact to wetlands 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 filling 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 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 areas 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 hydrology 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). 3. Ecology Existing site conditions 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 are they located,and what size are they? Where are the various habitats Iocated?Wetlands have not been accurately identified or 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. Natural resource planning and wildlife habitat The project contradicts good planning for natural resource protection of environmentally sensitive areas by embedding a high density residential development in a nature reserve of forested wetlands. The DEIS asserts that the applicant minimizes the effects of the development on the surrounding sensitive landscape,yet fails to back up the assertions made. 4 E The DEIS fails to mention the effect of pets,especially cats allowed outdoors, on the wildlife population,and how this development will likely introduce this"subsidized predator"into places where cats either don't exist now,or exist in very small numbers.It is a known fact that cats kill birds,snakes,mice,rabbits and any other small animal 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 rage and the creation of ecological sinks are well-documented in scientific studies. Minimization of disturbed area of the site The pian shows disturbance to be outside the 100'wetlands buffer,however the DEIS states that "disturbance would be limited to an area within a 100-foot-wide buffer around the existing r 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 the mitigation discussions there is reference to revegetating disturbed areas in the 100' wetlands buffer area,yet no disturbance is shown on any plan. 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"j,yet this project is supposed to include families. Where will children play? It appears from the description that the only open areas will be the streets and the box turtle nesting site. 4 Wetlands Some wetlands have likely not been identified on the map. This was determined via site visits in November, 2009 by 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 thein 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 DEIS regarding impacts of development under current zoning in comparison to development under Village zoning. Breeding birds and other wildlife. 5 I 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. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the construction. 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. This entire discussion minimizing 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). Habitat degradation. Opening up the woodland with a development that protrudes into it will have a greater effect than 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. Incorrect reference to mitigation j Merely preserving existing habitat is not mitigation.The 6.£acres of habitat being lost to development cannot be mitigated by not developing the rest of the property. 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 identifying mature trees and their.size). 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. 6 I E Minimizing impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods The DEIS states that a row of conifer trees such as white pine or cedar will be planted along the E 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 104' buffer area?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 j 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 appears to be unrealistic, therefore the impact should not be considered mitigated. Box turtle nesting habitat 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 slowgrowing removing one breeding adult from a local population can have profound negative effects on the E future population. Box turtle nests are easily dug up by dogs,and cats will 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 E provision of a sandy area for box turtle nesting will likely not mitigate the destruction of the existing habitat. 4.Land Use, Zoning,Communi Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Community Character There will be a significant adverse impact on community character with the development of either the 128 unit proposed action or one of the two alternatives. The plans as submitted do little or nothing to mitigate this impact.The DEIS,in 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 over two miles away. The immediate neighborhood consists of nature preserve and single family homes on lots averaging nearly 2 acres (70,000 s.f.)per house.Most of the houses in the neighborhood are set 7 i i hundreds of feet from the road and are screened from view by vegetation. 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. The high density developments closest to the subject property are mostly seasonal resort uses associated with accessibility to beaches and the Long Island Sound and are dissimilar to the t reason.Further,the buildings at Cliffside just to the west across the I" proposed action for that gs ,,l street from the subject property,are set back over 80- 100 feet from the road,and there is some screening by vegetated berms. The Sunset Motel is also nearby,and the buildings are 144 feet ' from the road. San Simeon,across the street from Cliffside, is set back 80 feet from the road and the building along the front is only one story. Surrounding the subject property on three sides is a nature preserve which stretches out over a i large area of preserved land.This project is embedded within,and effectively isolated by this nature preserve. 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 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'and, if subdivided,would be required to cluster the lots and i screen the houses from the road with a vegetated buffer.The wetland complex associated with the subject property is shown as continuing onto this property,which mightfurther limit the number of homes that could be sited next door,and thus widening the gap of inconsistency with the community character. j The campground to the east is set well back from the road and is not visible.A high density development a mile east(Pheasant Run)is also set well back from the road with a thick natural buffer effectively screening it from sight. Visual impact The DEIS does not contain enough information to show that the significant adverse impact i 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 visual impact analysis 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 S approach from the east and west, both close up,and from farther away. Otherwise this adverse i impact must be considered as remaining a significant adverse impact that has not been mitigated. The Final Scope,in Section 4.6,requires that the DEIS include a visual impact assessment pursuant to procedure contained in the DEC 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 clone. Analysis of the Action's Consistency with Comprehensive.Plan nin2 Efforts/Studies Undertaken by the Town of Southold. There is likely not one document.comprising the Comprehensive Plan of Southold with which this project could be found to be truly consistent. The DEIS contains out-of-context snippets of various town land use plans that might appear to make the project consistent,but a more thorough reading of the land use plans will prove the inconsistencies dominate. Examples of such inconsistencies are set forth in greater detail below. z Town of Southold Scenic Corridor Management Plan 2001 i This parcel is located within 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 of intense visible development to the west,which is uncharacteristic of the majority of the 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 close 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. Smart growth planning concept. The DEIS makes claims that"Smart Growth"principles are guiding"many aspects"of this ` proposed action. It should be noted that the location of this 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. 9 Suffolk County Smart Growth Principles The DEIS states that this proposed development supports Suffolk County's Smart Growth principles,and further goes on to state that many LEED Neighborhood Certification criteria will be met. Section 4.4.1.,on page 177 runs through the criteria the project claims to meet; Site location within a quarter mile of community resources.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 j 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/a mile. This is located over two miles from the center of Greenport and its mass transit opportunities and other amenities such as grocery stares,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 i intimidating undertaking with traffic commonly moving very fast(60 mph)on this stretch of road. Affordable Housing and the lack of Benefit of an annexation 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 doesn't 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 ' 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 Dousing,just not in that location at that density. 10 Analysis of the Action's Consistency with the Policies of the Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LW._RP On recommendation of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Coordinator,the Town Board disagrees with the claim made in Volume 1 of 2: Text and Appendices A-G,page 220 indicating that the proposed action is consistent with the proposed policy. LWRP Policy 1, Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, snakes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The policy 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 whale maintaining and building on its traditional economic base. The primary components of the desired development pattern are:strengthening the hamlets as centers of activity,maintaining a clear sense of separation, between hamlet centers and the countryside (emphasis added), encouraging water-dependent uses to concentrate in existing locations of maritime activity, enhancing stable residential areas, and preserving agriculture, open space and environmentally sensitive coastal resources. Development that does not reinforce the traditional land use pattern of the Town of Southold would result in a loss of the community and landscape character of Southold. Further,the Town's "Master Plan Update" encourages residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets "in order to preserve and enhance the historic and cultural centers of the community, to support existing commercial centers, to provide locations for moderately ,priced housing and to encourage efficient and effective provision of communityfaeilities and services"(Town of Southold Planning Board, 1985,pS). 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. Unsafe pedestrian use of the road shoulder poses an unacceptable level of risk,due to high traffic speed,limited line of site,narrow road shoulders and a high occurrence of wetlands that do not allow for space to walk off the pavement(which forces pedestrians closer to travel lanes). Correspondingly,the isolated location also promotes higher vehicle dependency and consequently greater vehicle trips for residents with vehicles. 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. it � . County Route 48 (a designated New York State Scenic Byway)presently functions as a bypass to the more congested State Route 25, which meanders along the south side of the Town. The issues of concern. along CR 48 include the loss of agricultural land and open space to residential development and the intensification of strip commercial development in the business zones that are capable of eroding the scenic qualities important to the community. 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 assessed. Based upon the above,the proposed action does not strengthen the hamlet as a center of activity to maintain a clear sense of separation between the hamlet center and the countryside. Rather, the proposal conflicts with the Town Comprehensive Plan goals that require high density residential development to be located within the Hamlet Centers. Therefore,the proposed action does not meet the above stated Policy. L int P Policy 3.1 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. A_ Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. K Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, opera space and natural resources. 3 I. .Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landfor ms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. 2. Group or orient structures during site design to preserve open space and provide visual organization. 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: a. introduction of intrusive artificial light sources b. fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas The proposed action is located in Moores 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 the above stated policies. 12 f LWRPPolicy S.4 Limit the potential for adverse impacts of watershed development on water quality and quantity. I A. Protect water quality by ensuring that proposed expansion or intensification of existing watershed development results in: 2. Maintenance of natural characteristics of drainage systems, and i B. Limit the individual impacts associated with development to prevent cumulative water quality impacts which would lead to a failure to meet water quality standards. 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. LWRPPolicy 5.5 .Protect and conserve the quality and quantity ofpotable water. A. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting, discouraging or prohibiting land use practices that are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies. B. Prevent depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries, through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use and withdrawals, and by allowing for recharge of potable aquifers. j j C. Limit cumulative impact of development on groundwater recharge areas to ensure replenishment of potable groundwater supplies. It is unclear whether the proposed action is consistent with the policy above due to the lack of clarity in the analysis on the issue of stormwater pollution prevention, drainage, landscaping and irrigation in the DEIS. LWRP Policy 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold I The proposed action is inconsistent with this policy as discussed. See below, A. Avoid adverse changes to the.Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 13 'I 1. Physical loss of ecological components 2. Degradation of ecological components 3. Functional loss of ecological components 1 There will be physical loss of ecological components, and will likely be degradation of adjacent ecological components and possible functional loss of wetlands P. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. � I 3. Avoid fragmentation of'ecologicat communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. 4. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. S. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. 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 f adequately addressed in the DEIS L"P Policy 6.2 Protect and restore Sign xi ant Coastal Fist and Wildlife Habitats The subject parcel is nearly surrounded by a NYSDOS Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat ,Area recognizing the ecological significance of the area.. The complete Coastal Fish and Wildlife Assessment Form is attached. This policy has not been sufficiently addressed in the document. The proposed action may be inconsistent with this policy. We cannot be certain until j a habitat impairment test has been conducted as described in the LWRP in this section. L#WP Policy6.3 Protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. This policy has not been adequately addressed within the DEIS and therefore consistency with F the LWRP cannot be determined. On October 29,2009 Planning Board staff conducted a field inspection of SCTM#i 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,PC and dated May 13, 14 I 2009. The field inspection was performed in conjunction with the review of the Draft Environmental hn act Statement Proposed Annexation By The Village of Greenport and Develo znent ofNorthwind VillggL Town of Southo]SL Suffolk Coun 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. The emergent vegetative species common.reed(phragmites spp.)occurs on the northeast area of the parcel. This area is not depicted on the plat. Common Reed is a wetland indicator species for freshwater wetlands pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the Southold Town Code definition; Wetland(Freshwater). reekanNe .Qdeecamfs :: mleal.19- W-Ii as ? -Wc PMA k Figure 1. Kace LI,LLC area of parcel in common reed;close up(white arrow). Note that aerial photograph analysis suggests that this area may be directly connected to a larger hardwood(predominately red maple(Acer rubrurn))wetland system that occurs east,west(along County Route 48)and south.The areas mentioned correlate with the Raynham loam soil series with seasonal high water table 6"to 18"below the surface. Cdnse uentl the_opabilily of the progosed action to meet or further the below listed Mlicies cannot be accurately assessed, It is recommended that the a licant amend the-plans to show the correct wetland area and then address the below policies and sub-policies. Wetlands within the Town of Southold are critical natural resources that provide benefits including: open space, habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality enhancement, flooding and erosion protection, scenic value, and opportunities for environmental education. Over the years, many wetland areas have been lost or impaired by degradation or functional loss. Wetlands and their benefits are also dependent upon the condition of adjacent lands which provide buffers between wetlands and surrounding uses. Large areas of adjacent lands that previously provided a buffer for wetlands have been physically lost to development or functionally lost through 15 changes in land use, including inappropriate or incompatible landscaping. These losses and impairments to the wetlands and their functions cumulatively have impacted the Town of Southold's ecosystem. 1 The Town recognizes the value of wetlands to its ecosystem, its economy and its aesthetic character. It also reco izes that federal and state rejaulations conceM.n wetlands do not full cover local conditions and in some cases are less restrictive than local re lations. The Town Board of Trustees has local expertise in the management of the Town's wetlands and in this capacity espouses a "no net loss" of wetlands policy, as espoused by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. LWRP Policy 6.4. Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological communities. This policy has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS. General consistency,with overall Town Comprehensive Plan As shown above,the action is not consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Community Services and Utilities General comments on the tax base of the Village and the Town. 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 r 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 reexamined,and cannot be assumed to be mitigated by property taxes. 5.1 Public Schools The full potential significant.adverse impact to the schools was outlined as to numbers of student, but not analyzed in terms of cost versus taxes,nor mitigated.The DEIS claims minimal impact based on the assumption that most of the children that will attend school from this development are already in the school district.They provide no evidence to support this assumption. A true assessment of the impact to the public school roust be conducted to determine � whether the adverse impact is significant,and whether it has been mitigated. , 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 16 E 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 current Town zoning. 5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service i 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 increased property tax will cover increased demand for services,yet it E is common knowledge that residential development results in a net loss to municipal revenue due to the higher demand on services. A true analysis of the cost 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. 5.3 Police Protection 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 tights and neighbors can replace police officers is not supported by any evidence. Also, all buildings must meet New York Building and Fire Codes,not just those wishing to have to call the police less often. 5.4 Water Supply i 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). 5.5 Sewage Disposal 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 Treatement Plant,and pay a fee to do so. This provides a financial bonus to the Village they would not receive if the property were j annexed. ! 5.8 Recreation 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 17 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. All together,the DEIS has not sufficiently characterized or quantified the potential significant j adverse impacts to community services,thus it cannot be determined whether those impacts have j I been mitigated. i 6.Transportation Traffic Safety 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 j 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,Cliffside Resort,which provides transient lodging,was completed to the west of the proposed project,and open for business in Enid to late summer,2005.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 maj or-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 isn't a safe sight distance if people cars will have to hit their brakes when people pull out.Traffic calming or road reconfiguration for this now busy comer/hill would likely be better mitigation than a simple turning lane and trimming some vegetation. 1 18 i i I Traffic generation I 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 roust be included in any traffic analysis. Parking There is not enough parking provided on site and no other place 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 travelling fast(the speed limit is 50mph),and is not new mass transit(the nearest E 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. I Alternate Transportation. Section 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation 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. 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 matey cars traveling 60 mph speeding past for almost a mile before reaching the nearest sidewalk on Moores Lane.From there it is well over a mile to the Village center. 19 i i 7. Cultural Resources The archeological study contains soil information(soil map)that does not appear to match with the soil analyses done elsewhere in the DEIS. i S. Cumulative Im acts The DEIS states that there will be no impact to surface water,yet completely ignores the fact that the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment plant effluent empties into the Long Island Sound. E 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. While the loss of forested habitat to the Moores Woods is less than the 17 acres identified in the Scope,the mitigation proposed(not clearing the wetlands and wetland buffer),is not really mitigation for the forest that is being lost. See earlier discussion on this topic. Othergeneral comments on the DEIS and proposed development. EAR i The Environmental Assessment Form is incomplete—the number of acres being cleared,habitat types etc. Alternatives and assessment of impacts with and without annexation. i The alternatives were poorly designed for this environmental assessment and are not meaningful for several reasons.First,both development alternatives are very similar to the proposed action in their layout,design,and lot coverage by buildings and pavement. #of units #buildings #parking spaces Proposed action 128 23 192 Alternative design 108 19 163 Alt. current zoning 50 23 125 Neither alternative 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 numbers of parking spaces. This environmental assessment should analyze alternatives more in keeping with the community character and zoning that surrounds this parcel on all sides.The current zoning is the Village parkland zoning„and the Town's Residential-80 zoning. An alternative demonstrating the 20 i 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 E 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. 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—50 units. Second,the alternative for current zoning is a valid alternative,but must be corrected and assessed based on an accurate reading of the Town Code to be meaningful. Alternative. 108 units. i This 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. Alternative: Current Town zoning development 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. j In addition to the question of yield,the proposed alternative of developing the property under current town code does not meet the Town's.code for HD zoned property(§ 280-137 A(7)). There is a maximum floor area allowed based on yield and a multiplier. As an example, if the yield was 50(again we can't be certain without a yield map that meets Town Code),under the new code the maximum floor area would be 50 units x 1,200 square feet,equaling 6.0,000 s.f The DEIS alternative for development under current town zoning proposes 50 units at 2,520 s.f each,which would exceed the 60,000 s.f maximum floor area. The code provides the option to j build 2,520 s.f units,only at a lower density. In this example,for the units to be 2,520 square feet each,there could only be 23 of them(60,000 s.f.max floor area=2,520 s.f per unit w 23 ; units).Again,this is all based on an assumption of yield that hasn't been demonstrated. Southold Town Code § 280-137 A(6)requires that this proposed development be clustered,with thirty percent of the buildable lands to be Dept open(this thirty percent would be calculated using . the buildable lands only(excluding the wetlands).The alternative as shown may meet the requirement;however it is not clear from the plan if it does. The pians should clearly state the 21 area of wetlands,the area of buffer,and the area of"open space",as well as the total area of "buildable lands." There also is some confusion in the DEIS over whether this alternative is to be subdivided into lots, or kept as a homeowners association and the units sold as condominiums.The plan submitted shows attached units and the parcel remaining as one lot. This is the only way that attached housing as proposed could be developed. The proposed alternative would have similar ownership to the proposed action of 128 units.The statements on pg.277 indicating it will be more difficult to control the ecological impacts because of the ownership pattern is erroneous and should be corrected. All other statements making the assumption that this altemative would involve individual homeowners with no common area should be corrected. I The plan incorrectly assumes that 10%of the units would be affordable,where the Town Code requires p y uires twenty percent and the must remain affordable forever. The alternative should include the 20%affordable required by the Town Code,or analyze the effects of the partial buyout being suggested on the plan.The buyout value has been set by the Town at$203;600 per affordable unit not built. if this alternative did yield 50 units,and 10%were built as affordable,the remaining five units would have to be"bough out"by the applicant.This would yield the town's affordable housing fund over a million dollars,and would be used to provide affordable housing opportunities elsewhere in the Town. I i The proposed site plan shows an unsafe and unrealistic road and parking scheme. Southold Town e Code requires a minimum paved area width for roads of 28 feet. The roads bend at sharp angles and turning radius' may not meet the standards set forth in Town Code(without those radius' shown on the plan,we can't be certain). Parking spaces shown on sharp turns are unsafe.The plan also shows very little open area for yards or outdoor recreation. The alternatives analysis provide no useful comparison to feasible alternate uses of the property, including the current zoning, so no conclusion can be made in the findings about the impacts of j those alternatives except that the 108 unit alternative is probably similar to those of the proposed action and the"current town zoning"alternative was not correct and thus does not accurately present the potential impacts. Yield("as-of-right") 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 HD 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 22 I 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. The case for annexation(public benefit of) i 1. 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. i. Study after study has shown that residential development costs municipalities more than they receive in taxes. E Page 19 Inaccuracies. LEED Criteria. i 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. Conclusion The DEIS does not address the impacts adequately,nor does it contain proposals for adequate I mitigation for the impacts that are acknowledged. The document is missing some important information required in the Final Scope and necessary to determine the impact and possible mitigation,one example being the Visual Impact Analysis.There are inaccuracies in the document that must be corrected to be able to determine the impacts and whether they've been mitigated. Last,the DEIS contains and inaccurate and insufficient analysis of alternatives, E F Please feel free to contact us at(631)765-1938 with any questions. Sincerely, i PI ther Lata,AICP Town Planning Director Encl. 23 I COASTAL FISH&WILDLIFE HABI=TAT ASSESSMENT FORM j Name of Area: Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain Counties: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7W Quadrangle(s): Southold,NY,and Greenport,NY Designated: October 15,2005 I Assessment Criteria Score Ecosystem Rarity(ER)—the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical,structural,and chemical features supporting this community. i ER assessment: One of the largest saltwater/freshwater wetland complexes on Long Island;rare in the coastal lowlands ecological subregion. 16 Species Vulnerability(SV)—the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. (E =Endangered,T=Threatened,SC=Special concern) SV assessment:Piping plover(E,T-Fed),least tern(T),and common tern(T)use the Pipes Cove area for foraging and loafing,but extent of use not well documented. 0 Human Use(HU)—the conduct of significant,demonstrable commercial,recreational,or educational wildlife-related human uses,either consumptive or non-consumptive,in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment:Recreational clamming,kayaking,boatingand fishing significant at the county level. 4 Population Level (PL)—the concentration of a species in the area during its normal,. recurring period of occurrence,regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. I PL assessment:No unusual concentrations of any species of fish or wildlife in the area, 0 Replaceability(R)—ability to replace the area, either on or off site,with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife,for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment:Irreplaceable. 1.2 Habitat Index=[ER+SV+HU+PL]=20 Significance=HI x R=24 Page 1 of 6 i NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moores Drain habitat is located on Long Island's North Fork,between Hashamomuck Pond and the Village of Greenport in the Town of Southold and. Village of i Greenport,Suffolk County(7.5'Quadrangles: Southold,NY,and Greenport,NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 570 acres in size, and is comprised of several habitat types, including a portion of the shallow waters of Pipes Cove, the tidal creeks and marshes associated with Pipes Creek and Pipes Cove Creek,the freshwater swamps of the Arshmonaque wetlands and the Moore's Drain basin,open grasslands,and upland woods. Moore's Woods,which lies north of State Route 25,is protected land owned by the Village of Greenport. The Arshamanaque Wetlands between Chapel Lane and Albertson Lane is under town or county ownership, and is managed as protected open space lands. The habitat is bounded by Middle Road on the north,Albertson Lane and Kerwin Boulevard on the west,Pipes Cove and State Route 25 on the south,and the residential areas of the Village of Greenport to the east. Water depths in the portion of Pipes Cove and associated creeks within the habitat are less than three feet at mean low water. The habitat complex is bordered by light and dense residential development,woodlands,and scattered commercial sites. The Arshamanaque Wetlands and Moore's Woods portions of this habitat both provide habitat for swamp cottonwood(Populus heterophylla), a species designated as rare in New York State by the New York Natural Heritage Program. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat contains one of the largest tidal/freshwater wetland j complexes on Long Island,and is unusual within the coastal lowlands subregion. This habitat area, including its diversity ofupland ecological communities, is important to fish and wildlife throughout the year. Suitable nesting habitat for common tern(T)and least tern(T)is available on the maritime beaches along Pipes Cove,but nesting by these species has not been well documented. However, during a survey in 2000,six least terns(T)were observed on the beach,and two common terns(T) were seen feeding in the waters of Pipes Cove. A 1995 record shows that 60 least tern (T) I individuals were observed in the vicinity of the beach at Pipes Cove,with no nesting documented. Pipes Cove is a valuable waterfowl wintering area(November-March)on the north shore,providing shallow water habitat for red-breasted merganser,bufflehead,and American black duck,with smaller concentrations of greater and/or lesser scaup, American widgeon,common goldeneye, and long- tailed ongtailed.duck, Waterfowl use of the bay during winter is influenced in part by the extent of ice cover each year. Page 2 of 6 1 � f E The habitat has long been recognized as a critical environmental area. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (in partnership with The Nature Conservancy) and the Town of Southold recently acquired approximately 140 acres of tidal, brackish, and freshwater wetlands ' between the Arshamanaque Wetlands and Pipes Cove. Despite the presence of mosquito ditches and other disturbances,tidal wetlands(and the tidal creeks)within the area of acquisition are of a high quality nature. j Pipes Cove provides important birdwatching, hiking, nature study, environmental interpretation, kayaking, and boating opportunities for the public. Recent acquisitions of lands within the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain habitat area may contribute to the importance of the area to recreationists. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in the Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's 1 Drain habitat would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. Degradation of water quality in the creek, or to its water sources, from chemical contamination (including food chain effects),oil spills,excessive turbidity,and waste disposal(including vessel wastes)would adversely affect all fish and wildlife. Efforts should be made to improve water quality,including the control and reduction of discharges from vessels and upland sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to further reduce water quality impairment from upland sources. Any expansion of fishing,small boat use,and educational activities should be compatible with the preservation ofnatural habitats.Alteration of tidal patterns in Pipes Cove and associated tidal creeks would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms,and to allow for dredged material placement when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Unregulated dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental,but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Existing andproposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development,may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas,through loss of tidal connection,ditching,excavation, or filling,would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species,through a variety of means,may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. The fish and wildlife resources of the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain area could be affected by modification of public access to and/or use of the areas. Habitat modifications which substantially change the natural character of the area,such as residential,commercial,or industrial developments could have a significant impact on many wildlife species in the area. Page 3 of 6 i I Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected,shallow waters of the cove and tidal creeks ofthis area could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled(e.g.,no-wake zones, speed zones,zones of exclusion)in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and wintering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a i significant impact on juvenile(and,in some cases,adult)fish concentrations,through impingement or entrainment. 1 HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review,then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. ` The specific habitat impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would: , s destroy the habitat; or, f • significantly impair the viability of a habitat. i Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance;or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology,or increases in runoff,erosion,sedimentation,or pollutants. j Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources(e.g.,food,shelter,living space)or change in environmental conditions(e.g.,temperature,substrate,salinity)beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity,changes in community structure(food chain relationships; species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and j mortality. The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all,but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or has the potential to support a restored population,where practical. Either the loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or ars increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as Page 4 of 6 j an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit(a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors,however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit,but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for i the species. The range of parameters which should be considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but are not limited to the following: 1. physical parameters such as living space, circulation, flushing rates,tidal amplitude, turbidity,water temperature,depth(including loss of littoral zone),morphology,substrate type,vegetation,structure,erosion and sedimentation rates; 2. biological parameters such as community structure_, food chain relationships, species F diversity, predatorlprey relationships,population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic features,behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and, 3. chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity,dissolved solids, nutrients,organics,salinity,and pollutants(heavy metals,toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significantly impair the habitat are listed in the Impact Assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. 1 i I I Page 5 of 6 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit Office of Ecology NYS Department of State Suffolk County Dept. Of Health Services Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Environmental Management 41 State Street County Center Albany,NY'12231 Riverhead,NY 11901 Phone: (518)474-6000 Phone: (631)852-2077 NYSDEC—Region 1 Bureau of Marine Resources State University of New York,Building 40 NYSDEC Stony Brook,NY 11790-2356 205 N.Belle Meade Road, Suite I Phone: (631)444-0354 East Setauket,NY 11733 Phone:(631)4440430 Town of Southold Town Hall New York Natural Heritage Program 53095 Main Road 625 Broadway,5`h Floor P.O. Box 1179 Albany,.NY 12233-4757 Southold,NY 11971 Phone: (518)402-8935 Phone: (631)765-1801 Paul Stoutenburgh Town of Southold Trustees 4015 Skunk Lane Town Hall Cutchogue,NY 11935 53095 Main Road Phone: (631)734-6605 Southold,NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Page 6 of 6 a !-' ItNO t MMA- ?.. �, ;.. ti ! " . ' 0 `• NEW— lues ' • f • Il a f,=�, E s • s e 1 i • ! s •t E• '41ls -_ rr rel r r WkYOR { CLERK DAVID DAVID NYCE � v 0 SYLVIA LAZZARI PIRILLO ' Ext.215 -ECL 2116 TRUSTEES TRCASURER SUSAN PISANQ GEORGE HUBHAR1l:JR. DFI'UTY MAYOR /`� EXL 317 Al1CHAELOSINSKI MARY BESS PHILLIPS �-PO� Tee(631)477.0348 CHR1S11NA KEMPNER r-M.(631)477-1877 336tF11RO STREET GREENPORT.NEW YORK 1944 December 11,2009 DEC 1"4,.2009 Sheri Aicher Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region I Office E° VVE-D Stony Brook University 50 Circle Road DEC , Stony Brook,NV 11790 ' ADMINISTRATION Re: Comments by the Village of Greenport REGION I Regarding the KACE LI LLC DEIS Dear Ms.Aicher: The Village of Greenport hereby submits this letter and the attached Exhibits as its comments regarding the KACE LI LLC("KACE")Draft Environmental Impact Statement(the"DEIS"or the"KACE DEIS"). The underlying petition(the"Annnexation Petition7)for the annexation of a certain area of the unincorporated territory of the Town of Southold(the"subject property") was filed with the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold in July,2005. After conducting the required public hearing the Village of Greenport approved the Annexation Petition and the Town of Southold denied the Annexation Petition. There was no environmental impact statement submitted with the Annexation Petition and in litigation regarding the Annexation.Petition that was commenced and is still pending in the Appellate Division of the State ofNew York the Village of Greenport,KALE LI LLC,the Town of Southold and the Department of Environmental Conservation(the"DEC") stipulated that-the DEC would serve as lead agency with respect to SEQRA and this project,and that the applicant KACE would prepare and submit a draft environmental impact statement. The DEIS that is reviewed in this proceeding was submitted by DACE to the DEC as lead agency in accordance with that agreement and as a result of the Annexation Petition and the subsequent litigation. 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 this project. A copy of the transcript of the November 12, 2009 hearing that was conducted by the Village of Greenport is attached as Exhibit A to this letter to be included in the Village of Greenport comments on the KACE DEIS. The Village of Greenport has limited planning resources with regard to both staffing and budgeting and for that reason the Village is unable to perform an extensive review with its own staff of a draft environmental impact statement for a project with the scope and complexity the exists with the proposed annexation. The Village of Greenport therefore retained the services of professional consultants with several different areas of expertise to review the DEIS on behalf of the Village of Greenport. The reports that were produced by those professionals are attached as Exhibits to this letter. The Village of Greenport's comments regarding the DEIS consist of this letter,the transcript of the November 12, 2009 Public Hearing, and the attached reports of the professional consultants as follows: Exhibit A - November 12, 2009, Village of Greenport Public Hearing transcript Exhibit B November 24, 2009 report by Schneider Engineering regarding the impacts of the proposed annexation on traffic, Exhibit C_ November 25, 2009 report by Greenman Pederson, Inc. regarding the environmental impacts and zoning issues of the proposed annexation; Exhibit D. December 2, 2009 report from William Frietag, CPA of BST regarding the financial impacts of the proposed annexation on the operations of the Greenport Electric Utility Company, Exhibit E. December 4, 2009 report from Jack Naylor, P.E., Greenport Village Engineer, regarding the cost of the infrastructure that is necessary to service the new electric customers that will be created by the proposed annexation and also the financial impact of the proposed annexation on the Greenport Village sewer system. Exhibit F. December 11, 2009 letter from Thomas Rudebush, Esq. of Duncan Weinberg, et. al,regarding the legal issues involved with the Village of Greenport providing electric utility service to the units that are developed after the proposed annexation Exhibit G. November 23, 2009, Report by the Town of Southold Planning Department. 2 Exhibit H 2005 Testimony of Dr. Charles Kozora, Former Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District at the first public hearing on the Annexation Petition in 2005 (provided under separate cover). BASIS OF SEQRA REVIEW: The basis of the requirement to perform this SEQRA review and to review the KACE DEIS was the Annexation Petition that was submitted by KACE in July 2005. The July,2005 Annexation Petition petitioned the Village of Greenport to annex the subject property which was a portion of the unincorporated Town of Southold into the territory of the Village of Greenport and for the Town of Southold to approve that annexation. As stated above,the KACE DEIS was submitted in accordance with an agreement by the Village of Greenport, the Town of Southold, KACE LI LLC and the DEC as parties to litigation that is pending before the Appellate Division of the Second Department regarding the Annexation Petition. As noted on page ii of the DEIS, the basic procedural requirement for the annexation of territory from the jurisdiction of one local government to the jurisdiction of another local government is the consent of the governing board of each of the involved local governments. The considerations of a governing board with respect to a petition for annexation are defined under the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, which include but are not limited to, (a) Those considerations that are relating to the effects of the proposed annexation upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) The consideration of the effects of the proposed annexation on the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c) The consideration of the effects of the proposed annexation on the remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory to be annexed is presently situated, and (d) The consideration of the effects of the proposed annexation on any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation,fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall public interest. This letter is structured to respond to each prong of this test as set forth in the four sections above. 3 A. CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE RELATING TO THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION UPON THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, Threatened species 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 that 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. The destruction of habitat in woodlands that were converted into housing, commercial, and other surburban sprawl has reduced the range of box turtles and other threatened species on Eastern Long Island. Remaining land is often fragmented with roads and housing projects, breaking up the animals' habitat. As they try to cross manmade additions,turtles are often killed by cars, animals, and other dangers_ 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. 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. Peconic Estuary Program 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 Peconic Estuary Program has several ongoing efforts, one of which is the revitalization of the historic spawning habitat of alewives_ Alewives are a salt water fish that migrates to fresh water ponos via streams to spawn. One of the spawning habits 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. 4 Wetlands, Forest_and Habitat 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 of 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 projects 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. Traffic 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 date 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. Smart Growth Concept 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. 5 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 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. R. THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO WHICH THE TERRITORY IS PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED Impact on Greenport Village Utilities Green ort Electric Utili The Village of Greenport presently provides electric utility service to all of the properties that are presently located inside the Village of Greenport and the DEIS claims that a benefit of the project will be access to the Greenport Village utilities. 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 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 properly indicated in the KACE DEIS. The Village of Greenport has received two reports on the impact of the annexation and project on the costs and rates of the Greenport Electric Utility if the annexation occurs, the property is developed and service is provided to the units that are in the subject property. The first of these is a report by William Freitag,Exhibit D, which indicates that 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. The Village also received a report from Jack Naylor, P.E., Exhibit E,however, which indicates that there will be 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 6 that was not reflected in the Frietag 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 and its rates if the Village of Greenport is approved to provide the service to the development on the subject property on annexation. Greenport Sewer Service The Village Greenport 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. 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 fo 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. The Village of Greenport currently has other areas in which the cost of providing sewer service is prohibitive (such as a significant area that is known as Sandy Beach) and therefore the Village of Greenport has not included the area in its sewer system. The existence of this area in the Village in which the Village does not provide sewer service and is not mandated to provide service indicates that a major assumption of the DEIS and the project is incorrect and the DEIS must be amended to reflect accurate information on this point. Should the Village of Greenport make infrastructure investment to extend sewer service to Sandy Beach area would be a priority location for due to the improved environmental benefits (Sandy Beach cesspools are located along the one of the Peconic Estuary priority impaired water bodies). 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. 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 7 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. Loss of Sewer Hook-Up Fee Revenues 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 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. Burden on Local Government 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 of 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. 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 fled with the Village regarding this project if the property is annexed into the Village prior to its development. The Village of Greenport presently has approximately about 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 ten percent, placing a significant burden on the Village building and planning departments. The only manner in which the DEIS can address the burden on the local government, that is the Village of Greenport is for the DEIS to be amended to perform a full review of the various financial and other impacts that will be realized by the development of the subject property if it is annexed into the Village because the costs to the Village of Greenport in the consultant fees, staffing, administrative and overhead costs, legal and professional fees, and hearing and meeting 8 costs, may in fact significantly outweigh any increase in revenue that will be generated by the annexation and development. lm act an Fire and Emer enc Services The subject property is presently located in an area of the unincorporated area of the Town of Southold which is known as the Town of Southold East/West Fire Protection District. The Village of Greenport provides fire and ambulance protection to the area in the East/West Fire Protection District under a contractual arrangement with the Town of Southold. The development of the subject property will increase the number of calls to which the Greenport Fire Department is required to respond. In the event that the development of the subject property is done while the property is part of the unincorporated area of the Town of Southold, the development will increase the number of fire and ambulance calls that the Greenport Fire Department responds to in the East West Fire Protection District. 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. This potential for an increase in the amount billed to the Town of Southold if the subject property isnot located in the Village of Greenport exists because the contractual consideration 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 far 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 of property 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 tax payers 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 Village of 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. 9 Zoning Imbedded in the issue and therefore the Village of Greenport's 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 or in this matter. The Village of Greenport maintains independent jurisdiction and view of its ability to determine the density, wetlands 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. Cost of Village Services 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 their project, but at a different cost than that after annexation or if provided by 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 the annexation is to save the developer money at the Village's expense can be considered. C. THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON THE REMAINING AREA OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTS IN WHICH TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED IS PRESENTLY SITUATED The impacts of the annexation on the Town of Southold are addressed in the report that was produced by the Planning Department of the Town of Southold (Exhibit Q). 10 D. THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON ANY SCHOOL FIRE DISTRICT OR OTHER DISTRICT CORPORATION,PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,FIRE ALARM DISTRICT OR TOWN OR COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SITUATED WHOLLY OR PARTLY IN SUCH TERRITORY,FIND THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO BE IN THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST The Green ort School District The former Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District,Dr. Charles Kozora, appeared at the first public hearing an 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 comments as to the costs of increased staffing and other resources 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. The Southold Town East West Fire Protection District 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. Village of Greenport Support for the Project 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 been no support 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 respectlo this point. Sincerely, Hon.Davi Nyce, ayor lI Exhibit A November 12, 200% Village of Greenport Public Hearing transcript IIS. 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 3 4 PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENT 5 PURSUANT TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 6 REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) 7 REGARDING 8 THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT OF APPROXIMATELY 17 . 2 ACRES 9 OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 1.0 OF A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT KNOWN AS NORTHWIND VILLAGE 11 12 Third Street Firehouse Greenport, New York 13 7 14 November 12, 2009 15 6 : 00 p .m. 16 17 16 BEFORE : 19 DAVID NYCE, Mayor 20 21 22 REPORTED BY : 23 MARIA GRILLO, Court Reporter/Notary Public 24 25 THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 1 2 2 B O A R D M E M B E R S : 3 4 CHRISTINA KEMPNER, Trustee 5 GEORGE HUBBARD, JR. , Trustee 6 MICHAEL OSINSIKI, Trustee 7 MARY BESS PHILLIPS, Trustee 8 JOSEPH PROKOP, Village Attorney 9 SYLVIA PIRILLO, Village Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THERESA PAPE — COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 J (631) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 3 2 MAYOR NYCE: It being 6 : 08 p .m. , I 3 will call this meeting to order and we 4 will now stand for the Fledge of 5 Allegiance . 6 (Pledge of Allegiance recited) 7 MAYOR NYCE: I would like to start 8 by welcoming everyone tonight . I would 9 like to lay out some ground rules and 14 explain what we are here to do . 11 We are here tonight to accept 12 public comment on the draft of the 13 Environmental Impact Study as presented 14 by the Northwind Village project, 15 KACE LI , LLC, the proposed annexation of 16 that property into the Village. Our 17 purpose tonight is to take public 1s comment on that and to include those 19 comments, with our comments, to the DEC 20 which is due by the 34th of this month_ 21 We are here to take comments from 22 the public_ The Board will not be 23 offering comments and the applicants 24 will not be offering comments . We are 25 here to accept comments from the public. THERESA PAPE -- COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 (631) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 4 2 I would like people to limit their 3 comments to ten minutes . I am assuming 4 most people will be under that, but if 5 you need more time, time will be 6 granted. Your comments should be kept 7 to the scope of the Draft Environmental 8 Impact Study. 9 We have a stenographer here tonight 10 to take this down, so please speak 11 slowly and clearly. And before you 12 start to speak, state your name and 13 address for the record. 14 I know the clerk has a list of 15 people that wish to comment, and we will 16 be Galling them out . Anyone following, 17 please be ready. If you have not signed 18 up, there will be time at the end, when 19 everyone has had a chance to speak, and 24 that will be the time for you to do so . 21 1 would like to take a moment to 22 recognize a couple of people in the 23 audience. We have Fire Chief John 24 Grilli, who is sitting in the back. We 25 have our chair and vice chair of our THERESA PAPE _ COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/09 5 2 Zoning Board of Appeals, Toni and Dong, 3 We have school board member, Tina . We 4 have our superintendent, Mike . And my 5 wife is in the audience. I 'm sorry, and 6 the President of Northsea, Mr. Wills . 7 I think that is it . 8 At this point, I will open it up to 9 those that wish to comment . 10 Clerk, please read the list of 11 those that wish to speak. 12 MS . PIRILLO: Our first speaker 13 will be Jacqueline Dubay, followed by 14 Mr. Michael Smith. 15 MS. DUBAY: Good evening, and thank 16 you for your time. My name a Jacqueline 17 Dubay_ I live at 15 Front Street, 1a Greenport . 19 1 would like to start by saying 1 2.0 do not consider myself to be a public 21 speaker. I generally avoid it at all 22 costs . I felt strongly enough about 23 this project, and I wanted to stand up 24 and voice my personal support for the 25 record. THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 6 2 I have lived and worked on the 3 North Fork for more than a decade, and 4 I 've called Greenport my home for the 5 past 40 years . I have seen my friends 6 and colleagues forced to leave because 7 they simply cannot afford to live here . 8 I, myself, have struggled to remain at 9 times, and commit to stay. I do love 10 this area . It has not been an easy 11 choice to make, though . Even in this 12 slumping real estate market, purchasing 13 a home on a fixed budget is difficult at 14 best . 15 In my time in Greenport, I have had 16 no option but to rent, making monthly 17 payments that I wish could go into 18 owning equity on a home . 19 Again, not a public speaker . 20 For the young people that work and 21 breathe life into the community here, 22 their homeownership should not be so 23 unfathomable . Personally, I would more 24 than welcome the opportunity to purchase 25 a home in a place that I Love. I THERESA PAPE COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (6313 553--2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 7 2 strongly feel this project would afford 3 me the opportunity to do so. 4 Thank you very much. 5 MR. COMMANDER: Michael Commander . 6 My address for most of the weekend days 7 is 7020 Front Street . I am a resident 8 of Center Moriches . Thank you for 9 allowing me to speak. 10 1 had several questions, and once I 11 realized this was a comments proceeding 12 this evening, I figured I would just go 13 ahead with some of the questions anyway. 14 They lean toward village rights . 15 The questions will be given to the 16 DEC? 17 MAYOR NYCE_ The questions will be 18 given to the DEC. They are not going to 19 be answered today, they will be answered 20 in the process . 21 You can ask your questions . 22 MR. COMMANDER: On page 226 of the 23 report, it was indicated that the number 24 used for housing units was an average of 25 550 housing units . Z was just wondering THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/09 8 2 if that included 244 units at Peeonic 3 Landing and 156 in Pheasant Run? 4 Peconic Landing sends new students 5 to our school, and Pheasant Run, I 6 believe, only has two students in 7 Greenport . 8 1 was just wondering if the 9 400 units of reusable land, those 10 calculations --- that may skew some 11 numbers _ 12 Greenport does have space for the 13 number of students for the study. I 14 believe it was 50 students, and we do 15 have space for those students . It does 16 cost approximately $16, 000 to educate 17 regular education students and 18 $60, 000 to educate special education 19 students . Twelve percent of our current 20 population is classified, and 12 percent 21 of 50 is roughly six students . That 22 costs $360, 000, and I understand 23 condominiums are calculated at 24 50 percent of full value . 25 At my calculations and my THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553--2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 9 2 explanations, I believe that puts the 3 tax burden on the Greenport community. 4 Thank you. 5 MS . PIRILLG: Next is Bob Fager . 6 MR. FAGER: 126 Sterling, 7 Greenport. 8 I would like to thank you for 9 letting me speak tonight _ They asked if 10 I wanted to, and I could not refuse . 11 I have some concerns about the 12 project, about the environmental impact, 13 and concerns about the current wetlands 14 and allocation which I believe is not 15 exactly the way it should be. I think 16 the DEC has been a little lax in their 17 measurements of wetland space_ 18 I have a concern with this housing 19 being outside the hamlet center with 20 very little opportunity for 21 transportation. I am a big believer of 22 workforce housing and providing people 23 with an opportunity to stay in our town. 24 I think this is a good idea in the wrong 25 place. There is no transportation THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775--9098 / (531.) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 21/12/09 10 2 T do have some concerns about the 3 impact on the schools . If we are 4 talking about 256 units -- I think that 5 is the number -- that equates to a lot 6 more than 50 students coming to the 7 school. 8 Those are some of qty concerns and I 9 hope they will be addressed and provide 10 food for thought . 11 Thank you very much. 12 MS . PIRILLO: Doug Moore. 13 MR. MOORE: My name a Doug Moore . 14 I am a resident of the Village of 15 Greenport, 145 Sterling Street . 16 My family has lived on the 17 North Fork for 37 years, and we have l8 been a resident of Greenport for 19 16 years now . My wife and I, for about 20 the first 12-or-so-years of our 21 marriage, lived in rental housing and, 22 eventually, out this way in a very small. 23 house . 24 We strongly support -- what do you 25 want to call it ----- low-cost housing, THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775--9098 / (631) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 11 2 workforce housing. The reality is, if 3 you want affordable housing, it has to 4 be small, compact, and closer together. 5 Inevitably, I think the Town and Tillage 6 have to consider some kind of 7 high-density housing to relieve some of 8 the difficulty. 9 The problem I have is that -- as 10 Bob Fager mentioned, is I think this is 11 a Southold Town question;. 1.2 The project is not in the local 13 confines of the hamlet, it is out on the 14 North Road. I think it should be 15 handled by the Town and Town rules . 16 I also think, since the mayor 17 mentioned that part of the purpose of 18 the hearing is also to provide input for 1.9 the litigation that may or may not go 20 forward, I would urge: it not go forward. 21 1 don ' t think this is a Village issue. 22 being an advocate for that . I don' t 23 think it is appropriate, and I don ' t 24 think it should be paid for by a 25 developer and have the Village act as an THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9498 J (631) 553-2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/49 12 2 agent for the developer. 3 Last year, this was indicated at 4 the Town level_ This is a seasonal 5 project, and if 'it meets all the 6 requirements, then we are all for it . 7 Thank you- 8 MAYOR NYCE: Is there anyone else 9 that wishes to speak that has not signed 10 up? 11 MR. KONTOKOSTA: Thank you, Mayor, 12 and thank you to the Village Board for 13 having this important meeting tonight _ r 14 1 want to introduce myself. I am 15 Constantine Kontokosta, and my brother, 16 Michael (indicating) . we are the owners 17 of the property and the proponents of 18 the proposal . I just wanted to 19 introduce myself, and I enjoyed 20 listening to your comments , and also, as 21 we go through the process, responding to 22 your comments as we go forward. 23 This is a tremendous opportunity to 24 provide affordable housing, and that is 25 what the proposal is all about _ The THERESA PAPE COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 I Publ±c Hearing 11/12/09 13 2 annexation force into Greenport is ghat 3 makes affordable housing possible- 4 Probably half of the units that we are 5 proposing --- which is 178 -- 64 of them 6 will be for affordable workforce units . 7 Affordable to people making under 80 or 8 120 percent of the area median income . 9 So, probably, that sale price will be 10 $175, 000 to $275, 400 . 1f you are 11 familiar with the area, that is well 12 below what the averages are these days . 13 Again, we are interested in 14 listening to your comments . I wanted to 15 introduce ourselves and snake you feel 1.6 like you can come to us with some of 17 your questions as well . 18 We are part of the community here. 19 And as you all know, we built hotels 20 like the Harborfront Inn, the stores 21 across the street from the arcade, and 22 we ' re also doing a project next to the 23 Shady Lady. 24 We are part of the community here 25 and we want to see it thrive . We want THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/09 14 2 to see the residents and the workers 3 here thrive as well . It is critical 4 that we see this affordable housing 5 project -- 6 And another important component 7 that should be mentioned here is, this 8 is not intended for it to be a burden on 9 the taxpayers of the Village. We will 10 work with everyone involved -- the 11 Village, whoever we can to avoid those 12 costs . We are already looking into 1.3 subsidized or other means to avoid 14 direct cost to the Village and Village 15 taxpayers . It is not the intention to 16 provide any kind of burden. 17 The last part I would Like to 18 mention about this -- a couple of other 19 things, since I am here . 20 We see a number of benefits, 21 another thing to keep in mind. This is 22 a tax benefit here, and, also, a control 23 benefit . If the annexation happens, the 24 Village will have control over the site 25 and the project, and will be able to THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553--2857 I Public Hea=Lng 11/12/09 15 2 dictate the details of this project if 3 it goes through. 4 Again, we are excited about it and 5 in providing affordable housing . we 6 intend to be a model of sustainable 7 design as well and get all the homes B Energy Star. We are excited about the. 9 opportunity, and look forward to 10 Listening to your comments and working 1.1 with all of you to make this possible . 1.2 Thank you very much . 13 MAYOR NYCE: I will ask again if 14 there is anyone else that wishes to 15 comment for the public record.? 16 MS . Moore: (Indicating) 17 MAYOR NYCE : Ma ' am_ 16 MS. MOORE: My name a Mary Moore . 19 I also live at 145 Sterling Street . I 20 have been here a long time, and we do 21 really recognize: the young people, their 22 ability of liming out here and the 23 expense of it, and those that could have 24 workforce housing. But I object to the 25 idea of Greenport annexing a piece of THERESA PAPE -- COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553--2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/09 16 2 land that is not connected to the 3 Village . 4 It is separated from the Village. 5 It is so separated from the Village . 6 And I don' t understand why -- if you 7 decide to annex that portion of that 8 land to the Village of Greenport, I 9 can' t understand why -- or the 10 possibility either on the other side of 11 Greenport . why are they not part of 12 Greenport, or could they be part of 13 Greenport to increase our tax base? 14 I don' t understand why the project 15 can't go through the 'Town of Southold 16 rather than having this be a part of 17 Greenport . It really is separate, and I 18 think it will be detrimental to the 19 Village taxpayers . 20 Thank you . 21 MAYOR NYCE : Anyone else that 22 Wishes to speak on the subject? 23 MR. MACRY: I don' t know whether I 24 can do this _ I am a Southold resident, 25 not a Greenport resident . THERESA PAPE COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 1 P"blac Rearing 11/12/09 17 2 MAYOR NYCE: Sure, come up. 3 Just state your nave for the 4 record . 5 MR. MACRY. Howard MacrY, 6 707 PecOnic BayF Laurel . 7 I have one comment . I have been 8 involved with building and environmental 9 issues for a very long time . It is 10 common knowledge for the business of 11 planning throughout the country that 12 increased number of residences for 13 normal-aged people,P You collect money, 14 but the expenses to the Town are higher 15 than what You collect from the taxes on 16 individual residences . 17 It says this is a tax Plus for the 1S Town of Greenport or the Tillage . That 19 should be researched and advertised very 20 loudly. I do not think that is true, 21 and money does mean a lot to everybody. 22 If these people have the normal, 23 amount of children and they Put them in 24 school You Pay $16, 0300 to $22, 000 a 25 head for those kids. It is going to THERESA PAPE- COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 1 Public Hearing 11/12/09 18 2 cost you money. That is not going to be 3 a tax plus . 4 This is a case where -- do it as 5 you see fit for the Tillage . But use 6 real facts, not bologna. 7 Thank you. 8 MAYOR NYCE: Anyone else that 9 wishes to speak? 10 (WHEREUPON, there was no response . ) 11 MAYOR NYCE : I will do my auction 12 thing here . 13 One more time, going once, twice -- 14 (WHEREUPON, there was no response . ) 15 MAYOR NYCE : If not, I will offer a 16 motion to adjourn. 17 MR. OSINSKI : Seconded. 18 MAYOR NYCE: All in favor? 19 ALL: Aye . 20 MAYOR NYCE: Thank you very much 21 for your participation. 22 (WHEREUPON, this public hearing was 23 adjourned at 6 : 45 p .m. ) 24 25 THERESA PAPE - COURT REPORTER (631) 775-9098 / (631) 553-2857 I Public Hearing 11/12/05 19 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 5 I, MARIA GRILLO, a Shorthand Reporter and 7 Notary Public of the State of New York, do hereby B certify: 9 That the foregoing is a true and accurate 10 transcription of the stenographic notes taken 11 herein_ 12 I further certify that I am not related to 13 any of the part3es to this action by blood or 14 marriage; and that T am in no way interested in the 15 Outcome of this matter . 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set any 17 hand this 12th day of November 2009. is 19 20 21 =GEIL 2Z 23 24 25 THERESA PFiPE COURT REPORTER (631) 775--9098 / (631) 553--2857 Exhibit B November 24, 2009 report by Schneider Engineering regarding the impacts of the proposed annexation on traffic, vl Eeeig: Traffic-Municipal•Aaatd=t Lve�gtionschneid Steven Ste,P.E. " mmm� mmmmm Principal E pr.Lc November 23, 2009 Hon. David Nyce, Mayor Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: North Road Project Traffic impact Study and Site Plan Review Village of Greenport Dear Hon. Nyce: In response to your request, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, dated March 2009, and the site plan prepared by Barrett Banavvi &Van Weele, PC, dated May 13,2049 for the above referenced project. The proposed project consists of 128 residential units on a property totaling 17.2 acres on the south side of North Road(CR 48), approximately 1,550 feet east of Chapel Lane, in the Village of Greenport- We offer the following comments on the TIS for consideration: Accident Records: On page 16 of the TIS, 4 is indicated that accident data was obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works,through December 31, 2045,the latest full three-year period available from the County. Updated accident data should be obtained, as the provided accident data is aim ost three 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 Manch 31, 2009- Site Trio Generation Analysis: On page 22 of the TIS, it is indicated that information on trip generation rates was obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Publication, 7rh Edition. Since the EP Edition is the current accepted standard, Dunn Engineering Associates should verity that the generation rates have not significantly changed or update the TIS if they have. Directional Distribution Analysis: 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 some during all studied peak hours_A separate trip distribution should 755 Waverly Ave=•Suite 102.1HolImMe,New York 11742.631-M-62OIs-Fw.631-698-6299 VVWW. Worngineming.,r- i New YodE•NCR►Scary-Florida be provided for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours.All intersections capacity analyses should be updated accordingly. Volume Summaries:The volur€te 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 We have found that the submitted site plans are satisfactory, and we do not have any comments at this time. In conclusion, we recommend each of the comments on the submitted TIS contained herein be resolved to the satisfaction of the Village. If you have any questions, please call, Since ly, Steven Schneider, P.E. File: 9059T 2 Exhibit C. November 25, 2009 report by Greenman Pederson, Inc. regarding the environmental impacts and zoning issues of the proposed annexation; GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services November 25, 2009 Hon. David Nyce,Mayor Village at Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport,NY 11914 Re: Northwind Village Draft Environmental Impact Statement GPI File#2009043 As you requested,we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for the proposed annexation by the Village of Greenport and development of Northwind Village. Overall, we find that the DEIS is factually incorrect in certain important areas, and insufficient in others. Furthermore, we find that the DEIS acknowledges various important adverse environmental impacts,but fails to adequately investigate the possibilities to avoid,minimize,or mitigate these impacts. Our specific comments follow: • On page 28, the DEIS states that the Magothy aquifer is the source of potable water "in the vicinity of 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 cited for this information cannot be checked,as it is not listed in the references section. • The groundwater discussion presented on page 51 is generic to western Suffolk County and not applicable, therefore irrelevant, to the North Fork. It should be deleted. • 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 steam system, and then southerly towards the Peconic Estuary. • Page 75 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 1 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel:(631)587-5060 Fax:(631)422-3479 www_gpinet.corm i GPI N,which needs to be rectified. We will present additional continents on this critical issue as we continue chronologically through the DEIS review. 3 • The DEIS also acknowledges that the Coopers Hawk and the,Sharp-shinned Hawk are designated as New York State Species of Special Concern. As with the box turtle,these raptors' state designated status is overlooked in Appendix N. • The DEIS is correct in stating that the project site provides suitable 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. • On page 164,the DEIS acknowledges that the proposed action"will result in the E 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 rnammals,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 on page 164,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. • Staying on page 164,the DEIS states that"the populations of the commonplace species inhabitating 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 others discussed herein,that are not stable and in fact,a serious issue with the proposed project. • Finally on page 164,the DEIS states that"no sensitive species will be impacted". Obviously,this is incorrect. Not only will three Special Concern species be adversely impacted,which will be further discussed below,but numerous 2 GPI i neotropical migrants,also extremely sensitive,will potentially be impacted,as discussed below in the comments on Appendix N. • On page 166,the DEIS states that the clearing of the various habitats for construction of the project"has the potential to degrade the duality"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. • 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. • 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 in the property's box turtles as they will be subject to greatly increased mortality from 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. • The DEIS states that the proposed location of the box turtle nest is shown on the site plan in appendix O. We cannot find it. • 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-shinned Hawk and Coopers Hawk. • Although some sources state that Sharp-shinned Hawks prefer to next in evergreens,particularly hemlocks,the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas(2008)states that it 3 f GPIF nests in mixed,coniferous,and deciduous forests. Therefore,we believe that the project site provides suitable Sharp-shinned nesting habitat under existing conditions. • 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 terns average is particularly troubling_ Many ornithologists in New York State are calling for this species to be designated as"Threatened"in the State_ • 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. • It is important to note,also, that Sharp-shinned Hawks are more prevalent on Long Island in winter than they are in the summer. During the winter season,the Sharp- ,shinneds 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. • 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. ® The following comments pertain to the issues of Land Use,Zoning,And Community Character: + The project proposes property annexation by the Village of Greenport and further proposes that the Village establish R-2 zoning for the property. However, even in 4 GPI 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 an 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. • The project proposes 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. • 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 NYSDEG 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 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. • 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(eg. R-1) and another alternative plan for development under the R-2 zoning with no variance requirements. This second alternative is particularly relevant considering the self-imposed nature of the variance that would be requested. • 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. • The following comments are directed at Appendix N of the DEIS,which presents the biological inventory: 5 GPI • 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. • 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 maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. These should all be identified and discussed. • 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 local habitat. • 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: I • Coopers Hawk ■ Black-and-white Warbler(occasionally) • Yellow-billed.Cuckoo ■ Great Horned Owl • Easter Wood-Pewee(occasionally) • prairie Warbler i ■ Chipping Sparrow E • Red-winged Blackbird E • 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. i - 1 I S i 1 GPI • Following are the species that should be considered for addition to the avian inventory: ■ Green Heron ■ Wood Duck ■ Red-shouldered Hawk ■ Solitary Sandpiper Rusty Blackbird ■ Eastern Kingbird ■ Cedar Waxwing ■ Indigo Bunting ■ Brown Thrasher This concludes our comments on the DEIS. Should you haven any questions,please contact us. Sincerely, GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Robert Grover Director, Environmental and Coastal Sciences RG/rp 0--2M 912009043Werthwind DELS.doc E i 7 f Exhibit D. December 2, 2009 report from William Frietag, CPA of BST regarding the financial impacts of the proposed annexation on the operations of the Greenport Electric Utility Company, BOLLAM,SHEEDY,TORANI&CO.i.L.P ST Certted PabheAccountants ji TO: Mayor David Nyce-Village of Greenport,New York FROM: William C.Freitag, CPA DATE: December 2, 2009 SUBJECT: Electric Utility Analysis-Northwind Village Request and Our Understanding of the Issue You have asked us to provide the Village with discussion and analysis in connection with the proposed annexation by the Village of Greenport and development ofNorthwind Village, specifically as it relates to the effect and impact on the existing electric customers of the Village of Greenport(Village). Based on our reading of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS), it is our understanding that the Village is proposing to annex a 17.19 acre parcel of land from the Town of Southold. It is also our understanding that there is proposed construction of a 128 unit, residential housing development on this property. It is also our understanding, from speaking with you,that the Village is considering providing electrical service to this housing development from its municipally owned electric utility. Initial Thoughts With the addition of new electric customers to the distribution system, certain costs to provide service will inherently increase. We believe that these costs are as follows: • Purchased power costs; • Costs for infrastructure to provide service(poles, primaries, secondaries, transformers, etc.), and • Other costs related to meter reading,billing/collection, and accounting. Discussion of these costs, and our related conclusions on the effect of increases in these costs on the Village's existing electric customer base, are described in the sections below. Purchased Power Costs The Village of Greenport,through its municipal electric utility, currently distributes electricity to approximately 2,100 customers. Power used for distribution to these customers is purchased from the New York Power Authority(NYPA). The Village has a pre-determined allotment of "hydro"power that it purchases from NYPA each month. Once the"hydro allotment" is reached,the Village must buy"incremental"power from NYPA. Costs for"incremental"power are passed on to the Village customers"dollar for dollar"via a monthly Purchased Power Adjustment(PPA). It should be noted that the cost of"incremental"power is significantly more than the cost of"hydro"power. 1 In addition to"hydro"and"incremental"power costs,additional costs to provide power to customers are passed onto the Village customers"dollar for dollar"via the PPA. Most of these costs are fixed and do not fluctuate with the amount of energy purchased or consumed. These costs consist of the following: • Demand charges; • Transmission charges; • LIPA wheeling charges; • NYISO charges; • UCAP charges or credits; • True up charges or credits, and • Con Edison generation charges. With the proposed addition of 128 new residential homes being added to the Village's distribution system,the"total"cost of power to supply both the existing Village customers and the new homes will inherently increase. During the summer months(.lune through September)and winter months (November through February), the Village normally exceeds its"hydro"allotment, as described above. During these months,the Village must purchase"incremental"power from NYPA. With the addition of 128 new homes to the distribution system,the Village's cost for"incremental"power will increase during these months. This increase in"incremental"power costs will be borne by all the customers of the Village(and not just the new homes), via a charge through the PPA Factor. As a result, an existing customer's bill will inherently increase by their pro-rata share(kWh consumption) of the increase in"incremental"power costs. During months that the Village normally does not exceed its"hydro" allotment,the demand of providing electric service to the 128 new homes will most likely keep the Village"at or below" its"hydro'allotment. As a result,the cost of power during these months would most likely be covered by the"base rates"charged to the new homes,and that there would be no incremental cost passed on to the ViIlage's existing customer base. For purposes of our analysis, we made the assumption that during these months, the Village would be "at or below" its "hydro" allotment. Assumptions Made in our Analysis of Purchased Power Note: For the majority of our analysis of purchased power,we used"actual"information from the Village's most recent Fiscal Year end-May 31, 2009, as it relates to customer usage and purchased power costs. In reviewing Fiscal Year 2009 data, we did not notice a significant variation in this data from years past. Our assumptions included the following: • Customer usage(kWh)for the proposed 128 new homes was based on the usage of existing customers in the Village's Residential Rate Class (SC 91),and does not consider customers with electric water heaters or all electric heat. it was assumed that the energy efficiencies built into the new homes, along with updated energy efficient appliances, would offset the increased kWh consumption normally found in"all"electric type homes. The average annual kWh consumption per household in Fiscal Year 2009 was 6,537 kWh (8,571,137 kWh sold divided by 1,311 residential customers). With the addition of 128 new homes,the Village's annual demand for purchased power would be increased by 836,736 kWh(6,537 kWh multiplied by 128 homes). The additional 836,736 kWh was then allocated to a specific month based on the "actual"usage experienced by the Village's existing customers in that specific month. 2 The increase in"incremental"power costs for the new 128 homes, as a result of the Village exceeding its"hydro"allotment in certain months, is assumed to be equal to the "incremental"costs for the VilIage's existing customers(experienced in Fiscal Year 2009)divided by the kWh used by the existing customers (during Fiscal Year 2009)to derive a cost per kWh. This amount was then multiplied by the kWh expected to be used by the new 128 homes during those months,to establish the increase in"incremental" costs. • During months in which the Village did not exceed its"hydro"allotment, the increase in hydro costs is assumed to be equal to the"hydro"costs for the Village's existing customers (experienced in Fiscal Year 2009) divided by the kWh used by the existing customers (during Fiscal Year 2009)to derive a cost per kWh. This amount was then multiplied by the kWh expected to be used by the new 128 homes during those months to establish the increase in"hydro"costs. • Other costs related to the purchase of power, including demand charges, transmission charges,LIPA wheeling charges,NYISO charges,UCAP charges/credits, True-up charges/credits, and Con Fd generation charges were assumed to remain"fixed" in the analysis,and would be borne by all Village customers(existing customers and the 128 homes)through the PPA. Conclusion Normally, one would think that an increase in "incremental"power costs would have the effect of increasing a customers bill, as these costs are passed on to the customer"dollar for dollar"via the PPA Factor calculation. In our analysis,this thinking is entirely true. Therefore, the increase in"incremental"power costs, as a result of adding 128 new homes,will increase the bills of the Village's existing customers. Interestingly; however, there is an intriguing"offset"to this increase. As described above,the Village's total purchased power costs go well beyond the purchase of"hydro"and "incremental" power from NYPA. These costs, which include demand charges, transmission charges, wheeling charges,NYISO charges,etc,are largely considered"fixed purchased power costs"(meaning that they do not change, or do not change significantly based on purchased power or consumption amounts) and are borne by all customers, in their pro-rata share, via the PPA. The Village's "fixed purchased power costs"based on actual Fiscal Year 2009 data, exceeded the cost of incremental power purchased by the Village during Fiscal Year 2009. As a result, these"fixed purchased power costs"were now allocated over a larger base of customers(the Village's existing customers plus the 128 new homes), thereby creating a decrease in the bills of the Village's existing customers for these types of costs. Based on actual customer consumption for Fiscal Year 2009, and taking into consideration the modest increase in "incremental"and"hydra"power costs(as a result of the 128 new homes), the billings to the Village's existing customers would actually decrease. This"net"decrease is the result of the"fixed costs"exceeding the increase in the purchased power. Please note, that this conclusion is based on actual costs and consumption data recognized by the Village during Fiscal Year 2009. Any sizeable changes in future costs andlor consumption data could have a different result, including an increase in customer billings. 3 Effect on Existing Customer's Annual Billie We have attached the following Exhibits: • Exhibit A-Reports "actual"base and PPA revenues and average annual revenue per customer(by rate class) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009. It also compares the same customers, using the same consumption data, with projected changes as a result of the increased power purchased for the 128 new residential homes. • Exhibit B - Summarizes "actual"purchased power costs,related delivery charges, and PPAC calculation for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009. This Exhibit also reports the average annual PPAC factor that was applied to customer invoices in fiscal year 2009. • Exhibit C -Summarizes"projected"purchased power costs,related delivery charges, and PPAC calculation,taking into consideration additional purchases of both "hydro"and "incremental"power for the 128 new residential homes. This Exhibit also reports the average annual PPAC factor that would be applied to customer invoices, once the 128 new residential homes are placed in service. This Exhibit also shows the slight decrease in the "projected"annual PPAC factor versus the"actual"annual PPAC factor that was experienced in Fiscal 2009. For the reasons described in the section above,projected annual "average"revenues (average customer billings)are expected to decline with the inclusion of the 128 new residential homes, as follows(See Exhibit A): Average Annual Customer Billie from: Actual 2009 Pro'e� cted Change Residential class $ 872 $ 868 $ (4) Commercial class $ 3,231 $ 3,217 $ (14) Industrial class $ 87,109 $ 86,590 $ (519) Please note that the net change(decrease) is generated o_ my by the reduction in the PPAC factor and the related PPAC revenues. This is the result of the slight decline in the"projected"annual PPAC factor, from the"actual"PPAC factor of 2009, as shown in Exhibit C. Base revenues would remain the same, assuming identical consumption data. Cort o In rastrueture In general,the cost of infrastructure used in the provision of electric service is recovered through the electric utilities "base rates." These costs,which i„clude direct material costs, direct labor costs, indirect overhead costs and capitalized interest,are depreciated over time, and it is the annual depreciation expense that is"built"into customers"base rate." It is our understanding that the infrastructure necessary to bring service to the 128 new homes, will not be contributed by the developer of the property, nor will it be contributed by the owners of the 128 new homes. It will be the VilIage's sole responsibility to finance these improvements, whether that is through operational cash balances, cash reserves or borrowings. 4 Currently,the cost of these improvements and their related annual depreciation expense is not "built" into the Villages current"base rates"as determined by NYPA in its Rate Increase Study completed a few years ago. As a result, the cost of the improvements is not recoverable through current rates,and would not be recovered by the Village until its current rates are changed by NYPA to allow for recovery of these improvements. In addition,the costs of the improvements can not be passed on to existing or future customers via the PPA. As a result,the only way the Village can currently finance the cost of the necessary improvements is via its current cash balances(including any capital improvement cash reserves), which resulted from prior year profits, or the issuance of debt(such as the use of BAN's or Bonds)_ Conclusion In conclusion,the cost of the capital improvements related to the 128 new homes, will not have an impact(increase or decrease) on "current" billings to the Village's existing customers. If in the future,the Village requests NWA 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. Other Costs 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. 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. Further Discussion Should anyone at the Village, or its representatives, need further discussion regarding the items above, please feel free to contact us. 5 ca �n cqvoi Ln ONCAi N v, CN Cl �' d- d ON CD 0 0 0 +-+ 00 N 00 wok CA FA 64 55 6R GO ad T 00 M !t C— aQ 00 r«t Q' OT .. tj L O I ctrl N N N e�+f r d ^] 00 N M 0 0 0 U U fig 64 FA ff3 r- ON00 D CAot C3 l� v7 M SC O O O H Eq A °�' ami o Q o °' d o `�' U > P W !Y W ani LZ v wM wd o S o U WCL 0CA ;. 4. o � m d v > t' � t a ° vii Loo Cl) "' n � O N i" N rn N N d' M vi tiD A M O to p� C; � 6K3 64 49 69 �. G� d � U CK00 N O M 00 [— V" 00 00 +--i 00 y N N O ON kn ko N A M L�i O .i 1D — 00 M 4N M N M ,M_, 00 0 0 0 Q U 69 6F? 69 Ge U � 00 n OO X- > kn N D ko 00 ® -t N w+w Y � � o _x Q O d1 CD 4Uq a' P6. a.) ami cn (U al, -�d414 m o0 ON 00 o0 o b ca 0 :c x ^ m W cq M 0� N N On m M O N ^ O •-• 4 O G] N E- O m Cf w co O o0 O p O O W b O CD _ n o �n O N O N cl n c� G vii n M O m pi m r M M O oo b O O O d O O q fi M oa of m `p N O O ' o m O O CD O O fry V m N h r Vl vhi v`pr Or+ o n M N ^ N oa O+ O O O O ri o ^ b Q O N co b 06 CCY 41I e0 n N 6+ oo +� N �' O vi 6+ N [Z N ^ N vi Q b O O N 00 0 7 m 6� N vs n m N O� , d en Ch F' G ke O O O m n V' ren O O O Q b O G O m m C 0 oo M V3 �D N 00 DD N oa _ 14) Q \o o0 G1 n n V] v1 T DO O1 O �' D N T o b O O r O O O O N m 7 N w N n =` m I- o0� V00 N vii O �t M _ 00 W V T O` o v> m oo °� O n M f N c7l o n Cl n Q 00 n M N C7 N b Q 7 pp IDIt en V7 p �-! ao 0o n oo a oo o v a o MM `m-'.�-. oa n Ob0 O O O o p _ N 'Z h 10 O1 n �p O O oo O o!S O Q I V M m V O N 01N M b C7 00 oav n spa no no o °R tow O1 0 Q OI ^ `C O 'n r�+� N oz b b O 7 O O b O N .7 6+ h v� 0 O " 0 �D V. O in r^i+ w p N O 19 O O oo v= M In m n 4 O Q N ~ O ^ Clcq O d ^ 4 O A M -n aNO O ooo M r M �T+ V 61 .•. M O b E- o �Y v-� 1O b �O �" 90 00 O oo a, N 10 oa vy N n oo T a o 0 o a GS `' df°O+i � mM � o a w m O O' of o h m -n In M VO' 1D oo c0 O N W m m Q Q o v ^ n v n 0 o a W Q G 5 o _ o A Z W v �rj n�U rn awi U V iWv1 � "CS o Gl c £ � €� R � a0 � o 3 60 bo y DO 0 5 v d CT[ [D O� O �D c2N It, of It i- �° N 4 '/� m N V1 N Q� O O O R W b 'n o Or m m G o 0 v� [� O O 4 d O O N N O a O O O O N N C, 6t 6+ O C\ h b 6, O, O m 00 Ik N G7 t� O 61 00 M h CD c*a m O O CD N G O Q O O O hl N 00 b N O O ' O m O M a+ O N M od m r 7 7J m N oD b M M h M M O O N .•. W o, hr- O O O O O Q 4 O C o N N bt P Mm V1 O 'V ' O N O Ct ct "O CN elk OO1 Q N Cr4 rt �h+ .-w ti �J GV N h 00 O h Q 4 O O O 'n b O ^ Q O O O O N N 'D ^ o'n ' o 0o a b m Cr V m N v1 h v1 m 7 O [� m h b O �r o0 0 �n N 6, o CP a r 1� IF M o o 0 0 0 CD m m m ' O DD M N N a CY m O %D a b b y�-y pNp p Op M vT b O N m m vz m N 7 M r1 b a+ .-- 'n a+ V 'n N m o o a © o 0 O 4 O P O P !q N m It ' N 'D m N r a T 0 0 m O m MQ N O N r '!l <'•1 h h O N V 4 N V� O C 4 M N v'1 'bV Oai Vbl m 00 d0 Q+ 7 61 00 W C, O n m N d --i 4 Ip wr N P Q � ^ � ^ � b v� � m VS H'�D •--� M r M M O C� o C? 4 P O Q 0 N N O m ^ N O �o O O m O O In O O O CT O a N O o0 b r '!] M N 7 N O V Vl d' N 'D Cl <71 O O h �o m [� m m V ct m ct O vi a m r N O r N m o M v� m Cl a� O r1 4 © P Q •-• m v w.-. .--i h m �D Vl O O O O O m O a O O O O rr N N N O .-i _ M h M O m 00 V1 m 'ch O N CT r �D Cf� Z 1 � h O 4 _© m M CT et CT 1" CT 'n O O V N p M Oh ( N C, FA C/J� •N. ^ .^.. .'n. �O CT v oG CT a0 L'1 m C i O Q'n C• N N h O O O O O O a Q O O O z N N CT ct O V O b b V] r 'Ir O ^+ r 00 O d' 0, m O 00 M 'n a CT ab O � v] b M m b h b D T r Vl b :'� 'n _� O N ID O O O --' O CS O O ^ O O O O O t} N 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 h h ' .••. C,1 a. v'1 U Q ' ' O r O N N 'n h m O 00 m M d O b d' m .Mi Vl Vl O O O t+bi fn rn N b m �n h I- m N �R f� Q 00 Vi h m n M m a o mo 'n `aCD c 0 0 0 0 0 b o o 0 0 0 0 44 M m N o o40 r�.i 'hi .�� tlO+ xn N N d ra C< m 4 m T i n O vl N C a bn m - O els 'n 10 V1 10 w C. O -0 4� N '-•T rrt O O O r7 m 'n .t 5,1 o a o 0 0 0 QQ t0 t0 0 ^ O O Q O 4 N IN � 0 c� U U �U ° Enz � r, O On 3 a E E E ams ba to ryU UU UU . i U v C7 U a' °' A w .cv Q Exhibit E. December 4, 2009 report from Jack Naylor, P.E., Greenport Village Engineer, regarding the cost of the infrastructure that is necessary to service the new electric customers that will be created by the proposed annexation and also the financial impact of the proposed annexation on the Greenport Village sewer system. 4 1 December 04,2009 A. Electrical Infrastructure Cost Estimate for providing electrical service to new KACE Development as provided by Braun Engineering,P.C. No Description Estimated Cost I 5,000 feet of primpfeeder in under ound conduit $200,000.00 2 Clearing for above $40,000.00 3 Pad Mounted Transformer $55,000.00 4 Low Voltage Distribution Board $50,000.00 5 Electrical Services to 19 buildings $190,000.00 b Meter Centers 128 Units $124,000.00 7 Restoration $50,000.00 8 Engineering&Construction Supervision $85,200.00 Total Construction Costs $795,200.00 B. Wastewater Impact Cost Estimate for servicing new KACE Development . 1. As Apartments(Single Owner): As a single entity,the equivalent dwelling unit (EDU)method us used which equates 1 EDU(the equivalent of flow generation by a single family dwelling)or 300 GPD. The number ofEDU's is therefore: 34,050 GPD/300 gallons per EDU= 113.5 say 114 EDU's. 114 EDU's x$15,000 = $1,710,000 Based upon current "pre-upgrade" connection costs,the amount of capital funds which the Village would miss out on by annexation is therefore in excess of$ 1,700,000. This amount will increase substantially once upgrade costs are figured into the capital contribution_ �• As Condos (Individual Owners): As multitude of entities,the per unit method is used since the Village has to incur the cost of managing 130 or so (128 units +common amenities). 114 EDU's/ 130 Units=0.88 EDU's per unit 130 Units x$15,000 = $1,950,000 This number could be slightly higher if the common area facilities exceed 300 GPD each. Based upon current"pre-upgrade" connection costs,the amount of capital funds which the Village would miss out on by annexation is therefore almost$2,000,000 . Again, this amount will increase substantially once upgrade costs are figured into the capital contribution. 3. Construction Costs- Wastewater Infrastructure In case we would be "obligated"to provide the sewer infrastructure,looking at the size of this 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 that site were $80,000 for sewer construction and$190,000 for the pumping station. Adjusting for size.... ($80,000 x 2.0)+($190,000 x 1.25)=$397,500 Exhibit F. December 11, 2009 letter from Thomas Rudebush, Esq. of Duncan Weinberg, et. al, regarding the legal issues involved with the Village of Greenport providing electric utility service to the units that are developed after the proposed annexation .L.acu U�ice�s -DCLnCLmi wee _� GC J n WALLACE L.DUNCAN(1937-2008) SUITE 800 EDWARD WEINBERG(1918-1995) 1b15 M STREETN.W. California Offices, ROBERT WEINBERG SUITE 1410,915 L STREET JEFFREY C.GENZER WASHINGTON,D.C.20036 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 THOMAS L.RUDEBUSCH (916)498-0121 MICHAEL R.POSTAR (202)467-6370 SEAN M.NEAL TANJA M.SHONKWILER PAX(2Q2)467-6379 ELI D.EILBOTT* SUITE 501 LISA S.GAST www.dwgp•c©m 100 W.SAN FERNANDO STREET PETER J.SCANLON SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113 KATHLEEN L.MAZURE (408)288-2080 DEREK A.DYSON BARRY F.McCARTHY' BHAVEETA K MODY C.SUSIE BERLIN' KRISTEN CONNOLLY McCULLOUGH SETH T.LUCIA Northeast Regional Office JOSHUA E.ADRIAN Attorney-Client Privilege 2700 BELLEVUE AVENUE MATTHEW R RUDOLPFn PYlVlIS BL Q72L1(Confidential SYRACUSE,NEW YORK 13219 JASON T.GRAY g (315)471-1318 NATALIE M.KARAS++ THOMAS J.LYNCH' * REGISTERED TO PRACTICE BEFORE U.S RICHMOND F.ALLAN` PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TERRY E.SINGER December 11, 2009 FREDERICK H.HOOVER,JR.' —NOT ADMI71TED IN DC JAMES D.PEMBROKE+ OF COUNSEL To: John W. Naylor,Jr.,P.E., Director of Utilities,Village of Greenport Fr: Tom Rudebusch and Natalie Karas Re: Expansion of Franchise Utility Service Area The Village has requested our opinion in connection with the proposed annexation of an approximately 20 acre parcel of land adjacent to the Village, currently located in the Town of Southold. While the parcel is uninhabited, a developer has proposed a multi-family residential development and he has requested electric and sewer utility services from the Village. We understand that the Village has pursued the annexation of the parcel in accordance with Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, and we will not review here the annexation process or the Village's actions in pursuing annexation. The annexation_ of the pareel,if successful, does not settle the question of whether the Village may extend utility service to the parcel. This opinion is focused on the potential expansion of utility service by the Village to the parcel. We understand that the parcel is within the area described as School District 10. While we have not reviewed the document, we understand that the Village's franchise includes School District 10,but that the franchise is "not exclusive." I also understand that the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA")has distribution lies that are close to the parcel. For purposes of this opinion, we assume that LIPA has a valid non- exclusive franchise for the area including the parcel of land. 1 The potential expansion of utility service by the Village to the parcel is governed by the provisions of the General Municipal Law("GML") ,the Public Service Law ("PSL") and the Long Island Power Authority Act. In our opinion, there are two hurdles which the Village must pass before it may provide utility service to the parcel. (1)the Village may need the agreement and consent of LIPA, and(2)the Village needs the permission of the Public Service Commission("PSC" or"Commission")by obtaining a Certificate of Convenience and Public Necessity("CPCN"). 1. The Village May Need the Agreement of LIPA to Extend Utility Service Municipalities have broad authority to establish and provide public utility service, as provided in Section 360(2) of the GML. As noted above, we assume for this opinion that the Village and LIPA each have a valid non-exclusive franchise for the area including the parcel of land for the proposed development. LIPA has the franchise to serve the parcel currently in the Town of Southold, because Southold was served previously by the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"). Public Authorities Law Section 1020-g(n)provides that"LIPA shall acquire from LILCO all franchise and utility service responsibilities for all ultimate consumers of gas and electricity within LILCO's former service territory, including the responsibility to provide safe and adequate service." Further, Section 1020-h(1)(a) establishes a legislative determination that LIPA's use of the former LILCO franchise and property rights is"deemed to be superior to the public use of such property by any other person, association, or corporation." The New York Attorney General has issued two Informal Opinions finding that a municipality located within LILCO's former franchise may not establish a public utility service without LIPA's agreement. In Op.No. 98-13,the Attorney General addressed the issue of whether Southold could condemn the utility assets of LIPA and use them to operate a municipal utility. The Attorney General explained that the Legislature, both through a declaration of State policy and a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme, has preempted local legislation regarding acquisition of the assets of LILCO and/or LIPA. N.Y. Att'y Gen., Informal Op.No. 98-13 (March 30, 1998). In Op.No. 99-27,the Attorney General analyzed the issue of whether Southold could form a"public utility service"pursuant to Article 14-A of the GML. Under the proposal, Southold would not own any infrastructure, but would rely instead upon the LIPA's transmission and distribution lines acting as an"energy broker_" The Attorney General, citing to § 1.020-g(n), explained that LIPA has the exclusive responsibility to ensure safe and adequate public utility service in LILCO's former service area, which encompasses the town. As such,the Attorney General concluded that a municipality located within LILCO's former service area may not establish a public utility service without LIPA's agreement. N.Y. Att'y Gen., Informal Op.No. 99-27 (September 30, 1999). 2 It is an open question of whether the Village could extend public utility service to the parcel without the agreement of LIPA. The Village may need to obtain the consent of LIPA to serve in LIPA;s franchsie, even though the Village its self has a non-exclusive franchise to serve the parcel. 2. The Village Needs the Permission of the PSC to Serve the Parcel While the Village is not generally subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is for purposes of establishing public utility services. Section 68 governs the approval of incorporation and franchises of an electric corporation. Under this section, no electric corporation may exercise any right or privilege under any franchise without first having obtained the permission and approval of the Commission. § 68 PSL. See Village of Springville—Petition for Approval of the Transfer of Two Customers to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Order Granting Petition Subject to Conditions at p. 7 Case 04-E-0733 (Dec. 23, 2004) (explaining that Springville had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of§ 361 GML and § 68 PSL, rendering its service unauthorized). To extend service to the parcel,the Village would need to obtain a CPCN from the Commission. See 16 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. &Regs. 21.3. If the application is uncontested, the Village can seek expedited consideration in accordance with the requirements listed in 16 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. &Regs. 21.10. However, if the application is contested, the Village must be prepared to show the following at the hearing: (a) Description and population of the territory within which it proposes to exercise authority granted by the franchise or consent and to begin construction, including the names of all cities, towns and villages; also the dates when construction will begin and service will be provided. (b) Description of the plant and system to be constructed and the estimated cost thereof. (c) The manner in which the cost is to be financed. If the municipality is to be bonded,there shall be submitted a certified copy of the proposition submitted to the voters and the vote thereon. (d) The rates to be charged for the classes of service rendered. (e) Estimated revenues to be derived from operations covered by the petition, and the estimated expenses of such operations, each to be complete and in detail for each of the first three years of service; also estimate made from an actual survey of the territory of the number of prospective customers at the end of the first, second and third years of service showing for each date the number of prospective customers in the residential, commercial and industrial classes of service. 3 (f)The facts upon which it relies to entitle it to exercise the rights and privileges petitioned for, including evidence of the economic feasibility of the enterprise, proof of the applicant's ability to (mance the project and to render adequate service and that the proposal is in the public interest. (g) Where similar services are being rendered in all or part of the area proposed to be served, the public need for the proposed service including,but not limited to: (1)the adequacy of the existing service to meet the reasonable needs of the public in the territory involved; (2)the ability and willingness of the present operator(s) to provide such reasonably adequate service; and (3)the degree of competition desirable or required by the public interest. The Commission has a policy of avoiding the uneconomic investment in duplicative facilities. Case C88-E-003 New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Complaint against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation relative to duplicative electric service to Abbot Laboratories in the Town of Cheektowaga, Order Restraining Service Extension and Requiring Hearings(issued April 14, 1988) ("Abbott Labs"). The policy provides that it is generally not desirable to permit one utility to serve customers at locations already served by another utility. Utility facilities and resources should be utilized most efficiently, and a utility should not construct new facilities for anticipated load that can best be served by another utility. See Complaint of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Concerning Niagara Mohawk's Provision of EIectric Service to a Proposed Shopping Mall in the Town of West Seneca, Erie County, Case 96-E-0534 ("Seneca Mall"). In our opinion, the fact that LIPA has distribution lines much closer to the parcel of land than does the Village,means that the Village would have a difficult time obtaining a CPCN if its application were contested_ In addition,the Commission has established a Franchise Policy Statement that governs the economic feasibility of the extension of service into new franchise areas. This policy applies to electric service as well as gas. In Case 05-E-0264,the Commission stated that"[e jven though the 1989 Franchise Policy Statement analysis was developed explicitly for application to the expansion of gas franchises, we see no reason to deviate from that analysis for electric franchise expansions." Joint Petition of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation to Amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Issued in Connection with a Dual Franchise Area in the Town of Geneseo, Livingston County p. 6-7, Case 05-E-0264 (May 20, 2005). Therefore,the Village must prepare a five year economic feasibility study that meets the requirements of the Commission's Franchise Policy Statement, which would include the following: • Forecast Time Period 4 + Forecast Usage Per Customer + Cost Per Unit(Material & Labor) • Capital in Aid of Construction Book Depreciation Rates + Taxable Property Rate • Annual Tax Depreciation Rates • Interest Rate + Debt to Equity Ratio In conclusion,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. 5 Exhibit G. November 23, 2009, Report by the Town of Southold Planning Department. MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �pE sor�r� P.O.Box 1179 MARTIN 1I_SIDOR �Q Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: I WILLIAM J.CREMER,S w2k Town Halt Annex KENNETH L.EDWARI?S Y� 54375 State Route 25 GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor.Main Rd. 8z Youngs Ave.) JOSEPH L.TQWNSEND �(��}� Southold,NY i Telephones 631765-1938 Fax,631765,3136 PLANNING BOARD OFF11CF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 23,2009 Ms. Sherri Aicher,Environmental Analyst New fork State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook t SO Circle Road Stony Brook,New York 11790-3409 Re. Comments from the Town of Southold on the Northwind Village DEIS. Dear Ms.Aicher, Please accept for the record the following comments from the Town of Southold regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the"Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and Development of Northwind Village,Town of Southold, Suffolk County",New York. These comments were,written and compiled by Heather Lanza,AICP, Southold Town Planning Director;and Mark Terry, Southold Town Principal Planner;with the input of the Southold Town Planning Board,the Southold Town Assessor's office,and the input and f endorsement of the Southold Town Board.The comments are as follows: 1.Geology,Soils,Touog aphy Impacts to wetlands by alteration of topography and soils. 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. One soil boring(test hole B3)found groundwater only five feet from the surface(results from test holes ;- dug March 20,2008), and moist soil at 22 inches and attributed to perched water. The soil maps ! illustrates the Raynham soil type,the same that yielded high groundwater and moist soil near the ! surface,stretching in a band across the center of the property and also occupying the northeast corner. 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. Specifically page 43 states that"the test holes revealed that in the areas of the proposed buildings,there are quality soil conditions that are well-suited to standard construction procedures"yet the table on the preceding page(Table 4)shows that Raynharn soils are"Very F Limited"in their suitability for Dwellings with Basements due to their shallow depth to saturation,and Very limited for roadways due to the same reason and also due to frost action (roads will suffer many potholes and need repair often). 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 no where 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 imp act must be fully analyzed before it can be determined that no significant adverse impact will occur. i 2. Water Resources 2.1 Groundwater i 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. 2.2 Water usage E The DEIS states"no irrigation at this time"yet does not preclude the possibility of irrigation in the future. To assess the impact to water supply,the full potential use of water must be analyzed. F There is no landscaping plan submitted to support the idea that no irrigation will be installed at j 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 2 I I of"lawn and landscaping"are proposed as part of this project.Lawns are water-dependent and are typically irrigated in communities such as this which will presumably have a Homeowners' Association own and maintain the grounds. 2.4.Stormwater Runoff i I Section 4.2.4,Page 159 SWPPP and stormwater runoff discussion From the information submitted in the DEIS we are not able to determine whether an y potential. � significant adverse impacts from stormwater runoff are going to be mitigated. The DEIS,in Paragraph 2 on page 154,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(SWPPPy, that provides little detail on stormwater pollution prevention. A detailed SWPPP is needed to be able to mare 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. Dust The DEIS and Preliminary SWPPP state that dust will be controlled during construction,but does not provide details about how it will be controlled. Depth of drywells Page xii. In the fourth paragraph the groundwater is said to be an average of 2(}-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 starrnwater 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. 2.5 Surface Water,Wetlands,Floodplains Impact to surface water and groundwater. i t 3 i 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 sewage 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.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. Impact to wetlands 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 filling will alter the 4 topography. On page 163,the DEIS suggests that hydrogeology will be altered by puncturing the j strata of"unsuitable materials"or the soils that are not permeable where the water is perched above.The DEIS downplays the significance of perched water at S 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 areas 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 theerched water is p part of the hydrology 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). I 3.Ecolaxy Existing site conditions i 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 are they located,and what size are they?Where are the various habitats Iocated?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. F Natural resource planning and wildlife habitat The project contradicts good planning for natural resource protection of environmentally sensitive areas by embedding a high density residential development in a nature reserve of forested wetlands. The DEIS asserts that the applicant minimizes the effects of the development on the surrounding sensitive landscape,yet fails to back up the assertions made- 4 i i The DEIS fails to mention theeffect of pets,especially cats allowed outdoors, on the wildlife population,and how this development will likely introduce this"subsidized predator"into places where cats either don't exist now,or exist in very small numbers.It is a known fact that cats kill birds,snakes,mice,rabbits and any other small animal they can catch and can have a profound E 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 j rate and the creation of ecological sinks are well-documented in scientific studies. Minimization of disturbed area of the site The plan shows disturbance to be outside the 100'wetlands buffer,however the DEIS states that "disturbance would be limited to an area within a 100-foot-wide buffer around the existing r wetlands"meaning that there will be disturbance within 100' of the wetlands_ Whether or not the 100' loot 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 the mitigation discussions there is reference to revegetating disturbed areas in the 100' wetlands buffer area,yet no disturbance is shown on any plan. 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 areas will be the streets and the box turtle nesting site. Wetlands Some wetlands have likely not been identified on the map.This was determined via site visits in November,2009 by 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 DEIS regarding impacts of development under current zoning in comparison to development under Tillage zoning. Breeding birds and other wildlife. 5 4 r 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. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the construction. 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 rnoving 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. This entire discussion minimizing 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 eat food left outside). Habitat degradation_ Opening up the woodland with a development that protrudes into it will have a greater effect than 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. Incorrect reference to mitigation Merely preserving existing habitat is not mitigation.The 6.6 acres of habitat being lost to development cannot be mitigated by not developing the rest of theroe mitigation possible for lost habitat except to create new habitat to replace . mere is no t The DEIS states that matin trees would be preserved in the development p area, where possible, Yet no mature trees are identified on the site plans(there is no existing conditions'plan - identifying mature trees and their size). This statement cannot be considered mitigation.often trees that matured in the f©rest 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. 6 4 f Mainira zing impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods 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 140' buffer area.?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 appears to be unrealistic, therefore the impact should not be considered mitigated. Boat turtle nesting habitat 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 will 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 Iikely 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. 4.Land Usg,..Zoning,Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Community Character There will be a significant adverse impact on community character with the development of I either the 128 unit proposed action or one of the two alternatives.The plans as submitted do little or nothing to mitigate this impact. The DEIiS,in 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 over two miles away. The immediate neighborhood consists of nature preserve and single family homes on lots averaging nearly 2 acres(70,000 s.f.)per house.Most of the houses in the neighborhood are set 7 i hundreds of feet from the mad and are screened from view by vegetation. 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!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. The high density developments closest to the subject property are mostly seasonal resort uses associated with accessibility to beaches and the Long Island Sound and are dissimilar to the proposed action for that reason. Further,the buildings at Cliffside,just to the west across the street from the subject property,are set back over 80— 100 feet from the road,and there is some screening by vegetated berms. The Sunset Motel is also nearby,and the buildings are 140 feet from the road. San Simeon,across the street&oxxz Cliff-side,is set back 80 feet from the road and the building along the front is only one story. Surrounding the subject property on three sides is a nature preserve which stretches out over a f large area of preserved land_This project is embedded within,and effectively isolated by this nature preserve. 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 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'and, if subdivided,would be required to cluster the lots and screen the houses from the road with a vegetated buffer.The wetland complex associated with the subject property is shown as continuing onto this property,which might further limit the number of homes that could be sited next door,and thus widening the gap of inconsistency with the community character. The campground to the east is set well back from the road and is not visible.A high density development a mile east(Pheasant Run)is also set well back from the road with a thick natural _ buffer effectively screening it from sight. Visual Impact 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 visual impact analysis 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 8 i approach from the east and west, both close up,and from farther away.Otherwise this adverse I impact must be considered as remaining a significant adverse impact that has not been mitigated. ! The Final Scope,in Section 4.5,requires that the DEIS include a visual impact assessment Pursuant to procedure contained in the DEC visual Impact guidance document. This property is subject to this requirement due to its location in a State Designated Scenic CorridorByway_This � assessment was not done. Analysis of the Action's Consistency with Comprehensive Plannin Efforts/Studies Und_ taken by the Town of Southold. There is likely not one document comprising the Comprehensive Plan of Southold with which this project could be found to be truly consistent. The DEIS contains out-of-context snippets of various town land use plans that might appear to make the project consistent,but a more thorough reading of the land use plans will prove the inconsistencies dominate.Examples of such inconsistencies are set forth in greater detail below. Town of Southold Scenic Corridor Management Plan 2041 i This parcel is located within 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 of intense visible development to the west,which is uncharacteristic of the majority of the CR 48 Scenic Corridor. The scenic characteristics of the corridor include an emphasis on the rural characteristics of the town. j The proposed project is not consistent with this plan which calls for new development to be consolidated close 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. Smart growth planning concept. The DEIS makes claims that"Smart C�rowv&'Principles are guiding s�many aspects"of this proposed action. It should be noted that the location of this 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. 9 € r I Suffolk County Smart Growth Principles The DEIS states that this proposed development supports Suffolk County's Smart Growth principles,and fi'rther goes on to state that many FEED Neighborhood Certification criteria will I be met. Section 4.4.1,on page 177 runs through the criteria the project claims to meet; { Site location within a quarter mile of community resources.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)—i/to a%mile.This is located over two miles from the center of Greenport and its mass transit opportLmities and other amenities such as grocery stores,the post office, and other shopping. The Greenport school is located 1.6 miles away.Further,#here are tto 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`tillage a dangerous and intimidating undertaking with traffic commonly moving very fast(60 mph)on this stretch of road. Affordable Housing and the lack of benefit of an annexation The proposed project is being labeled`workforce housing' and `affordable horsing' 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 fature. 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 doesn't 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 'row out of reach for low to middle income people.In addition to the 64 units of workforce ' 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 Tom cur;ently 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 determining their eligibility based on income and other factors, and then bholding ablotteryamong first 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. 10 E t Analysis of the Action's Consistenev with the Policies of the Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) On recommendation of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Coordinator,the Town Board disagrees with the claim made in Volume I of 2: Text and Appendices A-G,page 220 indicating that the proposed action is consistent with the proposed policy. LWRP Policy 1. .Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances commundy character, preserves open space, snakes ef,fickat use of infrastructure,makes bengftwial use of a coastal locution,and minimizes adverse effects of development. The policy 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 of the i- desired development pattern are:strengthening the hamlets as centers of activity=maintaining a clear sense of separation between hamlet centers and the countryside (emphasis added), encouraging water-dependent uses to concentrate in existing locations of maritime activity, enhancing stable residential areas, and preserving agriculture, open space and environmentally sensitive coastal resources. Development that does not reinforce the traditional land use pattern of the Town of Southold would result in a loss of the community and landscape character of Southold. Further,the Town's "Master Plan Update" encourages residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets "in order to preserve and enhance the historic and cultural centers of the community, to support existing commercial centers, to provide locations for moderately priced housing and to encourage efficient and effective provision of community facilities and services"(Town.of Southold Planning Board, 1985,p6). The proposed action is not located within the Greenport HALO or Hamlet Center. Further the I "isolated"location lacks sufficient connecting infrastructure(sidewalks)to a commercial/service area available to residents without vehicles. Unsafe pedestrian use of the road shoulder poses an unacceptable level of risk,due to high traffic speed,limited lime of site,narrow road shoulders and a high occurrence of wetlands that do not allow for space to walk off the pavement(which forces pedestrians closer to travel lanes). Correspondingly,the isolated location also promotes higher vehicle dependency and consequently greater vehicle trips for residents with vehicles. 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. t1 i ' E I County Route 48 (a designated New York State Scenic Byway)presently functions as a bypass to the more congested State Route 25, which meanders along the south side of the Town. The issues ` of concern along CR 48 include the loss of agricultural land and open space to residential f development and the intensification of strip commercial development in the business zones that are capable of eroding the scenic qualities important to the community. 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 assessed. Based upon the above,the proposed action does not strengthen the hamlet as a center of activity to maintain a clear sense of separation between the hamlet center and the countryside. Rather, the proposal conflicts with the Town Comprehensive Plan goals that require high density residential development to be located within the Hamlet Centers. Therefore,the proposed action does not meet the above stated Policy. LWRPPolicy 3.1 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town ofSom*old A. Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. K Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. t I. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality_ 2. Group or orient structures during site design to preserve open space and provide visual organization. 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including- a. introduction of intrusive artificial light sources b. fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas The proposed action is located in Moores Drain, a designated New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. The natural scenic components (woodland) are largely intact front the County Route 48 viewshed looping 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 the above stated policies. 12 L WRP Policy 5.4 Limit the potential for br adverse impacts of watershed development on i water quality and quantity. A. Protect water quality by ensuring that proposed expansion or intensification of existing watershed development results in: 2. Maintenance of natural characteristics of drainage systems, and i B Limit the individual impacts associated with development to prevent cumulative water quality impacts which would lead to a failure to meet water quality standards. 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. LWRP Policy 5.5 Protect and conserve the quality and quantity of potable water. A. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting, discouraging or prohibiting land use practices that are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies B. Prevent depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries, through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use and withdrawals, and by allowing for recharge of potable aquifers C. Limit cumulative impact of development on groundwater recharge areas to ensure replenishment of potable groundwater supplies. i It is unclear whether the proposed action is consistent with the policy above due to the lack of clarity in the analysis on the issue of stormwater pollution prevention, drainage, landscaping and irrigation in the DEIS. F LWRP Policy 61 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of outhoAt The proposed action is inconsistent with this policy as discussed. See below. A. avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconie Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by.- 13 I I 1. Physical loss of ecological components 2. Degradation of ecological components 3. Functional loss ofecological components There will be physical loss of ecological components, and will likely be degradation of adjacent ecological components and possible functional loss of wetlands 4[ R Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. f 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. I I 3. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. 4. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. 5. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. 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 LWRPPolicy 6.2 Protect and restore Signifecant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The subject parcel is nearly surrounded by a NYSDOS Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area recognizing the ecological significance of the area. The complete Coastal Fish and Wildlife Assessment Fonn is attached. This policy has not been sufficiently addressed in the document. The proposed action may be inconsistent with this policy. We cannot be certain until Y a habitat impairment test has been conducted as described in the LWRP in this section. I LWRP Policy&3 Prvteet and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. This policy has not been adequately addressed within the DEPS and therefore consistency with i the LWRP snot be determined. On October 29,2009 Planning bard 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,PC and dated May 13, 14 2009. The field inspection was performed in conjunction with the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Pro osed Annexation By The Villa a of Green rt and Develo gent ofNorthwind Vill e Town of Southol4, Suffolk Coun 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. i The emergent vegetative species common reed(phragmites spp.)occurs on the northeast area of the parcel_ This area is not depicted on the plat. Common Reed is a wetland indicator species ' for freshwater wetlands pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the Southold Town Code definition;Wetland(Freshwater). ISM Ell iR { . irf Figure 1_ Kace LI,LLC area of parcel in common reed;close up(white arrow) Note that aerial photograph analysis suggests that this area may be directly connected to a larger hardwood(predominately red maple(Acer rubrum))wetland system that occurs east,west(along County Route 4$)and south. The areas mentioned correlate with the Raynham loam soil series i with seasonal high water table b"to 18"below the surface. Consequently_, the coaNI of the proposed action to meet or further the below listed policies cannot be accurately assessed. It is recommended that thea licant amend the plans to show the correct_wetland area and then address the below policies and sub-policies. Wetlands within the Town of Southold are critical natural resources that provide benefits including: open space, habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality enhancement, flooding and erosion protection, scenic value, and opportunities for environmental education. Over the years, many wetland areas have been lost or impaired by degradation or functional loss. Wetlands and their benefits are also dependent upon the condition of adjacent lands which provide buffers between wetlands and surrounding uses. Large areas of adjacent lands that previously provided a buffer for wetlands have been physically lost to development or functionally lost through 15 changes in land use, including inappropriate or incompatible landscaping. These losses and impairments to the wetlands and their functions cumulatively have impacted the Town of Southold's ecosystem. The Town recognizes the value of wetlands to its ecosystema, its economy and its aesthetic character. It also recognizes that federal and state regulations concerning wetlands do not fully_ cover local conditions, and in some cases, are less restrictive than local regulations. The Town Board of Trustees has local expertise in the management of the Town's wetlands and in this i capacity espouses a "no net toss" of wetlands policy, as espoused by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I� L WRP Policy G.4. Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plain species, and rare ecological communities. j This policy has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS. General consistency with overall Town Comnrehensive Plan As shown above,the action is not consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Comrnuni Services and Utilities General comments on the tax base of the Village and the Town. 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 reexamined,and cannot be assumed to be mitigated by property taxes. 5.1 Public Schools The full potential significant adverse impact to the schools was outlined as to numbers of student, but not analyzed in terms of cost versus taxes,nor mitigated. The DEIS claims minimal impact based on the assumption that most of the children that will attend school from this development are already in the school district.They provide no evidence to support this assumption.A true assessment of the impact to the public school must be conducted to determine whether the adverse impact is significant,and whether it has been mitigated 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 16 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 current Town zoning. 5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service 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 increased property tax will cover increased demand for services,yet it is common knowledge that residential development results in a net loss to municipal revenue due to the higher demand on services_A true analysis of the cost 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. 5.3 Police Protection 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. j Also,all buildings must meet New York Building and Fire Codes,not just those wishing to have to call the police less often. 5A Water Supply i 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). 5.5 Sewage Disposal 3 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 Lo do so. E This provides a financial bonus to the Village they would not receive if the property were annexed. 5.8 Recreation 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 17 I 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. f 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. All together,the DEIS has not sufficiently characterized or quantified the potential significant adverse impacts to community services,thus it cannot be determined whether those impacts have j been mitigated. i 6.Transaortation ; Traffic Safety I 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,Cliffside Resort,which provides transient lodging,was completed to the west of the proposed project,and open for business in mid to late summer,2008. The traffic I_ 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 I 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 i 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 traff e)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 isn't a safe sight distance if people cars will have to hit their brakes when people pull out.Traffic calming or road reconfiguration for this now busy comerlhill would likely be better mitigation than a simple turning lane and trimming some vegetation. I Trak generation 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 roust be included in any traffic analysis. Parking There is not enough parking provided on site and no other place 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 tracks travelling fast(the speed limit is 50mph),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. ' I Alternate Transportation. Section 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation 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. 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 on Moores Lane.prom there it is well over a mile to the Village I. center. F 19 i 7.Cultural Resources The archeological study contains soil information(soil map)that does not appear to match with k the soil analyses done elsewhere in the DEIS. S.Cumulative lm acts The DEIS states that there will be no impact to surface water,yet completely ignores the fact that E the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment plant effluent empties into the Long island Sound. The track record and current test results of the effluent of the Greenport Severer 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. While the loss of forested habitat to the Moores Woods is less than the 17 acres identified in the Scope,the mitigation proposed(not clearing the wetlands and wetland buffer),is not really mitigation for the forest that is being lost. See earlier discussion on this topic. Other general comments on the DEIS and gUgosed development. EAF. The Environmental Assessment Form is incomplete--the number of acres being cleared,habitat types etc. Alternatives and assessment of impacts with and without annexation. E The alternatives were poorly designed for this environmenW assessment and are not meaningful for several reasons.First,both development alternatives are very similar to the proposed action in their layout,design,and lot coverage by buildings and pavement. # Of units #buildings #parking spaces Proposed action 128 23 192 Alternative design 108 19 163 Alt. current zoning 50 25 125 Neither alternative 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 nuEnbers of I: parking spaces. This environmental assessment should analyze alternatives more in keeping with the community character and zoning that surrounds this parcel on all sides.The current zoning is the Village parkland zoning,and the Town's Residential-80 zoning.An alternative demonstrating the 20 - s I FF 4 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. 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---50 units. Second,the alternative for current zoning is a valid alternative,but must be corrected and assessed based on an accurate reading of the Town Code to be meaningful. Alternative. 108 units. i This 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. j Alternative: Current Town zoning development 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 reaf coned by the Town's staff person I responsible for verifying wetlands delineations. In addition to the question of yield,the proposed alternative of developing the property under current town code does not meet the Town's code for HD zoned property(§ 280-137 A(7)). There is a maximum floor area allowed based on yield and a multiplier.As an example,if the yield was 50(again we can't be certain without a yield map that meets Town Code),under the new code the maximum floor area would be 50 units x 1,200 square feet,equaling 60,000 s.f The DEIS alternative for development under current town zoning proposes 50 units at 2,520 s.f each,which would exceed the 60,000 s.f.maximum floor area. The code provides the option to build 2,520 s.f units,only at a lower density.In this example,for the units to be 2,520 square feet each,there could only be 23 of them(60,000 s.£max floor area—2,520 s.f per unit=23 ' F units).Again,this is all based on an assumption of yield that hasn't been demonstrated. Southold Town Code§ 280-137 A(6)requires that this proposed development be clustered,with i thirty percent of the buildable lands to be kept open(this thirty percent would be calculated using the buildable lands only(excluding the wetlands).The alternative as shown may meet the requirement;however it is not clear from the plan if it does.The plans should clearly state the 21 area of wetlands,the area of buffer,and the area of"open space",as well as the total area of "buildable lands." There also is some confusion in the DEIS over whether this alternative is to be subdivided into lots,or kept as a homeowners association and the units sold as condominiums.The plan submitted shows attached units and the parcel remaining as one lot.This is the only way that attached housing as proposed could be developed. The proposed alternative would have similar ownership to the proposed action of 128 units.The statements on pg.277 indicating it will be more difficult to control the ecological impacts because of the ownership pattern is erroneous and should be corrected. All other statements making the assumption that this alternative would involve individual homeowners with no common area should be corrected. 1 The plan incorrectly assumes that 10%of the units would be affordable,inhere the Town Code requires twenty percent and they must remam affordable forever.The alternative should include the 20°lo affordable required by the Town Code,or analyze the effects of the partial buyout being suggested on the plan.The buyout value has been set by the Town at$203,600 per affordable unit not built. If this alternative did yield 50 units,and 10%were built as affordable,the remaining five units would have to be"bought out"by the applicant.This would yield the town's affordable housing fund over a million dollars,and would be used to provide affordable housing opportunities elsewhere in the Town. The proposed site plan shows an unsafe and unrealistic road and parking scheme. Southold Town Code requires a minimum paved area width for roads of 28 feet. The roads bend at sharp angles j and turning radius'may not meet the standards set forth in Town Code(without those radius' ` shown on the plan,we can't be certain).Parking spaces shown on sharp turns are unsafe. The plan also shows very little open area for yards or outdoor recreation. The alternatives analysis provide no useful comparison to feasible alternate uses of the property, including the current zoning,so no conclusion can be made in the findings about the impacts of those alternatives except that the 108 unit alternative is probably similar to those of the proposed action and.the"current town zoning"alternative was not correct and thus does not accurately present the potential impacts. Yield("as-of-right") The DEIS appears to be based on assumptions that do not take into account what an"as-of-righf' development would likely yield if the project were developed under the current zoning.Yield for residential site plans in the M 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 22 3 i i 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 j potentially be almost three times the number of units in the"as-of-right"development. The case far annexation (public benefit of) i 1. 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. i. Study after study has shown that residential development costs municipalities more than they receive in taxes. z Page 19 Inaccuracies. LEED Criteria. s 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. Conclusion j The DEIS does not address the impacts adequately,nor does it contain proposals for adequate l! mitigation for the impacts that are acknowledged. The document is missing some important information required in the Final Scope and necessary to determine the impact and possible mitigation,one example being the Visual Impact Analysis.There are inaccuracies in the document that must be corrected to be able to determine the impacts and whether they've been mitigated.Last,the DEIS contains and inaccurate and insufficient analysis of alternatives. 3 Please feel free to contact us at(531)755- 938 with any questions. f Sincerely, I H tier Lanza,AICP Town Planning Director Encl. 23 i COASTAL FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain Counties: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7%z Quadrangle(s): Southold,NY,and Greenport;IVY Designated: October 1$,2005 k Assessment Criteria Score Ecosystem Rarity(ER)-the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical,structural,and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: One of the largest saltwaterifreshwater wetland complexes on Long Island;rare in the coastal lowlands ecological subregion. 16 ` . Species Vulnerability(SV)—the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival (E Endangered,T=Threatened,SC=Special concern) p { ) (T),and common tern.(T)use the Pipes Cave SV assessment:Pipinglover E,T-Fed,leasttem area for foraging and loafing,but extent of use not well documented. 0 Human Use(HU)—the conduct of significant,demonstrable commercial,recreational,or I educational wildlife-related human uses,either consumptive or non-consumptive,in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment:Recreational clamming,kayaking,boating and fishing significant at the county level_ 4 Population Level (PL)—the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence,regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. i E PL assessment:No unusual concentrations of any species of fish or wildlife in the area. 0 Replaceability(R)—ability to replace the area, either on or off site,with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife,for the some users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment:Irreplaceable. 1.2 - 1 Habitat Index=[ER+SV+HU+PL]=20 Significance=HI x R=24 Page 3 of 6 I NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain i LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moores Drain habitat is located on Long Island's North Fork,between Hashamomuck Pond and the Village of Greenport in the Town of Southold and Village of i Greenport,Suffolk County(7.5'Quadrangles: Southold,NY,and Greenport,NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 570 acres in size, and is comprised of several habitat types, including a portion of the shallow waters of Pipes Cove, the tidal creeks and marshes associated with Pipes Creek and Pipes Cove Creek,the freshwater swamps of the Arshmonaque wetlands and the Moore's Drain basin,open grasslands,and upland woods. Moore's Woods,which lies north of State Route 25,is protected land ownedby the Village ofGreenporL The Arshamanaque Wetlands between Chapel Lane and Albertson Lane is under town or county ownership,and is managed as protected open space lands. The habitat is bounded by Middle Road on the north,Albertson Lane and Kerwin Boulevard on the west,Pipes Cove and State Route 25 on the south,and the residential areas of the Village of Greenport to the east. Water depths in the portion of Pipes Cove and associated creeks within the habitat are less than three feet at meaty low water. The habitat complex is bordered by light and dense residential development,woodlands,and scattered commercial sites. The Arshamanaque Wetlands and Moore`s Woods portions of this habitat both provide habitat for swamp cottonwood(Populus heterophylla),a species designated as rare in New York State by the New York Natural Heritage Program. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moore`s Drain habitat contains one ofthe largest tidaUfreshwater wetland complexes on Long Island,and is unusual within the coastal lowlands subregion. This Habitat area, including its diversity ofupland ecological communities, is important to fish andwildlife throughout the year. Suitable nesting habitat for common tern(T)and least tern(T)is available on the maritime beaches along Pipes Cove,but nesting by these species has not been well documented. However, during a survey in 2000,six least terns(D were observed on the beach,and two common terns(T) were seen feeding in the waters of Pipes Cove. A 1996 record shows that 64 least tern (T) individuals were observed in the vicinity of the beach at Pipes Cove,with no nesting documented. Pipes Cove is a valuable waterfowl wintering area(November-March)on the north shore,providing shallowwaterrabitat for red-breasted merganser,buff dread,and American black buck,with smaller concentrations of greater and/or lesser scaup, American widgeon, common goldeneye, and long- tailed duck. 'Waterfowl use of the bay during winter is influenced in part by the extent of ice cover � each year. Page 2 of 6 S F The habitat has long been recognized as a critical environmental area. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (in partnership with The Nature Conservancy) and the Town of Southold recently acquired approximately 140 acres of tidal, brackish, and freshwater wetlands between the Arshamanaque Wetlands and Pipes Cove_ Despite the presence of mosquito ditches and other disturbances,tidal wetlands(and the tidal creeks)within the area of acquisition are of a high quality nature. Pipes Cove provides important birdwatching, hiking,nature study, environmental interpretation, kayaking,and boating opportunities for the public. Recent acquisitions of lands within the Pipes i Creek Cove and Moore's Drain habitat area may contribute to the importance of the area to recreationists. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: i Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in the Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area Degradation of water quality in the creek, or to its water sources, from chemical contamination (including food chain effects),oil spills,excessive turbidity,and waste disposal(including vessel wastes)would adversely affect all fish and wildlife. Efforts should be made to improve water quality,including the control . and reduction of discharges frorn vessels and upland sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should f be protected or established to further reduce water quality impairment from upland sources. Any expansion of fishing,small boat use,and educational activities should be compatible with the preservation ofnatural habitats.Alteration of tidalpatterns in Pipes Cove and associated tidal creeks would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms,and to allow for dredged material placement when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Unregulated dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental,but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Existingandproposed dredgingoperations inthis area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects_ Constriction of shoreline structures,such as docks,piers, bulkheads, or revetments,in areas not previously disturbed by development,may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas,through loss of tidal connection,ditching,excavation,or filling,would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive i nuisance plant species,trough a variety o3nea ,Y*iay improve ffsh and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. The fish and wildlife resources of the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain area could be affected. � by modification of public access to and/or use of the areas. Habitat modifications which substantially change the natural character of the area,such as residential,commercial,or industrial developments could have a significant impact on many wildlife species in the area. , Page 3 of 6 Unrestricted use of motorizedvessels including personal watercraft in the protected,shallow waters of the cove and tidal creeks of this area could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled(e.g.,no-wake zones, speed I zones,zones of exclusion)in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and wintering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a E significant impact on juvenile(and,in some cases,adult)fish concentrations,through impingement or entrainment. i HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review,then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The speck habitat impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would: A destroy the habitat;or, i * significantly impair the viability of a habitat. Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance,or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area_ Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology,or increases in runoff,erosion,sedimentation,or pollutants. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources(e.g.,food,shelter,living space)or change in environmental conditions(e.g.,temperature,substrate,salinity)beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations andmay include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity,changes in community structure(food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and .mortality. The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all,but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or has the potential to support a restored population,where practical. Either the Ioss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an orga-a ism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as Page 4 of 6 an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit(a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors,however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit,but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species. The range ofparameters which should be considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but are not limited to the following: I. physical parameters such as living space, circulation,flushing rates,tidal amplitude, turbidity,water temperature, depth(including loss of littoral zone),morphology,substrate type,vegetation,structure,erosion and sedimentation rates; 2. biological parameters such as community structure,food chain relationships,species diversity,predator/prey relationships,population size, mortality rates,reproductive rates, meristic features,behavioral patterns and migratory patterns;and, 3. chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen,carbon dioxide, acidity,dissolved solids, nutrients,organics,salinity,and pollutants(heavy metals,toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significantly impair the habitat are listed in the Impact Assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. E f I i F Page 5 of 6 r� 1 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit Office of Ecology NYS Department of State Suffolk County Dept.Of Health Services Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Environmental Management 41 State Street County Center Albany,NY 12231 Riverhead,NY 11901 Phone: (518)474-6000 Phone: (631)852-2077 NYSDEC--Region 1 Bureau of Marine Resources j State University of New York,Building 40 NYSDEC Stony Brook,NY 11790-2356 2035 N.Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 Phone: (631)444-0354 East Setauket,NY 11733 Phone:(631)4440430 Town of Southold Town Hall New York Natural Heritage Program 53095 Main Road. 625 Broadway,5"'Floor P.O.Bax 1179 Albany,NY 12233-4757 Southold,NY 1197I Phone: (518)4€32-8935 Phone: (631)765-1501 Paul Stoutenburgh Town of Southold Trustees 4015 Skunk Lane Town Hall Cutchogue,NY 11935 53095 Main Road Phone:(631)7346605 Southold,NY 11971 Phone: (631)765-1892 i i Page 6 of 6 E _ ' r f •1 1• '�n '. ,f If-f 1•!f i 1-1'f Exhibit H 2005 Testimony of the Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District as appeared at the first public hearing on the Annexation Petition in 2005 (provided under separate cover). -U Arop � a 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i STATE OF NZW YORK ------------------------------ 4 ----------------------- --..---4 ,7 O. I N T P C7 B' L I C H E A 'R I N G 5 or $. TOWN BOAJtD Of THE TOWN.,OF SOUTHOLD 7 and P BOARD VF TRUSTEES•OF THE VILLAGF Or CREEMPORT g In the Matter of, 10 Petition -for Ax�nAxati on proposing the annexation of the territory identified by 11 SCTM 1000-40-3-1 12 ----------------- ------------------X Greenport High School 13 75955 Route 25 ,y :YO Craenp,ort, New .York V 14 August 23, 2005 15 7:00 p.m. 16 Southold Board Members Present 17 oskA Y. HORT[?N, Sup�rvisrsr , THOMAS H. WICKHIkM, Councilman 1g JOHN M. ROHANELLI,' Counri1man DANIEL C.. FLOSS: Councilman 19 WILLIAM, P. EDWA.RDS, COuncilma"n, PA'1`itICIA FINNEGAN, Town, 4ttvm-zaey 20 21 ViI a3� o JGs` pn�t Bcfard of Trustees 22 DAVID E.. SELL,,, Mayor GAIL F� HOFtTON' Trustde. 23 rmoRGE W. HUBB,ARDi'.Jx�., Trustee .rr I,LIAM,,z....MTI7LSf, -1'11, T)'ustae ;I;F•.' .91:,�aji'y:..i Y,1,,�. .} ,. 3A • . ' >=+LStSLLLi.I. {.7.. V371 �t1,• ustee JOSEPU PROXOPt Village Attorney t Fy'vF. `� • rLyNN Corlp`1' RHPCRT2�7G .ANf7 TR.»�[35CR, .PTION SEi�VICE iF31} '727-1107 .fit•['�=:''�fl _ �: au 2 address the issues of low cost housing, I think rio 3 ane .•here' s saying we shouldn' t have low cost 4 housing. 5 SUPERVI-50P. HORT015: Focus yoiar comments to 6 the Board, 7 MR. LUSTSERG: Afforda&16 housing should 8 be in the urban core to support the downtown area, 9 and subsequently make the. affordable �ivinq 10 situation where people can contribute to the .11 community they live in, not living out on Highway 12 48.. It' s beautiful farmland. 13 MR. KOZORA: Good evexjin.q, I 'm Charles 14 Kozora., Superintendent of the Greenport School 15 oistrict. Azid I' d like to talk to you tonight '16 about the financial impact of this project on the . 17 school di-strict and. the -G-reenport takk ayers . ,8 have to di'sagree that there would be no 19 change ill di5tt .ct . I am -also 20 pe lexed that when .Mr_ Kontokosta- talked about 21 _ enrollment `t=ends , he f€actised can K through 3 , and -22 -it is t=e that we have ,had a 20 .percent decline. . 23 in earallme'nt is K through 3 . $ut we are not a•K ' 4 through 3 'scliool 61Gs riot-. We. are in a K through .25 3 building; we are K th: 70ugh, 12 district, and in FLYNN STENOGRARHy ADM TRA.TSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 727-11Q7 2 the last f ive years we have had 10 percent 3 increase ill enrollment K through 12 . 4 According to Michael and Dint) Kontokosta, 5 this 128 unit p=c6ject will be c:o11ec.tivelY 6 assessed at between $400, 000 and $500, 000 , if l 7 wex'e to use the highest estimate"of $500 , 000 , that 8 would genexate-, $275 , 000 in new reverxues. One 0f 9. the pro j e-ctions that was used taas- -the enrol.lmant 10 in the school district, and there was a use of a 11 national average . cif the number of students per 12 household to project th,e. number, of students who 13 would came. from this development ., I suggest to 1.4 you that. this is totally flawed at best . If we 5 were to u6a that magical riational average nunib'er, �6 project the number of students coming from; Peconic 17 Landing, we would have gotten hundreds ; we hav4 18 Hans: if we would have used that mAgi.cal national 19 average t0 " rC ' t; the riumber of students coming - 20 fr6m Pheasant Run', we would .have had 50 more; we 21 h ve none , ;S think this •illustrates this flaw in 22 this method of student. projection." A more 23 rea.li.stil�. model would be used, of a number of 5 2.4 = students a hotising p2�01ect• w0u.ld generate . wheri I + 25 met with the Kon.tokost.as on Monday, they agreed ELYNN STENOGRAPHY AND TRANSCRIPTION 58PVICE (631) 727-110.7 2 that the Cedar Fleld,s project that was developed 3 in the late -180s was similar. The Ceder Fields 4 project has 39 units that come from this 3 development . Tl$is propw3ed project ,has 3 . 3 times 6 as many units as the Cedar Fields project . -if' we 7 use the same ratio, we' d have an- additional. 135 8 and a half students. but we won' t count half 9 bodies, so .Let' s go with -115 . 10 Cour building has a capacity, as we n i 11 mentioned., to house these students without 12 e.cpan.ding, but we 'don' t have the stat! to provide 13 the services; we would have to 'expand the staff. 1d we don' t have the adequate bus runs; we would have �5 to add at least a couple more.. it would also be, 1 BOCES Occupational Educational There v7 would be special education.• tuition at BOCES . we 18 would an, icipate that 14 of these Students , if we 19 used the clitri-& ratio would require special. 20 education aervices that- would avdr`aga $30, 001 a, � 21 -,year. Nab 'all the azic_i.pa,ted' dosts would b6 ^ N 22 an.t�_icipated. However, , a simple per pupil. 2 calculation can giy(� us an estimate . .A simplit per 24 pupil cost, if you divide 'the, number of students i 25 � into our total budget is $17, 904 , Howeverr, a, more FLYNN STENOGRAPHY AND tRMSCRTPZ'TON SERVICE, 1631) 727-1107 2 accurate and actual cost for additional students 3 would be $14, 000 per student because we have fixed 4 costs that remain the same, such as handing 5 indebtedness or the heating of the building. so 6 the initial students approve the economies of 7 sca18 and they actually reduce' oris per pupil cost 3 while ra.isizig the overall cast 9 Now the question azise.a, what is the ld fiaazicial iTnpact to- the district and to the 1.1 taxpayers? The increase of oti±• student population 12 by 1.7 percent will increase our state aid as an 13 additional -revenue of $175, 00.0 ; that, combined 14 with the $275 , 000 of add;itionAl revonue from the 1.5 taxes, would came up to $450, 000 in additional. 15 revenues from this project. However, the expenses 17 of the 115 .studeza;ts that will-reduce per p-.pil 10 costs to $14 , 000 generates an expehdituri , .df $i- 61 . 7.9 million. �We�' duot tl%e reveizue of $450, 00G,- and 20 we h&ve a net increase of $.1. 1.5 Milli,on in the „ 2.1 amount. of mx�ey that needs to -be'raised ley 22 Thil in' itselwould result in- a 14 percent tax 23 increase when the project, i s complete. It would. 24 raise the tax rate in Greenport Sc.iioal District by' 25 $17 . 16 per hundred. Thank you, PT,Y DM STENOGRAPHY ,AND TRANS CR Z P'T 10N S ERV l CE ($31k 721-1107 - 1 _ 67 2 MR. DINIZIO: James Dinizio, Greenport . 3 I 'm 52 years old. I've lived here all my life . � 4 see my buy' s name written up there and probably I 5 had my name wri tern there at one time . I went to 5 school. I grew up zn this place. I also attended 7 two other aAaexation meetings, :2 'believe they were 8 both here, ane involved Cedar Flelds, and quite 9 honestly, I was dead against it. Made some 10 enemies . Certainly, it turned out pretty-goad. I { 11 walk through here every morning. I fFee a chief's 12 car there. I see dock builders. I see a lot of 13 people who are in the Fire Department . It seems 14 that it turned out okay. I understand they got 15 some gubsidies . I don' t believe the people that 16 . are living there now gad. stibsidies . I guess -what 17 1,m trying to, _qay to you :is we' re going to need 8 that evegi more . Mr. Capon was up here, I Snow that man. alb:' '13'-fe, And I know one things when 20 the lire bell rings, he runt. But.- guess what, h.e 21 can' t cont "nue to run. We need peoVple 1r. this, 22 comfnun:ity that are going to join these . 23 thiz19s . They can' t afford what' s available now. 24 I understand market ,' I• ix-aderst.atd• that probably 2S anoti���` 128 units inside my d..strtic wig Z' dev`a�.ue FLY1V STENOGRAPHY TRA1.gSCRIP'VICN SERVICE 0313 727 �iG7 2 my home. 2' mIwiIling, to forego that . 2 think 3 itis necessary that this happen. 4 Now affordability notwithstanding, this is S. an annexation h9-aring. A quick look_ a�' the map 6 that Mr. Kontokosta sh.owad you, will show you that 7 majority, probably 90 parcent' of" the high density 8 zoning in Southold town was on that map . This 9 town, sou'thold "Sawn, planned for-that. And -.0 there' s a reason for it . Because there' a sewer �.�. and there'-8 water available. And that ' s why you 12, have a high density as 'Yc?u have, it now, ,az 13 proposed. • I uzzdarstand this is twice as much. I 4 14 believe that the Village of Greenport will do just �5 as -goad a •job planning this as Southold Town 16 because most of it is its consultants. I don' t 17 think the Town actually makes, the decisiv-. on what_ 8 is wetlands an"d what itn' t. 1g N6%r; rT'' S1'� member of the Zoning Board of 20 Southold Town. I walked thit property.. I ksaow �4%at it looks like. I'm going to tell 'ycu, I 22 don'-t. know wetlands from shinol,-i i' only know 23 that, at one point. in. time that had apptoved, 24 subdivision on it, that particular pie-Ce of f 25 property, and for Whatever reasofi, it was never FLYNX STENOGRAPHY AND (6.31) 727'-110'7 69 2 built . Now if Josh has his way, nixie of those 3 acxes are going to be gone, and they' re never 4 going to be developed. And I don' t know how the 5 Village wOzks that out, -but certainly it has to be 5 worked out by some method. Southold planned this 7 whole di.stri-et, our whole ,school'district,.,for 8 high density. it 's bee3i' that way for quite same 9 time. I fought against it fok many years thinking 10 it was not fair to 'Greenport School District to 11 put ali the density in my school district . _r 12 don' t feel that way anymore. with all due respect 13 to Dr_ Kozora, we take in students from East 14 Marion and Orient . Now, they might 'have to go 15 somewhere else if we have too marry student's . They 16 might have to pay to put the addition on. I don' t 17 know, but it isn' t. just stuadnts from Greenport 18 that attend this school And fall 'up the seats . 19 knd:, -yi -k ow, for whatever it' s going to 20 cost, I think we're going, to lose .:-. or :we' re' , 21. going to benefit from the fact that we've got ' guys 22 who Are willi:'g to get .ih ,a `car and at 2 : a❑ at' 23 night, run dawn and, put a fire out, and go to i 24 Pv6ofiic Landing, - Saar Si.meat. We' re not t&lki ng r one call a day, we' re talking two, - three calls a FLYNN' STENOGRAPHY AND TRANS CRI PTI N -SERVICE (631) 727-1107' MM 2 day. These. people axe .run ragged. We need people 3 here . Z think this is encouraging this might 4 happen. I am hoping that you undarst.a,zid how you 5 folks zoned Ehis; placo . I'm net talking about you. 6 in particular, but for 20 years it' s been .zoned 7 that way, that' s planning, it was proper planning . 8 Where' a eew8r available, there' s water available, 9 none of that is available anywhere else in the 10 town. Now someone bought that land 20 years ago. •k , 13. They planned on developing that as that, Now 12 every time it seams that -Southold Town, someone 13 wants to do something, everybody just jumps tap and 14 says you can't do axactiy that,- you can' t de 15 exactly what, the code said, traffic, yada yada. 16 W811, guess what, planning is planning for 17 traffic . It's all been done, al Teady.. Yc:;u 9uy8 2,g have - looked at it. it's a main road. it' s meant �. for traf l:c: := :�s mearit for that much traffic. '20N©w, didn' t hoar any: hizm n. cry -when 4aO units of 00 'yards away from me iz;, Southold went up n _ a ' -22. 2tcwn,. and l'rn talk-kag about Fec=is T.,andings, aot 2,3 a single cry of baa abcut .t.raffic. We have a 24 hotel" on the coTTier of wherd I live, Shady Lady, 25 it's eight units . it used to just be a FLYNN STENOGRAPHY AND TR11NSCRIPTIt]N SERVICE (631) 727,12.07. 71 2 xestaurant .. So the Town has done its planning. 3 if you' re unwilling to allow this persori to 4 develop it, will you own it? Let the 'Village . 5 They have to de eve-'ything by the law. If it' s a 5 certain amount of density, they have the sewer, 7 ' they have the water, come on, let them do it . 8 Thank you very much. g MS. HST 14BR IDGE : My- name is Ingrid 10 Huthbridga, I live ill Greenport .- MY first 1 question is actually A f011.aw-aup to the last 12 affordable housing meeting that was held in this, 13 very auditorium. 14 At that time Mayor Kapell said that he l5 would like to do an independent study to make suz`e' 15 that we have a? cohe8iva plan and not just do a 17 "Band-Aid. J' d like to know if that study has been-' is done; and, if' so, how, can we the public• find out 9 what was a d?" :: • r 20 ' my second' question relates., t4 come of the 2,1 ascus t••ibns �thae ;have been mad8 here, about people , nt 22 w<ing to my JOb, eve 23 yeah l Azad' to fill out:° numerous _forms saying who I 24 was, who my family -was., what -posSible' cn7:fl.i.cts o� } 25 i iterest •they• could have in. i.nfluencing-' mY FLYNN STRNOGRAPHY PND TRANSCRIPTION. SERVICE (631) 727-1107