Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIS Vol. 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Northwind Villaze 4-Y Proposed Annexation and Development Town of Southold Suffolk County i i F Volume 1 of 2: Text and Appendices A-G Prepared for KACE LI, LLC Greenport,New York Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,P.C. I Prepared by Hauppauge, New York August 2009 I Y p I� �4 �ytQ X P F' fIIIIIMMl�li11ff11 p�II Iq q New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One /L SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York 11790 Phone: (631)444-0403 FAX: (631)444-0360 Alexander B.Grannis Commissioner State Environmental Quality Review Notice of Completion of Draft EIS Notice-oma Complete Applicatiory and Notice of SEQR Hearing Lead Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Address: Region 1 Headquarters SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 M s' -Application I.D-. #1-4738-03637/0000-1 Da.te9teNn r 28, 2066 L Applicant: KACE LI, LLC PO Box 67, 755 Main Road OCT - 2 2009 Greenport, NY 11944 Permit(s) Applied for: 1-Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands This notice is issued pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing-re-galations,pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until November 30, 2009. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on October 28, 2009 from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. (Route 25), Southold, NY 11971. Title of Action: Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM #1000-40-03-01) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village. Description of Action: The proposed project involves the annexation;by the Village of Greenport of a 17.2 acre parcel currently located in the Town of Southold adjacent to the northwest border of the Village. Once annexed, the site is proposed to be developed with a 1 128-unit mixed-income affordable housing development, consisting of one-, two-, and three bedroom homeownership units, access roadway, driveways, common areas, and landscaping. The proposed project will create 64 affordable units (50%,of the total units) as defined by Suffolk County, which will be subject to price, sale, resale, and ownership controls — collectively known as "affordability" restrictions. Location: The property is located on the south side of Suffolk County Route 48 (North Road), approximately 1,600 feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, SCTM #1000-40-03-01. Type of Action: Type 1 Action Potential Environmental Impacts: The action will involve construction and related disturbance in the adjacent area of a regulated freshwater wetland associated with Moores Drain/Pipes Creek and Cove, a large freshwater and marine system which discharges to Peconic Bay, part of a Federally-designated National Estuary. The DEIS examines the potential adverse impacts of the proposed action on these resources. In addition, the DEIS assesses the potential adverse impacts of the action on the ecology of the area, including impacts to threatened and endangered species, geology, soils, topography, water resources, land use and zoning, community.character, community services, transportation, cultural resources, the use and conservation of energy and the production, . disposal of solid waste, and recreation. The consistency of the project with the Town of Southold's comprehensive planning studies and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs of-both the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport are also examined in the DEIS. The DEIS discusses potential cumulative impacts of the project such as those which could result to the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork, the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility, and to the Moore's Wood deep forest habitat. Proposed mitigation measures, the potential impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and unavoidable adverse impacts are also described in the DEIS. Availability of the DEIS: Online: htta://www.vhb.comingrthwlndylllag2ldela A'hard copy of the Draft EIS is available for public examination at the offices of the agency contact and at following public libraries: Agency Contact: Sherri Aicher NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Permits SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 (631) 444-0403 9lalcher cw.dec.state.ny,us 2 Floyd Memorial Library Greenport 539 First St. Greenport, NY 11944 631-477-0660 fl dv lib@suffolk.lib.a..Ws Southold Free Library P.O. Box 697 -53705 Main Road- Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-2077 sohdlib ,�suffolk.lib.ny.us Copies of this Notice Sent to: Applicant: KACE LI, LLC Department of Environmental Conservation Central Office, Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750 Town of Southold, attention Supervisor, Village of Greenport; attention Mayor, Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Planning Commission Peconic Estuary Program North Fork Environmental Council Environmental Notice Bulletin 3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT AND DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWIND VILLAGE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PRO.',ECT LOCATION: 17.19±-acre parcel located on the south side of County Road 48 (North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS: District 1000 - Section 40—Block 3 — Lot 1 APPLICANT: KACE LI, LLC PO Box 67, 755 Main Road Greenport, New York 11944 Contact: Michael Kontokosta, Esq. 631-477-0600 LEAD AGENCY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook,New York 11790-3409 Contact: Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst I (631) 444-0403 PREPARER & CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.* 2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal Gail A. Pesner, AICP, Senior Project Manager (631) 234-3444 *The operations of Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. were acquired by VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. in January 2009 • With technical input from: Site Engineering: Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman &Van Weele, P.C. 175A Commercial Drive Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact: Kevin Walsh, P.E. (631) 435-1111 Wetland and Ecological Analysis: Land Use Ecological Services 209 West Main Street PO Box 1060 Riverhead,NY 11901 Contact: William Bowman, Ph.D. (631) 727-2400 Traffic Engineering- • Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, New York 11978 Contact: Patrick Lenihan, P.E. (631) 288-8822 DATE OF PREPARATION: December 2008 Revised August 2009 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") prepared by the above-referenced applicant. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency. A copy of the DEIS is available for review at the Floyd Memorial Library at North and First Street, Greenport and at the Southold Free Library at 53705 Main Road, Southold. The document is also available on-line at http://www.vhb.com/northwindvillage/deis DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: September 28, 2009 DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: November 30, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 --' -- \.O D7{8CTJTl\/B 8lJMMABiY---------------------------------. i 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF P}l(}P()3E[) /\CII[)N------------------------'| 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................l 2.2 Eriotbzc Site Conditions -----------.---------------------'5 22] Physical Characteristics of the Subject Property........................................................ 5 22.2 Surrounding Land Use................................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Surrounding Roadways-------------------------------' 8 2.3 Brief Site and Project Bjstorv------------------------------9 24 Proposed Proiect------------------------------------]3 2.5 Purpose, Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action......................................................21 2.6 Construction/\cdvidox ---------------------------------26 2.7 Required Permits and Approvals----------------------------27 3.0 B}{}BIING ENVIRONMENTAL C{}N[)lTl[N8 --------------------'28 ll Geology, Soils and Topography----------------------------28 3]] Geology--------------------------------------- 28 I1.2 Soils........................................................................................................................... 2V 3.1.3 Topography-----------------------------.--'_.---' 40 3.2 Water Resources ------------------------------------.5l S.2] ------------------------------------. 5] �� ���� ����� I2.2 Water Usage.............................................................................................................. 59 32.3 Sanitary� Flovv............................................................................................................ 50 3.2.4 8toomnnaterRunoff................................................................................................... 60 3.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplains---.-----------------' 62 3.3 Ecology-----------------------------------------69 3.3.1 � � ------------------------------. 69 3.32 Wi]dlde--------------------------------------- 73 3.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species.............................................................. 70 3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Cburactcruod ---0b 34.1 Land Use and Zoning-------------------------------- 86 3.4.2 Community Cbaructor-------------------------------.. 89 3.4.3 ---------------------------.. 90 3.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization pleno----------------------.. 124 3.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................l3l 3.5.1 Public 8chon}n----------------------------------- 131 3.5.2 Pizo Protection and Ambulance Service ---------------------.. 190 3.53 Police Protection..................................................................................................... 137 3.5.4 Water Supply -----------------------------------. 137 3.5.5 Sewage Disposal' ---------------------------------.. 137 3.5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 138 3.5.7 Energy Suppliers---------------------------------' 138 3.5.8 BLccrcut6)u------------------------------------- 138 3.6 Transportation ------------------------------------..l39 3.6] Methodology-----------------------------------' l39 3.6.2 Existing Roadway Network.................................................................................... 140 • 3.6.3 Unsignalized Intersections...................................................................................... 141 3.6.4 Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................... 142 3.6.5 Accident Records.................................................................................................... 144 3.6.6 Existing Public Transportation Services................................................................. 145 3.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................147 3.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 147 3.7.2 Prehistoric Potential................................................................................................ 147 3.7.3 Historic Potential .................................................................................................... 148 3.7.4 Field Methods for Phase IB .................................................................................... 150 3.7.5 Field Results............................................................................................................ 150 3.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................... 151 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION...............................................152 4.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography..................................................................................152 4.2 Water Resources ...........................................................................................................155 4.2.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 155 4.2.2 Water Usage............................................................................................................ 157 4.2.3 Sanitary Flow.......................................................................................................... 157 4.2.4 Stormwater Runoff................................................................................................. 158 4.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplains.............................................................. 161 4.3 Ecology.........................................................................................................................164 4.3.1 Ecological Communities......................................................................................... 164 . 4.3.2. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species............................................................ 169 4.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies.......174 4.4.1 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character........................................................ 174 4.4.2 Community Character............................................................................................. 180 4.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies................................................................................. 181 4.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.................................................................... 210 4.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................224 4.5.1 Public Schools......................................................................................................... 224 4.5.2 Fire Protection......................................................................................................... 230 4.5.3 Police Protection..................................................................................................... 231 4.5.4 Water Supply.......................................................................................................... 232 4.5.5 Sewage Disposal..................................................................................................... 232 4.5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 233 4.5.7 Energy Suppliers..................................................................................................... 234 4.5.8 Recreation............................................................................................................... 234 4.6 Transportation...............................................................................................................236 4.6.1 Site Trip Generation Analysis................................................................................. 236 4.6.2 Directional Distribution Analysis and Traffic Assignment Analysis..................... 237 4.6.3 Planned Roadway Improvements ........................................................................... 237 4.6.4 Other Planned Developments ................................................................................. 237 4.6.5 Intersection Capacity Analyses............................................................................... 238 4.6.6 Access..................................................................................................................... 243 • 4.6.7 Grades and Sight Distances .................................................................................... 244 4.6.8 Parking.................................................................................................................... 246 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation......................................................................... 246 • 4.6.10 Construction Traffic Impacts.............................................................................. 247 4.6.11 Conclusions......................................................................................................... 248 4.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................251 4.8 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................252 5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................255 5.1 Geology, Soils and Topography ...................................................................................255 5.2 Water Resources ...........................................................................................................256 5.3 Ecology.........................................................................................................................256 5.4 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character..............................................................258 5.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................258 5.6 Transportation...............................................................................................................259 5.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................260 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS..........................................................................261 6.1 Short-Term Impacts......................................................................................................261 6.2 Long-Term Impacts ......................................................................................................262 7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS .....................................................................264 7.1 SEQRA-mandated, No-action Alternative....................................................................266 7.1.1 Geology, Soils and Topography ............................................................................. 266 7.i 2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 266 7.1.3 Ecology•.................................................................................................................. 26 7 • 7.1.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 267 7.1.5 Community Services and Utilities........................................................................... 267 7.1.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 267 7.1.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 268 7.2 Alternative Site Design.................................................................................................269 7.2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography............................................................................. 269 7.2.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 270 7.2.3 Ecology................................................................................................................... 271 7.2.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 271 7.2.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 273 7.2.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 274 7.2.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 274 7.3 Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold................................275 7.3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography ............................................................................. 275 7.3.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 276 7.3.3 Ecology................................................................................................................... 277 7.3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 279 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 280 7.3.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 281 7.3.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 282 7.4 Alternative Sites............................................................................................................283 8.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES...........284 • 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS ...................................................................................285 10.0 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY...................................................................286 • 11.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................287 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - SEQRA Documentation Appendix B - 108 Unit Resolution Appendix C - Full Environmental Assessment Form and Support:rg Materal, Submitted August 23, 2005 Appendix D - Town of Southold Resolution No. 709 of 2005, November 16, 2005 Appendix E - Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., February 9, 2006 Appendix F - Reply Affidavit of the Honorable David E. Kappell, Mayor of Greenport, February 2006 and Support Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing Appendix G - Proposed Site Plans Appendix H - One, Two, and Three-Bedroom Floor Plan Layouts Appendix I - Suffolk County Work Force Housing Needs Assessment and Responses Appendix J - Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates and the Village of Greenport Utilities Operations Appendix K - Geologic Cross-section of Long Island • Appendix L - Soils Boring Report and Driller's Log Appendix M Correspondence from the Suffolk County Water Authority and Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Quality Data Appendix N - Ecological Reports and Correspondence Appendix O - Site Photographs Appendix P - Emergency Service Correspondence and Energy Suppliers Appendix Q - Traffic Impact Study Appendix R - Archeological Investigation Reports Appendix S - Architectural Renderings Appendix T - Alternative Site Plans • LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 -- Site Location Map ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure2 --Excerpt of Tax Map....................................................................................................... 3 Figure3 —Aerial Photograph.......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4--Excerpt of USDA Soil Survey Map ............................................................................ 31 Figure5 —On-Site Soil Borings.................................................................................................... 44 Figure 6--Excerpt of USGS Topographic Map ........................................................................... 50 Figure 7 -Excerpt of Hydrogeologic Zone Map.......................................................................... 53 Figure 8 -Excerpt of Water Table Elevation Map....................................................................... 55 Figure9 —Excerpt of SGPA Map................................................................................................. 57 Figure 10 —Excerpt of NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map...................................................... 65 Figure 11 —Excerpt of National Wetlands Inventory Map........................................................... 66 Figure 12—NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Mapping (718-552)......................................................... 67 Figure 13 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ............................................................................ 68 Figure14—Excerpt of Zoning Map ............................................................................................. 88 Figure 15 —HALO Map November 2004................................................................................... 115 Figure 16—HALO Map December 2004................................................................................... 116 Figure 17—Adopted Greenport HALO Map (March 20, 2008)................................................. 117 Figure 18 —Total Enrollment Grades K-3 .................................................................................. 133 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 —Existing and Proposed Site Data................................................................................... 15 Table 2 —Potential Town Property Tax Under Annexation (Greenport) ..................................... 24 Table 3 --Potential Town Property Tax—No Annexation(Southold)......................................... 25 Table 4— Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations.................................................................. 42 Table 5 --Existing Slopes on the Subject Property....................................................................... 49 Table 6— Ecological Communities Present at Northwind Village Site....................................... 70 Table 7--Bulk and Dimensional Regulations —HD District........................................................ 86 Table 8 —Total Student Enrollment, 1998-99 to 2006-07.......................................................... 131 Table 9 --Population Change Between 1990 and 2000.............................................................. 134 Table 10—Accident Summary: North Road(C.R. 48)............................................................... 146 Table 11 — Proposed Earthwork (in Cubic Yards)..................................................................... 154 Table 13 —Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District.................................................. 175 Table 14—Rutgers Study Demographic Multipliers.................................................................. 226 Table 15 —NCES Demographic Multipliers............................................................................... 227 Table 16—Town of Southold Demographic Multipliers............................................................ 227 Table 17 —Estimates of School-Aged Children Generated........................................................ 228 Table 18 —Greenport School Capacity vs. Enrollment.............................................................. 229 Table 19—Site-Generated Trips................................................................................................. 236 • Table 20 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Chapel Lane..................................................................................................... 240 • Table 21 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street.................................................................................................... 241 Table 22 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Moores Lane .................................................................................................... 242 Table 23 — Site Distance Criteria................................................................................................ 245 Table 24—Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................... 265 • • • 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS")prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 and pursuant to a Positive Declaration issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), as Lead Agency, for the action contemplated herein. This DEIS evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, which involves the annexation of a 17.19±-acre parcel from the Town of Southold ("Town") to the Village of Greenport ("Village"), rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District, and (upon site plan approval) the construction of a 128-unit, mixed-income residential workforce housing development consisting of one, two, and three bedroom homeownership units, of which 64-units will be "affordable" as defined by Suffolk County. The 17.19±-acre subject property is situated on the south side of County Route 48 (North Road) in the Town of Southold. Based upon the Positive Declaration issued by the NYSDEC, a formal scoping process was conducted by the Lead Agency to identify impact issues to be evaluated in this DEIS. These impact issues were outlined in the Final Scope, have been incorporated into various sections of this DEIS, and are as follows: Proposed Action; Geology, Soils, and Topography; Water Resources; Ecology; Land Use and Zoning; Community Character; . Community Services; Transportation; Cultural Resources; Cumulative Impacts; Use and Conservation of Energy; Production and Disposal of Solid Waste; Consistency with the Town of Southold's comprehensive planning studies; and Consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs ("LWRPs") of both the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport. This Executive Summary is designed solely to provide an overview of the proposed action, a brief summary of the potential adverse impacts identified and mitigation measures proposed, as well as alternatives considered. Review of the Executive Summary is not a substitute for the full evaluation of the proposed action performed in Sections 2.0 through 11.0 of this DEIS. BRIEF SITE AND PROJECT HISTORY The subject property has been zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") since the creation of the HD designation in 1989. Prior to 1989, the subject property had been zoned Multiple Residence ("M"), which allowed seven units per acre. In July, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter "Town Planning Board") approved a site plan proposed by KACE LI, LLC's (the current property owner) predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., allowing it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property to be known as "Northwind Village." According to the Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the site has never been developed. ' i In July, 2005, KACE Ll, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "KACE") filed a petition • with both the Town and the Village to annex the subject property into the Village. Annexation is the alteration or changing of boundaries of a county, city, town or village that has the effect of adding territory. Moreover, annexation is the process by which a municipality, such as the Village of Greenport, incorporates contiguous land into its boundaries. The basic prerequisite to the annexation of territory from one local government to another is the consent of the governing board of each local government. Prior to adopting a resolution, each governing board must, on the basis of considerations including, but not limited to, (a) those relating to the effects upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c) the remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory is situated, and (d) any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall public interest. There have been various court decisions that have assessed when a proposed annexation is in the public interest. For example, some cases have weighed the potential benefits and detriments to the municipalities involved in the annexation. Such benefits and detriments can be defined in terms of municipal services, including (but not limited to) police protection, fire protection, public education, and sewer and water utilities. The applicant respectfully submits that, in the extant case, the improved, expeditious and cost-effective connection to the annexing government's sewage system should be weighed heavily to determine if an annexation proposal • is in the overall public interest. This would assist the applicant in building, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residential units, of which 64 would be workforce units. The applicant respectfully asserts that if the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. It is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." Specifically, as noted at page 18, paragraph 51 of the Reply Affidavit of Honorable David E. Kapell in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of the Peter of the Village of Greenport, against The Town of Southold, Joshua Horton as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, Louisa Evans, John M. Romanelli, Thomas H. Wickham, William P. Edwards, and Daniel C. Ross, Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Greenport School District, Greenport Library, East West Fire Protection District, the Southold Solid Waste District, Suffolk County, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is in support of the annexation: "The Village denies that KACE [the current applicant] is entitled to a sewer connection other than as a discretionary act, because the property is presented located outside the Village, and a 1996 stipulation of settlement providing for connection is obsolete and void. " ii The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion, it does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold. If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. On August 16, 2005, the Town of Southold Town Board (hereinafter the "Town Board") determined that the proposed annexation was an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency in the matter. On August 23, 2005, the applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form ("Full EAF") and information supporting the proposed annexation at a public hearing of the Town Board. The Village challenged this determination by requesting lead agency status, and the lead agency question was submitted to the Commissioner of the NYSDEC for resolution. The Commissioner then submitted the matter to the NYSDEC Region I office for input due to the existence of freshwater wetlands on the subject site. The Region 1 office ultimately indicated 1) its desire to be lead agency; 2) that the project many have significant environmental impacts; and 3) that an environmental impact statement must be prepared. Thereafter, the NYSDEC assumed lead agency status for this matter. In November, 2005, the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 709 of 2005, which found that the petition for annexation filed by the applicant complied with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law. However, the Town Board resolved that the petition was not in the overall public interest, based on the considerations identified in the Order and Determination dated November 16, 2005. Upon Southold's denial of the petition for annexation, the Village of Greenport filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment pursuant to Section 712 and Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law and Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against the Town of Southold. The Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney for the Town of Southold, in opposition to the Verified Petition of the applicant, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department on February 9, 2006. A decision on this matter is still pending. The Village of Greenport has continued to express its support for the proposed annexation. In addition, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing has given its support to the proposed project. In correspondence dated November 25, 2008, the Department indicated that since the proposed project would "promote energy efficient and environmentally responsible smart growth principles" and that 64 of the units "are proposed to be built as affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program," it "support[s] your efforts and encourage[s] -the approval of your proposed development." s • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves three components, as follows: • the annexation of the 17.19±-acre subject property from the Town into the Village; • the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD District into the Village's R-2 District; and • the development of the subject property with 128 multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be workforce housing units. Annexation of the property into the Village would be necessary in order to allow the development of 64 workforce housing units without government subsidy or use of taxpayer funding. Should such annexation occur, the property would require zoning in Greenport. The applicant is requesting that the subject property (consisting of the current tax parcel designated as District 1000 — Section 40 — Block 3 — Lot 1) be classified in the R-2 District within the Village. Upon such annexation, the tax parcel number would also require reassignment to reflect its new location in the Village. The proposed development consists of the construction of a residential community to be known as Northwind Village that would be composed of 128, mixed-income ownership units. There would be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, of which 64 (50 percent) would be • market-rate units and 64 (50 percent) would be workforce units, based upon current income guidelines of Suffolk County. These units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions." The restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on a number of priority and qualification requirements. The applicant is proposing that the affordability restrictions have a 30-year duration. However, the duration ultimately will be determined by the Village of Greenport in its administration of the program. Given the configuration of the subject property, the proposed development has been designed to maximize preservation of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. The 128 units would be situated in 23 buildings, which would be situated around the proposed interior roadway. The proposed dwe ing um s would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,350 to 1,500 square feet. The workforce units would be distributed amongst the different unit types and sizes and be indistinguishable from the market- rate units in terms of exterior fagade and materials. Specifically, all of the one- and two- bedroom units would be workforce units and six of the three-bedroom units would be workforce units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate. • iv • The proposed development would continue to be served by the Village of Greenport Fire Department., the Town of Southold Police Department and the Greenport UFSD. In addition, solid waste would be collected by a private carter under contract with the Village of Greenport. As indicated in the table below, the proposed development would disturb approximately 6.65 acres, with no regulated wetland or adjacent area being disturbed. Existing and Proposed Site Data Situ Covera a Eaistin Condition Pro osed 06 41tion Acres"(Percent) acres ercent) Buildings 0 1.87±acres (10.88%) Other Paved Surfaces 0 2.27+ acres (13.21%) Wetlands 3.93+acres (22.86%) 3.93+ acres (22.86%) Implo MOUS SURFACE 3:93 acres""(22.86% 8;07�'acres 40 9 °/0 Forest 13.26±acres (77.14%) 6.61±acres (38.45%) Lawn and Landscaping 0 2.51+acres (14.60%) PERVIOUS SURFACE "13.26 ages 71:14%, 9. acres; 53:05°10 TOTAL 17.19± acres 100.00%) 17.19+- acres (100.00% The sales prices of the proposed workforce units will be determined at time of listing using the guidelines established by Suffolk County. Using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban • Development ("HUD") figure for the median income for a family of four in the County of Suffolk as the Area Median Income ("AMI"), price ranges will be determined using standard calculations (i.e., 2.5 times the AMI, as described below). The target AMI levels will be adjusted for household size. As of 2008, the HUD AMI for Suffolk County is $97,100. Half (32) of the proposed workforce units will be for households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI ($77,700) and half(32) of the workforce units will be for households earning less than 120 percent of the AMI ($116,500). This distribution is consistent with current Suffolk County and Town of Southold workforce housing guidelines and policies. The anticipated sales prices for the workforce units are based on 2.5 times the HUD income limits. For 2008, the allowable sales prices for workforce units are as follows —up to $194,250 (for households earning 80 percent of the AMI) and up to $291,250 (for households earning 120 percent of the AMI). Prices will also depend on the size of the units. The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the Long Island Housing Partnership regarding administration of the workforce housing program. However, should annexation occur, the Village of Greenport would have control over individual eligibility and overall administration of the program. Access to the proposed development would be from C.R. 48 by a single, two-way access drive located at the northwestern portion of the subject property. Parking for the proposed multi- family development would be primarily provided in the front of each dwelling unit. A proposed emergency access entrance from C.R. 48 would be constructed at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. is V According to the Village of Greenport Village Code (Chapter 150 — Zoning), the proposed • development would require 192 parking spaces, based upon 1.5 parking spaces per unit. As such, the proposed development provides 192 parking spaces, which complies with the off-street parking requirements. The proposed site plan incorporates sidewalks throughout the site to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and parking areas back to North Road along the access driveway. As the site is undeveloped, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity are not currently supplied to the subject property. As part of the proposed action, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity would be supplied by the Village of Greenport utilities. The Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA") would provide potable water to the proposed development, which would utilize a total of 34,050 gallons per day ("gpd"), not including irrigation, as no irrigation system is proposed at this time. The Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System would provide sanitary sewage disposal service to the proposed development. The total projected sanitary flow is approximately 34,050 gpd. The Village's sewage treatment plant is currently permitted to accept up to 650,000 gpd and the current flow is 325,000 gpd. Therefore, the existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to serve the proposed development, as confirmed by Cameron Engineering. As the subject property is vacant, there is no stormwater management system on the site. Upon development, stormwater runoff would be controlled and recharged on-site via new drywells installed throughout the developed portion of the subject site. Stormwater would be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, then transported through subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action has been designed to contain the runoff from a 10- year storm event (two inches). The two-inch storage requirement imposed by the Town (the current jurisdictional entity) would also satisfy the various provisions of the federal and state Phase II Stormwater regulations with respect to volume and water quality controls. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, would guide many aspects of the proposed development, including site layout and design. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the aforesaid adopted Smart Growth principles, including: • Direct development to strengthen existing communities; • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention would be devoted the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and • community interaction. Vi Ij it According to the Village of Greenport Village Code (Chapter 150 — Zoning), the proposed development would require 192 parking spaces, based upon 1.5 parking spaces per unit. As such, the proposed development provides 192 parking spaces, which complies with the off-street parking requirements. The proposed site plan incorporates sidewalks throughout the site to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and parking areas back to North Road along the access driveway. As the site is undeveloped, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity are not currently supplied to the subject property. As part of the proposed action, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity would be supplied by the Village of Greenport utilities. The Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA") would provide potable water to the proposed development, which would utilize a total of 34,050 gallons per day ("gpd"), not including irrigation, as no irrigation system is proposed at this time. The Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System would provide sanitary sewage disposal service to the proposed development. The total projected sanitary flow is approximately 34,050 gpd. The Village's sewage treatment plant is currently permitted to accept up to 650,000 gpd and the current flow is 325,000 gpd. Therefore, the existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to serve the proposed development, as confirmed by Cameron Engineering. As the subject property is vacant, there is no storm— Oe� system on the site. Upon development, stormwater runoff would be co- `�` �Ur -site via new drywells installed throughout the developed portior, Vould be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and al Oh subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action . re� runoff from a 10- year storm event (two inches). The two-incl. .` � vk ,.ed by the Town (the current jurisdictional entity) would also satisfy �� fi''`r _ins of the federal and state Phase II Stormwater regulations with respect to v _,er quality controls. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suirolk County Planning Commission, would guide many aspects of the proposed development, including site layout and design. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the aforesaid adopted Smart Growth principles, including: • Direct development to strengthen existing communities; • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention would be devoted the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. Vi • It is expected the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the United States Green Building Council. Furthermore, the residences are proposed to meet Energy Star for Home requirements. The identification of the need for workforce housing in the Town dates as far back to the 1985 Southold Town Master Plan Update. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy 2003 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement also identifies a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly every geographic location within the Town. High housing costs forced out younger residents of the Southold community. As a result, the portion of the population under the age of 35 is impacted more than any other age group. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 35 decreased by almost 30 percent, three times faster than the national average. The people most affected by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions in the Southold community—nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, etc. and their families who are unable to afford the typical Southold home, which sold for over $510,000 in 2007 according Suffolk Research Service, Inc. In order to provide 64 affordable workforce homes without taxpayer contribution or government subsidy, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable in the Town of Southold. Greenport has the necessary zoning classifications and most importantly, the infrastructure in the form of sewer, water and electric systems to make the proposal, at the necessary density, financially feasible without using tax dollars to pay for the workforce housing. • Presently, tax parcel 1000-40-3-1, totaling approximately 17.2 acres, has assessed value of $4,300 generating $3,816 annually in real property taxes. A property tax analysis was undertaken by the applicant in order to assess the difference in potential property taxes generated between the as-of-right development (50 units) and the proposed action (128 units). The analysis was prepared by Robert Scott, Town of Southold Assessor. This analysis presents the potential tax revenues to the Town of Southold for the proposed project and the as-of-right alternative in Southold. Projected tax revenues would be anticipated to be slightly higher at the time of development than indicated in the analysis. The first scenario is based upon the premise that the property is annexed into the Village of Greenport. The current (2007-2008) tax rate (Town portion) in the Village of Greenport is. $809.356 per $1,000 of Assessed Value ("AV"). Therefore, based upon the total adjusted AV, the proposed project would generate approximately $395,775 for the Town, upon annexation. In addition, the Village of Greenport, based on the current Village tax rate of 170.200 per $1,000 of Assessed Value, would receive $83,228 annually in property tax revenue from the proposed development, should the site be located within the Village of Greenport. The second scenario assumes that the subject property remains under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and 50 condominium units would be built. The current (2007-2008) tax rate in the Town of Southold is $909.267/$1,000 AV. Therefore, the total property tax revenue to the town generated by the as-of-right development, based upon the adjusted AV would be $264,824. • This represents $130,951 less than the proposed action. Vii • Therefore., the proposed action would generate more taxes for the Town of Southold than development under the existing HD zoning, and would thus be a property tax benefit for the Town of Southold. Although the Town of Southold will continue to receive significant tax revenue from the proposed project, it would no longer have responsibility to provide municipal services, which would now be provided by the Village of Greenport. However, these services are expected to be minimal, as the proposed project will be structured as a condominium operated by a homeowners association that would be responsible for all maintenance, roads, solid waste collection and landscaping within the proposed development. Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over three phases. Phase I would include installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, construction of 48 units and a substantial portion of the site work. Site improvements in the first phase would include the roads, utilities, drainage, and a portion of lighting and landscaping. It is expected that Phase I would last a total of 10 months. Phase II would continue with the construction of units and site improvements. An additional 40 units would be built, and work would continue on roads, drainage, utilities, and landscaping. Phase II is scheduled for seven months. The last phase, Phase III, would include the construction of the final 40 units and completion of the remaining site work, over approximately seven months. Site work in this final phase would be minimal, relating only to those units being constructed. Overall, construction is proposed to last a total of 24 months. • PROBABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION Geology, Soils, and Topography As the site is currently undeveloped, the proposed development would disturb soils that have previously been essentially undisturbed. Based upon a review of the proposed development and the soil map, no development is expected to occur in either the Berryland mucky sand (`Be") or Canadice silt loam ("Ca"), which have the most development limitations. In addition, as much of the wetland area is comprised of Raynham loam ("Ra") (which is also very limited), no development would occur in this area. The majority of development is proposed to occur within Riverhead sandy loam ("RdB"), Montauk fine sandy loam ("MfB") and Plymouth loamy sand ("P1B"). These mapping units have few, if any, limitations to development that cannot be easily overcome. One of the predominant soil groups on the site, P1B, is described as having slight erosion potential. The slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential and detailed erosion and sediment control plans would be an integral part of the final development plans. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") prepared for compliance with Phase II Stormwater Regulations will address measures necessary to meet water quality standards for runoff and safe accommodation of flows from extreme storm events. • Viii Erosion and sediment control measures will include vegetative slope stabilization, phased • clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties.) c Due to the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from those shown on the Soil Survey, actual on-site investigations were performed.`Overall, the test-hole exploration revealed quality soil conditions that were judged well-suited for standard construction practices. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered an issue. AI-Therefore, the soils appear suitable for development, and no significant adverse impact is anticipate The nature and scope of the development would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas, building areas and drainage and sanitary facilities. As the site is currently undeveloped, particular care would be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed would be protected from development. The soils that constitute: the wetland areas of the site would not be disturbed by the proposed development. The following, measures would be incorporated into the development of the subject property to minimize impacts: • the limit of disturbance would encompass the areas landward of the wetlands and their associated 100-foot buffers; • silt fence would be installed at the limit of disturbance to protect existing vegetation; • clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the extent of open areas and limit • the time areas are open; and • a stabilized construction entrance would be installed. Water Resources In order to ensure the protection of groundwater, the proposed project will comply with the relevant recommendations of the "Highest Priority Areawide Alternatives" of the 208 Study regarding Hydrogeologic Zone IV. No irrigation is proposed as part of this action. The proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to existing municipal water and sewer facilities. Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. As shown on the Preliminary SWPPP and the Preliminary Utility Plan, stormwater runoff would be recharged on-site through the use of drywells. In addition, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be implemented both during construction and post development. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the above criterion. ix • Suffolk County has promulgated various regulations and standards that are designed to protect the water resources of Long Island. Article 6 of the SCSC specifically governs sanitary wastewater discharges. The subject property is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, and therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the SCSC, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 600 gpd per acre or approximately 10,314± gpd, based upon 17.19 acres. As the proposed development includes the connection to municipal sewer system, and there would not be any on-site sanitary discharge, this limitation does not apply and no significant adverse impacts to water resources associated with increased sanitary flow on site would be expected. The Village's sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to, accommodate the proposed development (34,050 gpd) and the se ge treatment plant is also undergoing an upgrade. As such, no significant adverse impa *ssociated with the projected,► increase in sanitary flow would be expected. Potable water would be supplied by the SCWA through an existing main located under C.R. 43. The proposed development is estimated to use 34,050 gallons of potable water per day. Al-o irrigation is proposed at this time-Iln correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed' water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action. As SCWA has sufficient capacity to serve the subject development, no significant adverse impacts to water supply are anticipated. As described above, the total projected sewage flow would be 34,050 gpd, based upon Suffolk County sewage flow standards, as calculated by the project engineer. The proposed development will be connected to the Village of Greenport sewer system through a sewer main located under C.R. 48. Due to the topography of the property and the location of the sewer lines within C.R. 48, a small pump station is proposed to be constructed in the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to the emergency access. The proposed stormwater management system for the Northwind Village would be designed according to the local requirement to store the runoff from a two-inch rainfall over the developed portion of the subject site. According to the project engineer, storage of stormwater will be accomplished using drywells placed throughout the subject site. General calculations for the storage volume required, based on proposed area coverage, indicate a required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. Stormwater runoff generated on the site will be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, and will be transported by subsurface piping to a system of drywells throughout the site. Total storage would be 35,610.64 cubic feet, thus exceeding the required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. As a result of the studies conducted under the NURP, stormwater discharge from construction activities disturbing more than one acre requires a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). In order to implement the regulations, the NYSDEC has issued General Permit GP-0-08-001 for stormwater discharge from construction activities, under which the applicant for this project will be required to obtain coverage. In order to obtain coverage, the necessary SWPPP will be developed, and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") will be filed with the NYSDEC. • X • Under the criteria set forth by the Village Engineer, the project will be required to provide storage and recharge of runoff from a two-inch rainfall. Under the provisions of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, which is the primary NYSDEC reference used for compliance with the Phase II regulations, the SWPPP will demonstrate that Water Quality Control and Water Quantity Control goals are met through the use of various Best Management Practices to control stormwater runoff. In this case, the storage of two-inch of runoff ensures that the Water Quality Control goals are met in that the storage volume exceeds the calculated Water Quality Runoff Volume (which only requires storage of the runoff from a 1.3-inch storm). Water Quantity Controls are not required since there would not be any discharge to a stream. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared for the proposed project. The following is a summary of the pollution control measures proposed for the Northwind Village development: • Existinu ve eta to remain will be protected by installation of a construction fence (or other approved means) and will remain undisturbed; ,Arl k C-+i'y` i p,) , c ? • Clearing and grading will be scheduled so as to minimize the extent of eposed area and the length of time that areas are exposed. A maximum of five acres will be disturbed at one time unless written permission is received from the NYSDEC; • Grading and stripped areas will be stabilized through the use of temporary seeding, as required; • Bare soils will be seeded within 14 days of exposure, unless construction will begin within 21 days, as sections are completed, or if construction on an area is suspended, the • area will be seeded immediately, • The length and steepness of cleared slopes will be minimized in order to reduce runoff velocities. Runoff will be diverted away from cleared slopes; • Sediment will be trapped on site and not permitted to enter adjacent properties, public, roadways, drainage systems or water bodies; • Sediment barriers will be installed along the limits of disturbance prior to the start of construction and will be maintained until construction is complete; • A stabilized construction entrance will be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads. Any sediment tracked onto public roads will be removed or cleaned on a daily basis; • All runoff will be retained on-site, in accordance with local regulations. Drainage inlets installed on-site will be protected from sediment build-up through the use of appropriate inlet protection; �' • `Appropriate means will be use to control dust during construction; and • Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures will remain in place until upland disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Following permanent stabilization, paved areas will be cleaned of soil and debris and drainage systems will be cleaned and flushed, as necessary. Based on the preparation of the SWPPP, no significant adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development would be anticipated. • Xi • The proposed development has been designed and modified to ensure there is no infringement into the 100-foot freshwater wetland setback area. There will be no disturbance to the wetland setback area during construction, as the proposed development has been modified to provide a minimum of 10 feet between the buildings and the 100-foot wetland setback. As such, the applicant has submitted a request to the NYSDEC for a letter of non jurisdiction, as noted in Section 2:.7 of this DEIS. The freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. As the proposed residential units will be served by municipal water supply and sewer systems and recharge will occur wholly on the subject property, the project will not result in the addition or removal of water to the adjacent wetlands from those sources. In order to help minimize impacts associated with clearing, grading and the installation of impervious surfaces and landscaping, the stormwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to accommodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stormwater drainage system will prevent the transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. In co junction with the preliminary drainage design, soil borings were taken at five locations thro hout the subject property. The borings show groundwater generally located at 20-to-25 feet gs.�which will not interfere with the installation or operation of the proposed drainage Cbackfill in The drywells installed as part of the drainage system for recharge of runoff will only t a depth of two feet above groundwater elevations, and may require excavation and Jof unsuitable materials to facilitate leaching Where excavation is not practical, other s (such as the use of deeper diffusion wel'1) have been used in this area to facilitate ater recharge. One of the borings (in the vicinity of Building 16) (formerly Building 14) dicate perched water at approximately five feet bgs. However, this is considered a d condition likely due to poor soils. As the proposed buildings do not have basements, atering required for the footings and foundations would be minimal. onstrated above, the project has been designed to be protective of both groundwater and surface water resources. The development will conform to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study and the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Furthermore the site will be served by public water and the municipal sewer system, both of which agencies indicated their ability to serve the proposed multi-family development. Stormwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon water resources. • xii • Ecology The proposed action will result i the�limination of 2.0 acres of successional old field habitats and 4.6 acres of successionalesouthern hardwood forests.>Approximately 10.54 acres of existing red maple-hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods, old fields, and successional southern hardwood forests will be preserved under the proposed action. The loss of 6.65 acres of old fields and successional hardwood forests will be associated with permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals, herpetiles, and songbirds which utilize thickets, shrublands, forest edges, and/or open habitats. Field observations and correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program ("NYNHP") indicate that the subject property does not provide habitat for any protected species of wildlife. While the proposed project will result in the loss of old field and successional forest habitats, the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor as no sensitive species will be impacted and the effected ecological communities are abundant. Nesting sites for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) were observed within the successional old fields of the subject property. One of the nesting sites will be destroyed during construction, the other site is located within the dirt access road on the western side of the property and will not be destroyed. Eastern box turtles are recognized to be declining due to loss of habitat from development and mortality on roadways (Williams and Parker 1987; Nazdrowicz et al. 2008). Accordingly, this potential impact to Eastern box turtle populations is expected to be • insignificant in magnitude; however, the loss of the nesting site could be easily mitigated by providing additional habitat, as is proposed. Specifically, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. See the Proposed Mitigation Measures section, below, for additional details. Approximately 4.6 acres of forest will be cleared as a result of the proposed project. These successional hardwood forests are re-growth stands and are likely to have resulted from the abandonment of historical agricultural activities on the property. These stands are contiguous with the mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands associated with Moore's Woods. Small remnants of an oak-beech-tulip forest type are present on the subject property and are within the boundaries of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or occur as a narrow band surrounding its landward margin. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100-foot buffer area. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6± acres), the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e., oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). • xiii • The clearing of 4.6±- acres of successional hardwood forests adjacent to the mature forest communities associated with Moore's Woods will result in the creation of a new forest edge. Forest edges exhibit differences in microclimate, plant composition, plant density, and habitat quality than forest interiors and, accordingly, forest edges and forest interiors are often utilized by different wildlife species. The proposed project will result in a new forest edge and, accordingly, result in changes in microclimate that will penetrate up to 240± feet into the existing forests associated with Moore's Woods. The altered microclimate, particularly increased light levels, associated with the new forest edge created by the proposed project is likely to result in colonization and increased growth of invasive plant species (Brothers and Spingarin 1992), within the 100-foot-wide buffer area. The habitat quality for nesting songbirds in surrounding forests may also be degraded by the proposed project due to presence of lights in parking areas and buildings, increased levels of noise and disturbance resulting from human activities, and increased abundance of predators and invasive competitors. The magnitude of the impact associated with alteration of the forest edge on microclimate and abundance of invasive plant and wildlife species is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted and the high-quality oak- tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within 240± feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). The proposed residential units will be serviced by a municipal water supply and sewer systems. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition of water to the hydrological budget of the adjacent wetlands resulting from the discharge of wastewater from septic systems into the wetland's watershed. The proposed project will result in a perturbation to the existing pathways by which precipitation falls on the site, drains through the site's soils, and discharges through the site's wetlands. It is likely that this perturbation will not impact the surrounding wetlands uniformly as some wetland areas may receive greater water supply from nearby uplands, while other areas receive less. The conversion of successional fields or forest habitats to landscaped lawn will alter the underlying soil conditions, therefore altering the chemical composition of water infiltrating through these soils. The human activity associated with the proposed project has the potential to result in increased flow of petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and other contaminants to the surrounding wetlands. However, significant impacts to water quality in the wetlands associated with Moore's Woods are not likely to occur due to the installation of the proposed stormwater collection system, establishment of a 100-foot-wide buffer area, and implementation of other mitigation measures. • xiv • Overall, the proposed action is not expected to substantially affect ecological resources, including species diversity and carrying capacity. Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Land Use and Zoning The subject property is currently a vacant, unimproved parcel. The proposed action includes the annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into Village of Greenport and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be "workforce" units. The proposed development has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. Twenty-three buildings containing the 128 dwelling units are proposed to be developed on the property. Each building would be two stories in height and would contain from four to eight units. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,500 square feet in size. All of the one- and two- bedroom units and six of the three-bedroom units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate units. Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access drive along North Road (C.R. 48), and a proposed emergency access from North Road would be constructed at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. Upon annexation from Southold to Greenport, the applicant would apply to Greenport for inclusion in the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 district permits the development of one- and two- family dwelling units. A variance would be required to permit the development of more than two units in a building. The bulk and dimensional requirements for the R-2 district and the proposed development's compliance with such are below. Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District F7777ftrameker Required/Permitted Proposed Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 300 feet N/A Side Yard Setback 25 feet N/A Building Lot Coverage 35% 10.9% [!Building Height 2'/z stories/35 feetT 2 stories xv The annexation to Greenport and the R-2 zoning would permit the development of a greater • number of workforce units (64 versus five) than would be permitted by the Town of Southold's HD zoning district. This is due to the location within the Village, which would allow for sewer connection. The greater overall density would allow the price of the workforce units to be absorbed into the market-rate dwellings, thus requiring no external subsidy to maintain the affordability of the units. Therefore, the annexation would create no significant impact on the land use of the property, although the specific zoning of the property would change from HD to R-2. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the adopted Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, including: • Direct development to strengthen existing communities; • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Provide a variety of transportation choices; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention will be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the US Green Building Council ("USGBC"). The proposed project meets many of' the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED-Neighborhood Development certification. Overall, as the proposed action would result in the development of a vacant and undeveloped property and would incorporate LEED building elements for environmental sustainability, no significant adverse land use impacts would be expected to result upon implementation of the proposed action. Community Character Although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Therefore, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. The proposed development would remove a portion of the on-site vegetation along North Road and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to the north, would increase. • xvi • However;, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. The architectural design of the residential units will be harmonious with the local vernacular, following the architectural styles of those found in the surrounding houses and Greenport Village. A blend of traditional architectural style with contemporary material and finishes will provide low-maintenance, high-value homes. The workforce housing units will be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in architectural appearance. Design elements will include well-landscaped public areas and preservation of mature vegetation, integration of walkways and bike paths, and homes with front porches close to the street to encourage community interaction and maximize public safety. While changing the property from undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, such development would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. Comprehensive Plans/Studies/Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans As part of the DEIS, the applicant analyzed the following land use plans as well as the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan — Village of Greenport (1988) and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan—Town of Southold: • Town Master Plan (1985); • Town Affordable Housing Policies & Program(1993); • Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994); • Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold(1997); • Community Preservation Project Plan(1998); • County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study(1999); • Southold Township Plan: 2000 Planning Initiatives • Town Water Supply Management &Watershed Protection Strategy (2000); • Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan(2001); • North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002); • Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold, Final Report (July 2002); • Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment (June 2005); • Town of Southold Hamlet Study(2005); • Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update); and • Housing Implementation Plan (2007). A consistency analysis with each of the aforesaid plans is provided in the main body of the text (Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of this DEIS). • xvii • Community Facilities and Services Public Schools The intended market of the proposed development is current and previous residents of the Town and the Village, particularly working individuals and families who have been forced to move away or live in inadequate conditions due to rising home prices and the insufficient supply and variety of housing. As previously noted, 50 percent of units in the proposed development would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project will be young individuals or families looking for their first home. It is anticipated that the limited size of the units would constrain potential household size and, thus, the number of school-age children generated. Furthermore, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living within the Greenport UFSD. The first set of estimates was developed using a 2006 report of residential demographic multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University (the "Rutgers Study"). The multipliers created by the Rutgers Study are widely-accepted and utilized in school impact analyses. The second source is actual enrollment statistics from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ("NCES") for the Greenport UFSD. Custom multipliers were generated using actual enrollment, demographic, and housing statistics for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000. The third source for estimating school-age children generated by the proposed development are multipliers utilized by the Town of Southold in its own calculations included in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("CIS/FGEIS"), dated August 2003. The estimated number of school-age children generated by the proposed development, based on the multipliers from the Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold is 52, 26, and 42, respectively. Therefore, the average estimate of school-age children generated by the proposed project based on all the three sources is 40 students. All of these figures assume that 100 percent of the school children generated would attend public schools. The analysis projects that between 26 and 52 school-aged children may be generated by the proposed development. Using the highest value of this range and the 2006/07 student enrollment, the Greenport UFSD would have a total enrollment of only 713 students after the phased completion of the proposed project, which is only 64.8 percent of the stated capacity of the District. Therefore, the Greenport School District has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the highest possible number of school-aged children generated by the proposed proj ect. Fire Protection The subject property is located within the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have an impact on fire protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service. xviii Furthermore, the Fire District would receive the increased property taxes generated by • Northwind Village, which would be slightly higher than under the as-of-right development. To minimize the potential impacts to the Greenport Fire Department, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. All internal driveways would be designed for proper turning radii for all emergency service vehicles and an emergency access driveway will be constructed at the northeast corner of the subject property. All hallways and stairways would be of adequate width to accommodate emergency personnel. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action. Overall, the proposed action (including annexation and development) is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Similar to the Fire District, the Police Department would receive increased property taxes to be generated by Northwind Village. Such taxes would be slightly higher than those produced by the as-of-right development. In order to mitigate the potential demand for police services, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. The design of the community is such that structures are located proximate to one another, which provides "de-facto' security for the proposed development. In • addition, site lighting would be installed to adequately illuminate parking areas. As such, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. Water Supply A water main traverses C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed development would be served by connecting to the water main, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCWA. The proposed development is expected to enerate a demand for approximately 34,050 gpd in potable water. No irrigation is propose at this time In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property, based upon a formerly--projected demand of 38,400 gpd. The proposed action would require more potable water (34,050 gpd) than the as-of-right development (15,000 gpd). 1�Iowever, as 50 single-family homes could be developed as part of current zoning, they could have 50 individual irrigation systems. Thus, the amount of water used by these systems could not be easily controlled Sewage Disposal Village sewer mains are located within C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Annexation of the property into the Village of Greenport would allow connection to the sewer lines. xix • Connection allows the development to include a larger number of workforce units than would otherwise be feasible. Therefore, it is the intent of the applicant to extend the sewer lines into the property and to connect to the municipal sewer system. Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP dated November 6, 2006, indicated that Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to handle the estimated sewage flow. This was confirmed by Jack Naylor of the Greenport Department of Utilities. In a telephone conversation of July 17, 2008, Mr. Naylor indicated that only about one-half of the sewage treatment plant's capacity was currently used. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to serve the subject property. Solid Waste It is estimated that the proposed development would generate approximately 15.3 tons of solid waste per month, based on 2.25 persons-per-household and 3.5-pounds ("lbs") per-capita-per- unit-per-day. There would be no change in the collection and disposal of solid waste due to the proposed annexation of the property from Southold into Greenport. Solid waste generated by the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by private carters at licensed facilities. It is expected that as-of-right development would generate 6.0± tons of solid waste per month, which would also be collected and disposed of by private carters. The incremental difference in quantity of solid waste generate between the two scenarios is approximately 9.3 tons of solid • waste per month. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with Village requirements. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Thus, no significant impacts on the production and disposal of solid waste are anticipated. Energy Suppliers In a letter dated April 28, 2008, John M. Merill, New Construction Representative of KeySpan Energy, has indicated that KeySpan will supply natural gas service to the proposed development provided that all scheduled main reinforcements for the North Fork area are completed prior to the start of construction of the proposed action and in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required. Steven Aylward, Design Section Manager, Electric and Design Construction at LIPA, responded to correspondence on May 2, 2008, indicating that LIPA would provide electric service for the proposed project in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required. Annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport would not change the status of the energy providers for the proposed project. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would require an increase in the use of natural gas and electricity. This incremental increase in natural gas and electricity is expected to have only a minimal impact on the supply of natural gas and electricity in the area. • xx • Recreation The proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, thus it is expected that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on existing area recreational facilities. It is anticipated that development of residences under the HD zoning district in the Town of Southold would allow for the provision of private on-site recreational facilities, which would provide on- site recreational facilities. Development of the proposed residential units is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on area recreational resources. Transportation A Traffic. Impact Study was prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. Information on trip generation rates for residential condominiums is contained in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. For the purposes of this investigation, the trips expected to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by utilizing ITE data for residential condominiums/townhouses (Land Use Code 230). The proposed townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips are expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village residential community. • A review of the most recent five-year Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") revealed that there: are no projects planned by the SCDPW that would affect North Road (C.R. 48) in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind Village project. Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted with regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of this project to determine the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in this report. Discussions held with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold revealed that they are not aware of any other developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind residential community. Unsignalized capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of vehicles to safely negotiate turning movements at the key locations noted below: • North Road (C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; • North Road(C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and • North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. Intersection capacity analyses were first conducted to examine the 2007 existing traffic conditions (2007 Existing Condition). This condition evaluates the traffic conditions at the site and adjacent study area intersections without the proposed condominium community development at present. Intersection capacity analyses were then calculated for the "2008 No- Build" condition. xxi • This examination projected the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village community. The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the New York State Department of Transportation's LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. The traffic from the proposed Northwind Village development was then added to the predetermined 2008 "no build" traffic volumes and the capacity analyses was performed for the 2008 Build Condition using the resulting 2008 Build traffic volume totals. The results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses performed indicate that the traffic due to the proposed Northwind Village condominium community development will have no significant impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. All of the unsignalized intersections studied continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during all three peak time-periods studied and increases in delay due to the North Wind development are slight. Although the results indicate a decrease in LOS from B to C from the 2008 No-Build Condition to the 2008 Build Condition for the northbound combined left turn/right turn lane at the North Road at Moores Lane intersection, the delay experienced by drivers in this land will only be increased by an average of 0.6 seconds per vehicle. The No-Build LOS B delay was very close to the LOS B/LOS C delay threshold of 15.0 seconds causing the minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. The operation of the proposed site driveway was found to be LOS B, C and C during the Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively. It is noted • that all movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and traffic exiting the site do not cause any delay to thru traffic on North Road The proposed development will have a single access drive constructed on North Road. This access drive will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking should be installed. It is further recommended that, given the speeds on North Road, a westbound left turn lane be constructed for entering site traffic. While a shoulder on the north side of the roadway exists on North Road it is narrow (five feet) and constructed of asphalt adjacent to through lanes constructed of concrete panels. The shoulder's narrow width and uneven surface causes difficulties for westbound through vehicles in passing vehicles stopped to make a left turn. Installation of a westbound left turn lane eliminates this condition and provides an added level of safety. In addition, an emergency access would be installed in the northeastern portion of the property, in order to enhance the safety of the development. West of the sight there exists a horizontal curve on North Road with the road's alignment curving south as it heads west. To ensure no sight distance problems at the proposed site access point, field sight distance movements were performed. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 is 50 mph. xxii • Sight distance from the proposed site driveway to the west exceeds both the required Stopping Sight Distance ("SSD") and desirable Intersection Site Distance ("ISD") for design speeds over 60 mph. With minor clearing the desirable ISD for design speeds over 70 mph will be achieved. As the speed limit on North Road in this vicinity is 50 mph, design speeds approaching 70 mph will not be present. The design speed, or 85th percentile speed, although typically higher than the speed limit will not an 70 mph. It is recommended that vegetation along the south side of North Road in the vicinity of the horizontal curve be trimmed back to the right-of-way line. With this improvement sight distance from the site access will be maximized. As a result, no sight distance restrictions will exist on North Road in the vicinity of the site. Given the location and nature of the proposed Northwind Village residential community to the commercial districts of Greenport and Southold, it is likely that some portion of the residents will be employed at nearby businesses in both Greenport and Southold. Some residents may opt to carpool or choose alternative means of transportation (bicycle) to travel to work and back home. In this study, no credit was applied for use of any alternate means of transportation, and the traffic destined to and from the proposed Northwind Village was based on the use of passenger cars only. However, high potential for carpooling and/or alternative means of transportation by Northwind Village residents would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the site on the surrounding roadway network. • As noted in Section 3.6, Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, since the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane it is questionable whether many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County 'Transit bus service. However, the developer of Northwind Village is proposing to explore the establishment of a private shuttle service in conjunction with the homeowners association. This service could potentially provide transportation to downtown Greenport as well as to other local destinations. According to Dunn Engineering's analysis, the development of Northwind Village will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development will not significantly disrupt the traffic flow on the adjacent roadway network and will not create undue traffic congestion. Although the proposed development will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be at minimal. The proposed development will provide safe traffic operations for the residents and guests of the Northwind Village. • xxiii • Cultural Resources A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted for the subject property, and no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered. Therefore, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. Cumulative Impacts The Final Scope for the proposed action, identifies several potential impacts associated with the proposed development which, when considered in the context of the community, local area, or region may have significant environmental impact. The following is a consistency analysis with each: The impact of the potable water supply requirements of the proposed action on the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork. The proposed action includes connection to the municipal water and sewer systems. As such, the proposed development would not require an on-site well to supply potable water or an on-site sanitary disposal system. A letter of water availability from the SCWA dated March 4, 2008, clearly indicates that this entity is able to and would supply water to_the._proposed development, without detriment to the water supply source. Moreover, correspondence from Stephen M. Jones, • Chief Executive Officer of the SCWA, dated March 23, 2009 (see Appendix M), indicates that the water to be supplied to the proposed development will come from wells located on the North Fork. The SCWA indicates that the "water supplies are tested every five years in a comprehensive way with a thorough SEQR,4 analysis." The correspondence indicates that the NYSDEC issues well permits to the SCWA based on a capped maximum gallons per minute and the SCWA is required to provide a complete analysis of any potential problems that might occur from pumping. The peak amounts are used in computations to determine if a peak demand is approaching. The correspondence further indicates that wells are pumped "very lightly" and some only seasonally in order to reduce the potential for either salt water intrusion and/or infiltration of surface contaminants. The SCWA did not indicate that there would be any problems associated with such water supply. In addition, the Greenport sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to handle the sanitary waste generated. Furthermore, the proposed development would collect and recharge all stormwater on-site, thereby increasing stormwater flow to the groundwater/aquifer. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the aquifer or the public water supply system. • xxiv • e The impact of the wastewater generated by the proposed action, on either the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility or, if septic systems are installed, on the groundwater and groundwater-related surface water features in the project area such as Moore's Drain and its associated wetlands. The proposed action includes connection to the municipal sewer and treatment facility, which has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated effluent. As such, the proposed development would not require installation of an on-site sanitary system to accommodate sanitary waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts from sanitary effluent generated by the proposed development on either groundwater or groundwater-related surface water features (i.e., Moore's Drain and associated wetlands). Moreover, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the Greenport sewage treatment plant, as the plant has sufficient capacity to handle to the sewage effluent expected to be generated by the proposed development. e The possibility that the loss of about 17 acres of forested area resulting from the action may be an incremental reduction in the deep forest habitat provided by the approximately 300 acre Moore's Woods, habitat which is especially important to certain forest dwelling species. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are proposed to • be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100- foot-wide buffer area, that will be preserved. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6+-acres), the magnitude of this impact is not expected to be significant, as no Federal- or State- protected species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e. oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Geology, Soils and Topography The nature and scope of the development will necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As the site is currently undeveloped, in order to minimize potential significant adverse impacts, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed will be protected; this includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot-wide buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property.. • xxv • In developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped, the grade will have a maximum slope of 1:3. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. All disturbed areas that are not planned to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Common green spaces and other softscape areas will be landscaped with low-maintenance, native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and upon implementation of the proposed action, a final SWPPP and NOI will be prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC to ensure stormwater is properly handled and impacts are mitigated. Water Resources In order to minimize the impact to water resources, a number of measures will be employed. The proposed development would be connected to both the public sewer and water systems. This will minimize the impact of potential sewage effluent impacting the subject property. As no potable water would be drawn from the property, there would be no localized draw-down on the property. • In addition, stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged within the site in compliance with both local standards and NYSDEC Phase 11 regulations. The recharge of stormwater on the site would assist in ensuring that the aquifer is replenished. As indicated above, prior to construction, a detailed SWPPP will be prepared and implemented to ensure that there will be no significant impacts to surrounding properties or roadways. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shown on the Preliminary SWPPP include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (including the use of hay bales and silt fencing), and installation of a stabilized construction entrance. Finally, t:he proposed action would adhere, to the maximum extent practicable, to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, the NURP Study, and the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook as well as the relevant prevailing regulations regarding the protection of surface and groundwater resources. Ecology Based upon the proposed development, there would be a permanent loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests. These ecological communities currently provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including songbirds, small mammals, and herpetiles. The impact of the loss of habitat on wildlife would be mitigated through the preservation of 10.9± acres of natural habitats consisting of • successional hardwood forests and red maple hardwood swamps. xxvi • Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and shrubs, which provide shelter and food for wildlife. Furthermore, the proposed development would, where possible, preserve mature trees within the 6.6-acre building area. In order to avoid a potential loss of box turtle habitat, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. The box turtle nesting site construction and maintenance will follow guidelines for creation of box turtle nesting habitat put forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2009). The nesting site will be located on the western portion of the project site as shown in Appendix G. The creation of box turtle nesting will include removal of tall, herbaceous vegetation and organic soil layer from a 400-square-foot area to expose native, sandy soils. This area will be an open sunny location without nearby trees and shrubs which would shade the nesting area. A thin layer (approximately three inches) of clean, washed sand will be spread on the nesting area. Maintenance will include inspection of the nesting site every two years to ensure that the sandy soil remains exposed. Herbaceous plants and shrubs taller than 24 inches in height would be removed from the nesting area and the soils lightly raked to remove accumulated plant material. Maintenance will be conducted in April prior to nesting of female box turtles to avoid potential disturbance to eggs. In order to minimize potential impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods, a 100-foot-wide buffer area has been established landward of the freshwater wetlands. In addition, a row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) or white pine (Pinus strobus), will be planted along the perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. The dense foliage of these trees will serve to shade the new forest edge and will reduce potential perturbations to the microclimate of the forest and limit the spread of invasive plants into the woodlands. Finally, in order to minimize potential impacts to the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands and potential transport of sediments or other pollutants, the development will be connected to the municipal sewer services, which will prevent discharges of wastewater from septic systems to the watershed of the adjacent wetlands and will prevent the addition of water to the hydrological budget of these wetlands. In addition, the installation of a stormwater control system capable of collecting two inches of runoff from impervious road, roof, and walkway surfaces will minimize the potential transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Moreover, the 100-foot-wide buffer area established landward of the freshwater wetlands will also serve to prevent transport of pollutants to the adjacent wetlands. Land Use, Zoning and Community Character In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts, the following measures will be employed: • Appropriate landscaping and lighting will be provided throughout the development in order to enhance the aesthetics and be compatible with existing community character; and • xxvii • • The proposed plan includes Smart Growth development aspects such as the clustering of units and the compact building sizes, which preserve open space and natural resources. Community Services and Utilities The potential impacts to the Greenport UFSD would be mitigated, as follows: • By limiting unit sizes and incorporating a variety of unit types, the overall number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project will be much lower than if all four-bedroom detached single-family homes were built on the site; • Construction of the proposed project will be a phased process, occurring over approximately three years. This timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new students into the school system. The 26 to 52 students that could be generated by the proposed project will be introduced over three years, which will result in less than 9 to 17 new students per year. Divided equally among the thirteen grades, this represents less than 1.5 new students per grade per year; and • The workforce units will be sold based on a priority list to Southold and Greenport residents. It is likely that many of these residents have been living in substandard or overcrowded housing conditions and whose existing living accommodations, once vacated, will not be reoccupied. Therefore, many of the expected school children may already be enrolled in the School District and their former units would not be • re-occupied by"new" school-aged children. The applicant will work with the Greenport Fire Department and the Southold Police Department in order to ensure that the design of the proposed development (including all interior roadways) meets the; requirements of both departments. The two-story height limit would not increase the burden of the Fire Department, as two-story buildings already exist in its jurisdiction. In addition, the design of the development (with front porches, etc.) will allow neighbors to informally provide security for the community. Finally, the proposed development would have an emergency access, located as far as possible from the main access. This would ensure that if there is a problem either gaining access to or leaving the property through the main entrance, another access point (in a different location) would be available. Transportation The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering examined the traffic-related implications of the proposed action. Methods of alleviating existing and projected traffic problems have been developed and presented in that study. Based on the traffic analyses performed by Dunn Engineering, the following actions would be implemented to enhance the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site and mitigate the effects of the additional site traffic: • Installation of a STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking at the intersection of the proposed access drive and North Road; • xxviii • • Installation of a westbound left-turn-lane to be constructed for entering site traffic; • Parking of all construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles on-site during construction activity; and • Cut-back of vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access to the right-of-way lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate. Cultural Resources As no significant adverse impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary. ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section examines alternatives to the proposed action as set forth in the Final Scope, as follows: • SEQRA-mandated,No-action Alternative (Site Remains as it Currently Exists); • Alternative Site Design; • • Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold; and • Alternative Sites. The following table provides a comparison of the quantitative impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives discussed below. • xxix • Comparison of Alternatives No-Action As-of-Right Proposed Action 50-Unit 108-Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative'' Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres Land Use Multi-Family Vacant Attached Single- Multi-Family Residential Family Residential Residential Total Number of Units 128 0 1 50 108 Number of Workforce 64 0 5 50 Units Population Notel 318 0 192 288 School Children(Note 2) 40 0 50 40 Water Usage/Sewage 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd Note 3 Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 29,806 cubic feet 34,306 cubic feet Required Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 30,264 cubic feet 34,400 cubic feet Provided Solid Waste(Note 4) 15.3 tons per month 0 tons per month 6.0 tons per month 12.9 tons per month Traffic(Note 5) AM Peak 63 0 30(44)(Note 6) 55 i PM Peak I 74 0 34(57) 64 • Saturday Peak 80 0 57(55) 74 Area to Remain in Natural Vegetation 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres Area to Remain Wetlands 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres Area of Roads,Buildings 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres and Pavement Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.64 acres 2.75 acres Note 1 The projected population based on structure type as provided in the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. Note 2 The projected number of school children provides the averages of the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University,U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics for the Greenport School District, and the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Impact Statement dated August 2003 used to calculate the generation of school children. Note 3 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time. Note 4 Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato, et al. (John Wiley& Sons, Inc,2003) Note 5 Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Condominiums/Townhouses. Note 6 The numbers in the parentheses represent the trip generation based upon the single-family detached home (Land Use Code 210)factor,rather than the factor for Townhouse/Condominium(Land Use Code 230)as shown • outside the parentheses. See Section 7.3.6 for a more detailed discussion. xxx SEQRA-mandated, No-action Alternative • The no-action alternative would leave the subject site as it currently exists. However, this alternative is not feasible as the 17.19±-acre site is privately-owned and zoned for residential development. Moreover, this alternative is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the applicant, and thus, is not a reasonable option for the applicant to pursue. Alternative Site Design This alternative development plan reflects the original site plan which, on or about July 11, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board approved for KACE LI, LLC's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., permitting it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property. Similar to the proposed action, implementation of the alternative site design would consist of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town into the Village, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property with a residential community consisting of 108 dwelling units. Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold This alternative involves the redevelopment of the subject property in accordance with the prevailing HD zoning within the Town of Southold. This alternative design would not require annexation of the subject property. This alternative would permit the development of 50 single- family attached residential units, an internal driveway, associated parking and an on-site sewage treatment plant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The 50-unit plan has a very similar layout to the 128-unit and 108-unit plans, based upon the required wetland setbacks. However, the overall footprint of the dwellings would be slightly smaller than in the other scenarios. Alternative Sites According to §617.9(b)(v) of the SEQR regulations, the DEIS should include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Furthermore, "site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor." As, there are no other sites owned by the project sponsor that would accommodate the proposed development, discussion of alternative sites is not warranted. is xxxi 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") has been prepared for the proposed action, which consists of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town of Southold (hereinafter "Southold" or the "Town") into the Village of Greenport (hereinafter "Greenport" or the "Village"), rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2: One- and Two-Family Residence District (hereinafter the "R-2 District"), and the subsequent development of the property as a residential community consisting of 128 dwelling units. One half of the dwelling units (64) would be workforce units and the other half would be market-rate units. The DEIS has been prepared to address the issues noted in the Positive Declaration (see Appendix A) and ultimately identified in the Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the Lead Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental • Conservation ("NYSDEC") (see Appendix A). The proposed annexation and subsequent development involve a 17.19±-acre parcel that is situated on the south side of County Road ("C.R.") 48 (otherwise known as North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York (hereinafter the "subject property" or "subject site") (see Figure 1 — Site Location Map). The subject property is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 - Section 40 — Block 3 --Lot 1 (see Figure 2). The DEIS is divided into 12 sections, the first of which is the Executive Summary. This section, Section 2.0, provides a description of all components of the proposed project including: an explanation of the annexation; a complete description of the proposed development to be known as "Northwind Village;" a brief history of the subject site and project; the project's purpose, benefits and needs; proposed construction; and the required permits and approvals. • 1 I i I 1 O ' swrr STIR ING fi°If' D pvgA CddH . a y Sit LQcaI4©11 co PARK at. a a�T�R 4 STfRl fNGp o-° p TfiH m E° fl �' 25 . "f AN°" '�.\ r G LF :r v7u+PilcrsP a sr as 'l'� `� r(.'y L TACHcc ES c eY�pn S µ o KOA N Afn ST t•RRILER :Npezjf.a SE . '. PORK Y 4 i ✓ J - HF-.�Y;'Kpv /4pEl-En K -l't�1.PSi3P--,� V A OI.l.ngs48 f ! sr Mw, s ti L G,2EENPORT1 a Y uH�$^l ENPQ STA 255 rs Fl/Ni�l h�✓ - / �J COCA IIY 0. 1� U S b� f �c R ` NARBR DVO K "p qp PIPES GOVT r• ,. `FanntrigP� -•v,- f_` �aa,.aP.H�d4:6 'v0 [v ,, -- SPp wpi H � 6 IN Q4�n Eli LT CA' 41�t o ti P w EeEin c ti ti va}Sheltr'I . pa�...� kf fl."ti,. . �f Site Location Map Source: Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas, 2004 Scale: 1 inch =2,000 feet . Figure 1 FREUDENTRAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 2 pJ�O vrEtn6 1cs �`- 9v aa, r*�x vtsaR a N 2 tn+'+ G o _ r o`tc�No rn n o A Ta.°•r d' � � O _ raFn+�nou as Y f .. a, 4*1• \ \. dt ttabta �. • o. la 1 . 1. FF 03 2"Ill ' 'sx Z tlt O S" S tsstm, It, S � J 2Jut1 O l t x Ltx J � O �S.D"Wi0 lC incl ,ei tt_Itrcl r..�+.n. � ::s;•i�. X,/J Its Ile R1^�rt+ TOWN OF SOUTHOLU l VILLAGE OF GREENPORT ��O %-_w0 `�•.`«i ea, ;(�� r{'.• A;O °m-olro:t N_ a.n-n. raY u Lt 0 S,p ANO r.+ Fo".�� L-0.49 Ix Site Location FB 4CF fr 1 R� � "e•a �° :s _ `•o. Sow " I ,w ww � 01 3�4 QD Excerpt of Tax Map Source: Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency, Town of Southold, District 1000, Section 40 last revised March 30, 2006 and Section 45 last revised July 29, 2005. • Scale: Not to Scale FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 2 3 • Section 3.0 of this DEIS provides a discussion of the environmental setting for the project, broken down by topic. Section 4.0 of the DEIS is devoted to potential impacts that are likely to occur upon project implementation, and existing conditions, described in Section 3.0, are superimposed with post-development conditions. Potential beneficial and adverse environmental impacts are presented in this segment of the document. Section 5.0 of this DEIS presents proposed mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate those impacts that were identified in the analyses presented in Section 4.0. Section 6.0 enumerates those short-term and long-term impacts described within Section 4.0 that cannot be mitigated. Alternatives and their impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 of the DEIS. Among these alternatives, is the "No-action" alternative that is required to be discussed pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617. Section 8.0 presents a brief discussion of natural resources consumed as a result of project implementation and Section 9.0 includes an analysis of potential growth-inducing aspects of the proposed project. Section 10.0 of the DEIS presents a discussion of the energy sources to be used, expected levels of consumption and means to reduce consumption. Finally, Sections 11.0 and 12.0 contain the glossary and references, respectively. 4 2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Property The subject property consists of 17.19+ acres located on the south side of south side of County Road 48 (North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The site is surrounded by the Village of Greenport to its southwest, south and southeast. Currently, the subject property is undeveloped, consisting of forested upland area and wetlands. An aerial photograph, depicting the existing conditions of the subject property, is presented in Figure 3. Over three quarters of the site is forested and less than one-quarter (22-percent) is comprised of wetlands. The property contains a portion of a NYSDEC freshwater wetland, identified as wetland SO-1 on the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map of Suffolk County, Map No. 6 of 39, Southold Quadrangle. • The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") in Southold, which allows for four units per acre, and has been zoned the highest residential density allowed by the Town. In 1983, Southold approved a site plan for 108 multi-family units on the property; however, the property was not developed at that time. A copy of the approval is included in Appendix B of this DEIS. • 5 Aerial Photograph Laic"M• se f I jf �y•,I,1 t � 'S v wr Source: Google Earth Aerial Photograph(2004), Suffolk County,New York Long Island FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 3 6 • The property is located within the Greenport Union Free School District("UFSD"), and is served by the Greenport Fire District and the Southold Police Department. As the site is undeveloped, there are no utility connections. However, water, sewer, electricity, telephone and cable utilities exist in the immediate area. 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Within the immediate vicinity of the subject property, the following uses and zoning classifications exist. The zoning districts are those of the Town of Southold, unless otherwise noted: North: Single-family residences (on non-conforming one-acre lots) within the R-80 Residential District(80,000 square feet per dwelling unit); South: Vacant land within the Park District(Greenport); East: Vacant parcels within the R-80 Residential District, KOA Campgrounds within the Resort/Residential (RR) District and Moore's Woods within the Park District (Greenport) (southeast of the subject site); and West: Vacant Land within the Park District (Greenport); the San Simeon Life Care Facility within the Hamlet Density District (southwest of the subject site); the Sunset Motel, Breezy Sound Motel, the Cliffside Condominiums, the Sound View Motel and Apartments within the RR District; and the Sea Breeze Condominiums within the Hamlet Density District. Existing zoning and land uses surrounding the subject property will be further discussed in Section 3.4 of this DEIS. 7 • 2.2.3 Surrounding Roadways The following are brief descriptions of the major local roads in the vicinity of the project: North Road (C.R. 48) is a major cast/west County highway located north of the site that provides direct access to the site. In the vicinity of the proposed development, North Road consists of two lanes (one in each direction) with additional turning lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit on North Road in the vicinity of the subject site is 50 miles per hour. Chapel bane is a north/south roadway located west of the site. Chapel Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continues to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Chapel Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Chapel Lane in the vicinity of the subject site is 30 miles per hour. Queen Street is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Queen Street has no pavement markings but allows for two-way traffic onto and off North Road. Queen Street serves as access Sto the KOA campground located at its southern terminus. Moores bane is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Moores Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continuous to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Moores Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Moores Lane in the vicinity of the subject site is 30 miles per hour. • 8 2.3 BRIEF SITE AND PROJECT HISTORY • The subject property has been zoned Hamlet Density ("HD") since the creation of the HD designation in 1989. Prior to 1989, the subject property had been zoned Multiple Residence ("M"), which allowed seven dwelling units per acre. The applicant and property owner (KACE LI, LLC) has petitioned to annex the undeveloped 17.19+-acre parcel located in Southold, and zoned Hamlet Density, to Greenport. According to the Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the site was never developed. As previously mentioned, in July, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter "Town Planning Board") approved a site plan proposed by KACE's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., allowing it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject property to be known as "Northwind Village." • In July, 2005, KACE LI, LLC filed a petition with both the Town and the Village to annex the subject property into the Village. Annexation is the alteration or changing of boundaries of a county, city, town or village that has the effect of adding territory. Moreover, annexation is the process by which a municipality, such as the Village of Greenport, incorporates contiguous land into its boundaries. The basic; prerequisite to the annexation of territory from one local government to another is the consent of the governing board of each local government. Prior to adopting a resolution, each governing board must, on the basis of considerations including, but not limited to, (a) those relating to the effects upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c) the remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory is situated, and (d) any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall public interest. • 9 There have been various court decisions that have assessed when a proposed annexation is in the • public interest. For example, some cases have weighed the potential benefits and detriments to the municipalities involved in the annexation. Such benefits and detriments can be defined in terms of municipal services, including (but not limited to) police protection, fire protection, public education, and sewer and water utilities. The applicant respectfully submits that, in the extant case, the improved, expeditious and cost-effective connection to the annexing government's sewage system should be weighed heavily to determine if an annexation proposal is in the overall public interest. This would assist the applicant in building, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residential units, of which 64 would be workforce units. The applicant respectfully asserts that if the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. It is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." Specifically, as noted at page 18, paragraph 51 of the Reply Affidavit of Honorable David E. Kapell in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of the Peter of the Village of Greenport, against The Town of Southold, Joshua Horton as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, Louisa Evans, John M. Romanelli, Thomas H. Wickham, William P. Edwards, and Daniel C. Ross, Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Greenport School District, Greenport Library, East West Fire Protection District, the Southold Solid Waste District, Suffolk County, and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is in support of the annexation: "The Village denies that KACE [the current applicant] is entitled to a sewer connection other than as a discretionary act, because the property is presented located outside the Village, and a 1996 stipulation of settlement providing for connection is obsolete and void. " • 10 The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion, it • does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold. If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. On August 16, 2005, the Town of Southold Town Board (hereinafter the "Town Board") determined that the proposed annexation was an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency in the matter. On August 23, 2005, the applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form ("Full EAF") and information supporting the proposed annexation at a public hearing of the Town Board (see Appendix C for a copy of the EAF and supporting material submitted to the Town). The Village challenged this determination by requesting lead agency status, and the lead agency question was submitted to the Commissioner of the NYSDEC for resolution. The Commissioner then submitted the matter to the NYSDEC Region 1 office for input due to the existence of freshwater wetlands on the subject site. The Region 1 office ultimately indicated 1) its desire to be lead agency; 2) that the project • many have significant environmental impacts; and 3) that an environmental impact statement must be prepared. Thereafter, the NYSDEC assumed lead agency status in this matter. In November, 2005, the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 709 of 2005, which found that the petition for annexation filed by the applicant complied with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law. However, the Town Board resolved that the petition was not in the overall public interest, based on the considerations identified in the Order and Determination dated November 16, 2005. All of the reasons for the denial of such annexation petitions are outlined in the Town's Resolution No. 709 of 2005 (see Appendix D of this DEIS). • 11 • Upon Southold's denial of the petition for annexation, the Village of Greenport filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment pursuant to Section 712 and Article 17 of the New York State General Municipal Law and Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules against the Town of Southold. The Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney for the Town of Southold, in opposition to the Verified Petition of the applicant, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Department on February 9, 2006 (see Appendix E of this DEIS). A decision on the annexation is still pending. The Village of Greenport has continued to express its support for the proposed annexation (see Appendix F). In addition, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing has given its support to the proposed project. In correspondence dated November 25, 2008, the Department indicated that since the proposed project would "promote energy efficient and environmentally responsible smart growth principles" and that 64 of the units "are: proposed to be built as affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program," it "support[s] your efforts and encouragers] the approval of your • proposed development" (see Appendix F). • 12 • 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed action involves three components, as follows: • the annexation of the subject property from the Town into the Village; • the proposed rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD District into the Village's R-2 District; and • the development of the 17.19± acre subject property with 128 multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be workforce housing units.l As described in Section 2.3.2, in July 2005, the applicant/owner filed a petition to both Southold and Greenport to annex the undeveloped 17.19+ acre parcel located in Southold into Greenport. As previously noted, the Town rejected the petition for annexation, while the Village of Greenport favored it. As explained in Section 2.5.2, annexation of the property into the Village would be necessary in order to allow the development of 64 workforce housing units without government subsidy or use of taxpayer funding. Should such annexation occur, the property would require zoning in Greenport. The applicant is requesting that the subject property (consisting of the current tax parcel designated as District 1000 - Section 40 — Block 3 — Lot 1) be classified in the R-2 District within the Village. Upon such annexation, the tax parcel number would also require reassignment to reflect its new location in the Village. 'The target.income limits are that at least 50 percent of the units must be occupied by families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the HUD-established median income limits for Suffolk County and the remaining units • must be occupied by families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of the HUD-established median income limits for Suffolk County. 13 The proposed development consists of the construction of a residential community to be known • as Northwind Village. The residential community would be composed of 128, mixed-income ownership units. There would be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, of which 64 (50 percent) would be market-rate units and 64 (50 percent) would be workforce units, based upon current income guidelines of Suffolk County. These units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions." The restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on a number of priority and qualification requirements. The applicant is proposing that the affordability restrictions have a 30-year duration. However, the duration ultimately will be determined by the Village of Greenport in its administration of the program. It should be noted that implementation of the proposed action would produce 64 units of workforce housing. Given the; configuration of the subject property, the proposed development has been designed to maximize; preservation of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the; outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland (see Appendix G). The 128 units would be located in 23 buildings, which would be: situated around the proposed interior roadway. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,350 to 1,500 square feet. The workforce units would be distributed amongst the different unit types and sizes and be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in terms of exterior facade and materials. Specifically, all of the one- and two-bedroom units would be workforce units and six of the three-bedroom units would be workforce units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate. Typical floor plans are included in Appendix H of this DEIS. The proposed development would continue to be served by the Village of Greenport Fire Department, the Town of Southold Police Department and the Greenport UFSD. In addition, solid waste would be collected by a private carter under contract with the Village of Greenport. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed development would disturb approximately 6.65 acres, with • no regulated wetland or adjacent area being disturbed. 14 • Table 1 Existing and Proposed Site Data bite Coveragez Eiktl -Condition Proposed Condition Acr es- Buildings, ,es Percent .., Acres (Percen :: Buildings 0 1.87 acres (10.88%) Other Paved Surfaces 0 2.27+ acres (13.21%) Wetlands 3.93+ acres (22.86%) 3.93+ acres (22.86%) o= z S o IIVII'ERVI©VSURFACE 3.93 acres,(22 86/o , 8 07�„acres{46 95;10 Forest 13.26± acres (77.14%) 6.61+acres (38.45%) Lawn and Landscaping 0 2.51+ acres (14.60%) PEWus,SURFACE_;'; 13.:26 acres(77;14°0) .. 9, 12 ,acres(53.05°l0 ,. Ry TOTAL 17.19± acres (100.00%) 17.19± acres (100.00% The sales, prices of the proposed workforce units will be determined at time of listing using the guidelines established by Suffolk County. Using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") figure for the median income for a family of four in the County of Suffolk as the Area Median Income ("AMI"), price ranges will be determined using standard calculations (i.e., 2.5 times the AMI, as described below). The target AMI levels will be adjusted for household size. As of 2008, the HUD AMI for Suffolk County is $97,100. Half(32) of the proposed workforce units will be for households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI ($77,700) and half (32) of the workforce units will be for households earning less than 120 percent of the AMI ($116,500). This distribution is consistent with current Suffolk County and Town of Southold workforce housing guidelines and policies (see Appendix I). The anticipated sales prices for the workforce units are based on 2.5 times the HUD income limits. For 2008, the allowable sales prices for workforce units are as follows —up to $194,250 (for households earning 80 percent of the AMI) and up to $291,250 (for households earning 120 percent of the AMI). The developer usually sets a range of housing prices at either end of the spectrum in order to capture a wider pool of applicants (e.g., those earning between 70 percent and 80 percent of the median income for a family of four and those earning between 100 percent and 120 percent of the median income for a family of four). Prices will also depend on the size of the units. • 15 • The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the Long Island Housing Partnership regarding administration of the workforce housing program. However, should annexation occur, the Village of Greenport would have control over individual eligibility and overall administration of the program. It should be noted that since the HUD AMI changes each year, the actual sales price of the affordable units will be re-evaluated at the time of sale using the above-referenced standard guidelines to reflect current income levels. The expected sales prices of the market-rate units will be between $395,000 and $495,000, based on market conditions. The Village would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce unit in the development. Applications for the purchase of a unit by eligible individuals or families would be selected by lottery. However, it is understood by the applicant that priority may be determined based on the following or similar criteria, at the discretion of the Village, and subject to prevailing regulations: S1. Live in the Greenport UFSD and work in the Town or the Village, and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village, or work as a uniformed police office in the Town of Southold Police Department; 2. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 3. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport; 4. Live in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 5. Work in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; or • 6. Have previously lived in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport. 16 • Furthermore, it is understood by the applicant that eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following or similar guidelines: • Meet income guidelines of less than 80 percent or 120 percent of the HUD AMI for the current year; Able to secure a mortgage; • Agree to occupy the unit as a principal residence; a Be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent U.S. Resident; and • Agree to credit history and criminal background checks. Access to the proposed development would be from C.R. 48 (see Appendix G of this DEIS). Access would be provided by a single, two-way access drive located at the northwestern portion of the subject property. Parking for the proposed multi-family development would be primarily provided in the front of each dwelling unit. A proposed emergency access entrance from C.R. 48 would be constructed at the northeastern comer of the site at the end of the parking area. • According to the Village of Greenport Village Code (Chapter 150 — Zoning), the proposed development would require 192 parking spaces, based upon 1.5 parking spaces per unit. As such, the proposed development provides 192 parking spaces, which complies with the off-street parking requirements. The proposed site plan incorporates sidewalks throughout the site to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and.parking areas back to North Road along the access driveway. As the site is undeveloped, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity are not currently supplied to the subject property. As part of the proposed action, potable water, sanitary disposal, and electricity would be supplied by the Village of Greenport utilities. 17 • The Suffolk County Water Authority would provide potable water to the proposed development. The proposed development would utilize a total of 34,050 gallons per day (­gpd"), which does not include irrigation, as no irrigation system is proposed at this time. Sanitary sewer infrastructure would be installed to accommodate sanitary waste from the proposed development. The Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System would provide sanitary sewage disposal service to the proposed development. The total projected sanitary flow is approximately 34,050 gpd. Based on the correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, dated November 6, 2006 (see Appendix J), the Village's sewage treatment plant is currently permitted to accept up to 650,000 gpd and the current flow is 325,000 gpd. Therefore, the existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to the serve the proposed development, as confirmed by Cameron Engineering. As the subject property is vacant, there is no stormwater management system on the site. Upon development, stormwater runoff would be controlled and recharged on-site via new drywells • installed throughout the developed portion of the subject site. Stormwater would be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, then transported through subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action has been designed to contain the runoff from a 10- year storm event (two inches). The two-inch storage requirement imposed by the Towne (the current jurisdictional entity) would also satisfy the various provisions of the federal and state Phase II Stormwater regulations with respect to volume and water quality controls. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission,3 would guide many aspects of the proposed development, including site layout and design. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the aforesaid adopted Smart Growth principles, including: • Direct development to strengthen existing communities; 2 The Village of Greenport does not have stormwater storage requirements;therefore,the Town of Southold • requirement were used for calculation purposes. 3 Smart Growth Through Smart Communities:Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and Villages,Suffolk County Planning Commission,March, 2000. 18 • • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention would be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the United States Green Building Council ("USGBC"). The proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED- Neighborhood Development certification.4 These include: • • Site location within a half mile of existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure; • Site within a quarter mile of community resources; • Site within a half mile of green spaces; • Compact development; • Minimization of disturbed area of the site; • Erosion control during construction; • Meeting Energy Star for Homes requirements; • Conservation of wetlands areas; • Provision of a diversity of housing types; and • Provision of affordable housing. A consistency analysis with these criteria is included in Section 4.4.1 of this DEIS. 4 USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development. 19 In addition, the following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:5 • Use of plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; • Preservation of existing mature trees on site, where possible; • Where possible, provision of usable areas where the community residents can meet and gather, • Use of patios, front yards, porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; • Provision for alternative transportation, e.g., bike paths and storage, carpooling opportunities, and recommendation for re-routing of public bus routes; • Provision of accessible routes of travel and avoid use of stairs wherever the terrain permits; • Prioritizing pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; • • Provision of well-insulated buildings that minimizes heat gain and loss; • Specification of energy-efficient windows; • Ensuring water meters are installed and there is owner accountability in water use, • Assuring that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner for use; and • Specification of Energy Star appliances throughout the development. • 5 Affordable Green Guidelines,American Institute of Architects. 20 • 2.5 PURPOSE,NEED AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The identification of the need for workforce housing in the Town dates as far back to the 1985 Southold Town Master Plan Update. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy 2003 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement also identifies a critical need for (and lack of; affordable housing in nearly every geographic location within the Town. High housing costs forced out younger residents of the Southold community. As a result, the portion of the population under the age of 35 is impacted more than any other age group. In the year 2000, the Town population under the age of 35 accounted for only 35.5 percent of the total, compared to 47.2 percent for Suffolk County. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 35 decreased by almost 30 percent, three times faster than the national average. The people most affected by this problem are the working individuals who hold core; positions in the Southold community — nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, etc. and their families who are unable to afford the typical Southold home, which sold for over $510,000 in 2007 according Suffolk Research Service, Inc. In addition, the more recent October 2007 report entitled Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses, prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, indicated that entire East End of Long Island will continue to grow at a very high rate. Growth is predicted to be approximately 70,000 households between 2005 and 2020. As the general number of households grows, the need for workforce housing will grow commensurately. In order to meet the need, Suffolk County would need to provide approximately 2,000 affordable workforce units per year for the next 15 years and Southold would need at least 1,505 affordable workforce units. The report indicates that Suffolk County could achieve these numbers through various methods including rehabilitation of deficient units, reconfiguration of an addition to existing units, buy down of cost-burdened units and new construction. • 21 • The report notes that whatever the method used, "the most important consideration for all involved is to realize that workforce housing is in short supply in eastern Long Island. Everything possible should be attempted to deal with the imbalance that currently exists between workforce housing demand and workforce housing supply. If this is not addressed, the local nonprofessional workforce will wither and even the middle-class professional workforce will be noticeably reduced. Suffolk Cou,=qty needs to house its workers... " Finally, according to a report prepared by the Long Island Housing Partnership ("LIHP"), Lack of Affordable Housing: Prescription for Economic Disaster, an affordable home should not consume more than 35 percent of a household's income. This 35 percent includes mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, etc. for homeowners. However, the aforesaid LIHP Report indicates that 30 to 35 percent of all renters in Nassau and Suffolk Counties consume greater than 35 percent of their household income on housing costs; and approximately 25 percent of homeowners on Long Island pay more than 35 percent of their household incomes for a place to live. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey, more than 37 percent of owners and 50 percent of renters pay more than 35 percent of their household income • for a place to live in Suffolk County. In order to provide 64 affordable workforce homes without taxpayer contribution or government subsidy, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable in the Town of Southold. Greenport has the necessary zoning classifications to provide for this requirement. However, the annexation is not about zoning alone. Most importantly, Greenport has the infrastructure in the form of sewer, water and electric systems to make the proposal, at the necessary density, financially feasible without using tax dollars to pay for the workforce housing. Access to the Greenport sewer system is one of the most critical elements of the annexation proposal. If the property is annexed into Greenport it will have access to these systems. Finally, the Village has expressed its commitment to providing workforce housing on the North Fork and to meeting the desperate housing needs of its working families. The applicant respectfully submits that it is this government support and determination that is necessary to make immediate meaningful strides and progress in addressing the workforce housing needs of everyone in the • community(see Appendix F). 22 • Presently, tax parcel 1000-40-3-1, totaling approximately 17.2 acres, has assessed value of $4,300 generating $3,816 annually in real property taxes. A property tax analysis was undertaken by the applicant in order to assess the difference in potential property taxes generated between the as-of-right development (50 units) and the proposed action (128 units). The analysis was prepared by Robert Scott, Town of Southold Assessor. This analysis presents the potential tax revenues to the Town of Southold for the proposed project and the as-of-right alternative in Southold. Projected tax revenues would be anticipated to be slightly higher at the time of development than indicated in the analysis. The following are estimates for the four types of condominium units proposed by the applicant. They are: subject to change based upon visual inspection due to quality, changes in square footage, additions or deletions, the market, etc. The represented assessed values ("AVs") are based upon the suggested sales prices by the applicant, and use of the current Residential Assessment Ratio ("RAR") of 1.05 percent for the 2007-2008 tax roll. • The first scenario, shown in Table 2, is based upon the premise that the property is annexed into the Village of Greenport.6 6 The Tax Assessor noted that there may be limitations of ownership based on affordability guidelines, when an affordable unit purchaser, upon resale, is allowed to recoup original investment, cost of living adjustments and • additional appreciation. 23 • Table 2-Potential Town Property Tax Under Annexation (Greenport) Type # of Units unit`Size, Uniform Adjusted Suggested (Sq. Ft.) AN AV* Sales Price Unit A Workforce 38 850 3,100 2,300 $215,000 Unit B Workforce 20 1,200 4,100 2,600 $250,000 Unit C Workforce 6 1,350 4,900 2,800 $265,000 Unit D Market 64 1,500 5,400 5,200 $495,000 # of Units Uniform AV Total AVAdjusted Total' AV* Ad'usted''AV Unit A 38 3,100 $117,800 2,300 $87,400 Unit B 20 4,100 $82,000 2,600 $52,000 Unit C 6 4,900 $29,400 2,800 $16,800 Unit D 64 5,400 $345,600 5,200 $332,800 TOTAL 128 $574,600 $489,000 * Subject to covenants and restrictions. The current (2007-2008) tax rate (Town portion) in the Village of Greenport is $809.356 per $1,000 of AV. Therefore, based upon the total adjusted AV, the proposed project would generate approximately$395,775 for the Town, upon annexation. In addition, the Village of Greenport, based on the current Village tax rate of 170.200 per $1,000 of Assessed Value, would receive $83,228 annually in property tax revenue from the proposed development, should the site be located within the Village of Greenport. The next table shows the property tax breakdown of units under the premise that the subject property remains under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and 50 condominium units would be built(see Table 3). • 24 Table 3 —Potential Town Property Tax—No Annexation (Southold) • Type #of UnitsUnit Size Uniform Adjusted Suggested (Sq. Ft.) AV AV* Sales Price Unit E Market 45 2,500 $8,700 $6,250 $595,000 Unit F Workforce 5 2,500 $8,700 $2,800 $265,000 # of Units Uniform AV' Total AV Ad'usted AV* 1 , Total AV Unit E 45 $8,700 $391,500 $6,250 $281,250 Unit F 5 $8,700 $43,500 $2,800 $14,000 TOTAL 50 $435,000 $291,250 *Subject to covenants and restrictions The current (2007-2008) tax rate in the Town of Southold is $909.267/$1,000 AV. Therefore, the total property tax revenue to the town generated by the as-of-fight development, based upon the adjusted AV would be $264,824. This represents $130,951 less than the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action would generate more taxes for the Town of Southold than development under the existing HD zoning, and would thus be a property tax benefit for the Town of Southold. Furthermore, although the Town of Southold will continue. to receive significant tax revenue from the proposed project, it would no longer have responsibility to provide municipal services. As the proposed project would occur in the Village of Greenport, the Village would provide the required services. However, these services are expected to be minimal, as the proposed project will be structured as a condominium operated by a homeowners association that would be responsible for all maintenance, roads, solid waste collection and landscaping within the proposed project area. • 25 • 2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over three phases. Phase I would include installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, construction of 48 units and a substantial portion of the site work. Site improvements in the first phase would include the roads, utilities, drainage, and a portion of lighting and landscaping. It is expected that Phase I would last a total of 10 months. Phase II would continue with the construction of units and site improvements. An additional 40 units would be built, and work would continue on roads, drainage, utilities, and landscaping. Phase II is scheduled for seven months. The last phase, Phase I11, would include the construction of the final 40 units and completion of the remaining site work, over approximately seven months. Site work in this final phase would be minimal, relating only to those units being constructed. Overall, construction is proposed to last a total of 24 months. All erosion and sediment control measures would be inspected weekly and after rainfall events. Necessary repairs would be made immediately. All erosion and sediment control measures would be maintained until all construction has been completed. • 26 • 2.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS In order to implement the proposed action, the following permits and/or approvals are required to be obtained by the applicant. Permits/Approvals Required Agency Proposed Annexation Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Town of Southold Application of Zoning District Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Site Plan/Subdivision Approval Village of Greenport Planning Board Water Supply and Means of Sanitary Waste Disposal Suffolk County Department of Health Services Sewer Connection Village of Greenport Sewer District Public Water Connection— Southold/Greenport Suffolk County Water Authority Referrals Suffolk County Planning Commission SPDES General Permit for Stormwater New York State Department of Environmental Discharge During Construction Activity; Conservation Determination of Non-Jurisdiction New York State Department of Environmental or Freshwater Wetland Permit Conservation Highway Work Permit New York State Department of Transportation 27 • 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 3.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 Geology Long Island is composed of a westward-dipping wedge of sediments overlying bedrock. According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989 (see Appendix K for a geologic cross-section); the following lithologic units underlie the subject property: The Upper Glacial aquifer—This Pleistocene-aged unit is approximately 200 feet thick in the vicinity of the site with its base occurring at approximately 400 feet below grade surface ("bgs"). The Upper Glacial aquifer is composed predominantly of coarsely- stratified sand and gravel of glacial outwash and morainal origins. Historically, groundwater had typically been removed from the unit for irrigation, air-conditioning cooling, potable and other water uses. However, this practice has been curtailed in this • unit due to anthropogenic impacts, which range from nitrates due to the disposal of sanitary waste to petroleum impacts from releases of gasoline and fuel oil to halogenated solvents from industrial practices. The Magothy aquifer — The Cretaceous Magothy aquifer is composed of interbedded silts/clays (fine-grained units) and sands/gravels (coarse-grained units) of deltaic origin. Due to the presence of the overlying silts/clays which restrict the vertical migration of dissolved and free-phase contaminants, the sand and gravel units are not impacted by anthropogenic impacts and are thus the typical sources of potable water on Long Island and in the vicinity of the project site. According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989, the Magothy aquifer is approximately 400 feet thick in the vicinity of the project site with its base occurring at an estimated 450 feet bgs. • 28 The Raritan Formation—According to Smolensky, et. al., 1989, the Raritan Formation is • composed of a Raritan Clay member, an approximately 160-foot-thick clay unit of overlying the Lloyd sand member. The top of the Raritan Clay is estimated to occur at 450-500 feet bgs beneath the subject property. The approximately 100-foot-thick Lloyd and member, which occurs at an estimated 500 feet below the project site, has been protected from anthropogenic impacts by the silt/clay units present in the overlying Upper Glacial aquifer, Magothy aquifer and Raritan Clay member. It is NYSDEC policy that the Lloyd Sand member can only be utilized for potable water uses by communities located along the South Shore of Long Island where the overlying aquifers have been impacted by salt-water intrusion. Bedrock — The top Paleozoic to Precambrian bedrock, consisting of schist, gneiss and granite is estimated to occur at 580-to-600 feet below the subject site. 3.1.2 Soils . According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975) (hereinafter "Soil Survey"), soils are classified according to distinct characteristics and placed (according to these characteristics) into "series" and "mapping units." A "series" is a group of mapping units formed from particular disintegrated and partly weathered rocks which lie approximately parallel to the surface and which are similar in arrangement and differentiating characteristics such as color, structure, reaction, consistency, mineralogical composition and chemical composition. "Mapping units" differ from each other according to slope and may differ according to characteristics such as texture. • 29 The soils on the subject property consist of several series including the Berryland, Canadice, • Deerfield, Montauk, Plymouth, Raynham, Riverhead, and Muck, which are characterized by the. following mapping units Berryland mucky sand ("Bd,"), Canadice silt loam ("Ca"), Deerfield sand ("De"), Montauk fine sandy loam ("MM"), Plymouth loamy sand ("P1B"), and Raynham loam ("Ra") and Riverhead sandy loam RdB. Figure 4, compiled from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services' website, http://websoilsurvey.r)--cs_usda.gov, shows the approximate distribution of soils across the subject property. It should be noted that the Soil Survey and the aforesaid website provide general information regarding area soils. Site-specific test holes were performed, and the results are discussed later in this section. • 30 a� rn 'LL. W CL W 1L d G Z � °� a4=�S o � � OO F a3 Z J a m m°> " 2 O o�e o = W s $ x s C0 6 .4 3 O Z � � a JIM.- I M Yu A f 1 � i # f f f f h5J vi 1 i F r W i h �.. r � , F7 f i i ti A' 1 A � s ' \ , # 77,7 rF � J # n Rm 139939 .f a37 h0•. ...................... ,.... C. R• 48 FtOAD NOFtTN �s i i i f The following subsection contains descriptions of the soil types found on the subject property as • summarized from the Soil Survey. Berryland Series The Berryland series consists of deep, very poorly drained, coarse-textured soils. These nearly level soils formed in deep sandy outwash deposits on low-lying wet areas adjacent to ponds, tidal creeks, and low gradient streams or between areas of tidal marsh and better drained uplands. This soil is mainly along the Peconic River. Native vegetation is red maple, black gum, highbush blueberry, and Sphagnum moss is common. In a representative profile, a dark reddish-brown and black layer of organic matter, about ten- inches thick, is on the surface. The upper two or three inches of this organic layer is black mucky sand, one-inch thick. It is underlaid by a subsurface layer of grayish-brown, loose soil, to a depth of about five-inches. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about ten-inches, consists of very dark grayish-brown, friable sand that contains large accumulations of organic matter. The lower part of the subsoil consists of brown to dark-brown loose sand to a depth of about 20 inches and grayish-brown sand to a depth of about 30 inches. The substratum, to a depth of 52 inches, is light olive-gray loose sand. Berryland soils have a high water table. The water table is at the surface or within six-inches of the surface most of the year. Permeability is rapid. If the water table is lowered by drainage, these soils have very low available moisture capacity. These soils are strongly acid to very strong acid throughout. Natural fertility is low. Rooting depth is limited mainly to the upper six-to- twelve-inches. • 32 Berryland mucky sand (Bd) • This is the only Berryland soil mapped in Suffolk County. This wet soil is throughout the County along the margins of tidal marshes, ponds, creeks, and streams. Areas of this soil generally are small and round or long and narrow. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Muck and Atsion and Wareham soils. Also included are a few areas of finer textured soils that are very poorly drained. Some of these included soils, especially along the Carmans River and Connetquot River, do not have a well-defined gray subsurface layer and subsoil that have a large accumulation of humus. Also included along the Peconic River are poorly drained cranberry bogs that are essentially Berryland soils that have had sand spread on the surface. The hazard erosion is slight in this Berryland soil. The very high water table in this soil severely limits it for both farm and nonfarm uses. A lack of suitable outlets makes this soil difficult to drain. Most areas can be used as habitat for some types of wildlife. None of this soil has been cleared. Most areas are in brush or trees, except along the shore in • the southwest part of the county, where small areas have been filled to provide sites for homes. Only one commercial cranberry bog is in operation. The other bogs have been allowed to revert to their original condition and are growing up in water-tolerant grasses and shrubs. Canadice Series The Canadice series consists of deep, nearly level, poorly drained soils that have a medium- textured surface layer and a moderately fine textured to fine textured subsoil. These soils formed in reddish silty and clayey deposits. Most of these soils are north and west of Greenport in a nearly continuous area of about 450 acres. Isolated spots of these soils are on Gardiners Island and near Sag Harbor. Native vegetation consists of red maple, black gum, highbush blueberry, and a few oaks and beech. • 33 In a representative profile, about four inches of black organic matter overlies a surface layer of • dark-brown silt loam about four inches thick. A subsurface layer of gray or light-gray, slightly sticky silt loam extends to a depth of about 18 inches. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about 24 inches, is mottled, gray or light-gray, sticky clay loam. The lower part, to a depth of 50 inches, is reddish-brown, sticky silty clay that contains mottles of gray and strong brown. These soils have a seasonal high water table. Depth to the water table ranges from about six to 18 inches. Permeability is slow in the subsoil. If the water table is lowered by drainage, these soils can be used for crops. Reaction is strongly acid to medium acid in the surface layer and medium acid to slightly acid in the subsoil. Canadice soils have high available moisture capacity. Canadice silt loam (Ca) This is the only Canadice soil mapped in the county. It is mainly in one large continuous area near Greenport. Slope is three percent or less. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of moderately well drained, gently sloping soils that formed in the same kind of material as Canadice soil. Old clay pits are common because this soil provided an excellent source of clay for making bricks. The hazard of erosion is slight on this soil. The soil must be artificially drained for successful production of commonly grown crops, but a lack of suitable outlets makes artificial drainage difficult. Because of wetness, most areas of this soil have been left as woodland. Deerfield Series The Deerfield series consist of deep, moderately well drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in sand or loamy sand materials over deep layers of sand or sand and gravel. This nearly level soil is throughout the county in depressional areas, or it is adjacent to wetter soils that form the borders around lakes, ponds, or tidal marshes. It is primarily on outwash plain. Native vegetation is white pine, pitch pine, white oak, and red oak and huckleberry bushes. • 34 A representative profile has a thin layer of black organic matter on the surface about thee-inches • thick. Below this is a surface layer of gray sand about six-inches thick. The subsoil, to a depth of about 25 inches, is dark reddish-brown, friable sand in the upper two-inches. Below this it is olive-yellow and light yellowish-brown, very friable sand. The substratum, to a depth of 53 inches, is light-gray loose sand. Deerfield soils have very low available moisture capacity in the surface layer and upper part of the subsoil; however, deeper rooted plants can draw moisture from the water table. Permeability is rapid throughout the surface layer and subsoil. A seasonal high water table is at a depth of about 18 to 24-inches. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fertility is low. Deerfield sand(De) This is the only Deerfield soil mapped in the county. This soil is between areas of somewhat poorly drained or excessively drained soils at slightly higher elevations. Slopes are three percent or less and are slightly concave in places. Except for some areas along the south shore, most areas of this soil are small. Included with this soil in mapping are moderately well drained loamy sand or sand soils that lack a thick, gray subsurface horizon and a horizon of iron and humus accumulation. Also included are small areas of Carver and Atsion soils. Areas of Carver soil that have seasonal high water table at depths of 40 to 50 inches are included with this unit. The hazard of erosion is slight. This soil is fairly well suited to crops commonly grown in the county. It is seasonally too wet or too dry in the root zone. Natural fertility is low. Small areas of Deerfield sand have been cleared for farming. Generally this soil has been left in woodland with adjoining areas of wetter soils; however, many areas in the southwestern part of the County have been filled and are used as sites for housing developments. In some places slab-type construction has been used without filling. • 35 Montauk Series • The Montauk Series consists of deep, well drained to moderately well drained, moderately coarse textured to medium textured soils that formed in fine sandy loam or in a mantle of silt loam and loam. These soils have a fragipan over a compact firm glacial till. They are on terminal moraines and have the topography characteristic of this landform. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent, but are generally from three to 15 percent. In many places, slopes are complex and are characterized by closed depressions. Native vegetation is white oak, red oak and scarlet oak. In a representative profile, in wooded areas, the surface layer is brown to dark brown fine sandy loam about two inches thick. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and a plow layer of brown to dark brown fine sandy loam, about nine inches thick, is present. The subsoil is yellowish brown, friable to very friable fine sandy loam to a depth of about 27 inches. The lower part is a dark brown to reddish brown sandy loam fragipan to a depth of about 40 inches. It is firm and brittle and the content of gravel • is five to 10 percent. The substratum, to a depth of about 60 inches, is reddish brown to dark brown loamy sand that is firm and brittle. Montauk soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid in the surface layer and in the upper part of the subsoil and moderately slow in the fragipan and underlying till. On lower slopes, the seasonal water table rises to within two or three feet of the surface. • 36 • Montauk fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (MfB) This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. It is on moraines, and in many places slopes are complex or undulating. Most areas are of medium size. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Montauk soil. If this soil is used for crops, controlling runoff and erosion, providing suitable outlets for the removal of excess surface water, and providing adequate moisture supplies are the main concerns of management. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County. Where this soil is around the foot slopes of higher landforms, the seasonal high water table rises to within two to three feet of the surface. A few areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for farming. Plymouth Series The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly • level to steep soils are throughout the County on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Native vegetation consists of white oak, black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak. In a representative profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown loamy sand, about four- inches thick, in wooded areas. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with materials formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and there is a brown to dark-brown plow layer of loam about ten-inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish brown and brown, very friable and loose loamy sand to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum, to a depth of about 58 inches, is a yellowish- brown, loose gravelly coarse sand. • 37 Plymouth soils have low to very low available moisture capacity. Natural fertility is low. The • response of crops to lime and fertilizer is fair. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout the profile of most of these soils, but it is strongly acid to medium acid in the lower substratum phase. The root zone is confined mainly to the upper 25 to 35 inches. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is rapid in all of these soils except in those of the silty substratum phase. Permeability is moderate in the silty layer of soils in the silty substrat>>m phase. Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes ("P1B") This soil is on moraines and outwash plains. Slopes are undulating, or they are single along the sides of intermittent drainageways. The undulating areas generally are large. The areas along intermittent drainageways are narrow and long, and follow the course of the drainage channel. Included with this soil mapping are small areas of Riverhead soils that are marginal to loamy sand in texture. Also included are loamy sands that have profiles similar to those of soils in the Carver series. Other inclusions on moraines are Montauk loamy sand, sand variant soils that have weak fragipan or areas that are too • small to map separately. These are intergrades between Plymouth loamy sand and Montauk loamy sand, sandy variant soils. Small gravelly areas less than about two acres in size are included. Included are few small areas, particularly on Fisher's Island, that are dominantly fine sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil. This soil tends to be droughty. This soil is fairly well suited to the crops commonly grown in the county. Some areas were formally used for farming, but most such areas are in brush or are idle. In the western part of the county, this soil is used mainly for housing developments. 38 Raynham Series • The Raynham series consists of deep, poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soils that formed in loam, very fine sandy loam, or silt loam. This soil generally is around tidal marshes and creeks of the south shore and in areas around the headwaters of the Peconic River. Slopes are less than three-percent, and in many places, the areas are concave. Native vegetation consists of red maple and blackgum and highbush blueberry. Some white oak and pitch.pines also grow. In a representative profile in a wooded area, a thin cover of organic matter overlies a surface layer of very dark grey loam about one-inch thick. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material from the upper part of the subsoil, forming a very dark grayish-brown plow layer of loam that is about eight-inches thick. The soil to a depth of about 10 inches is mottled gray or light gray, friable loam. Below, to a depth of about 40 inches, it is mottled light-gray to gray, friable silt loam. The substratum, to a depth of about 51 inches, is mottled greenish-gray, friable silt loam. These soils have seasonal high water table six to 18 inches below the surface. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and moderately slow in the substratum. Available moisture capacity is moderate to high in the root zone, which is restricted mainly to the upper 18 to 24-inches. Raynham Loam (Ra) This is the only Raynham soil mapped in the County. This nearly level soil is in low lying areas beside marshes and creeks. In many places it forms a transition between poorly drained and better drained areas on uplands. It is in outwash plains and moraines. Areas generally are small and irregular. Included with this soil in mapping are wet spots of Berryland soils and a very poorly drained silt loam soil. Also included are soils that have a water table at similar depth as Raynham soils, but they lack the gray color of Raynham soils, have a slightly coarser subsoil, and have sand and gravel below a depth of 30- inches. 39 The hazard of erosion is slight on this Raynham soil. If this soil is used for farming, • artificial drainage is needed. This soil is not well suited to crops commonly grown in the county unless it is artificially drained. Because of its position on the landscape, it is difficult to locate adequate drainage outlets. This soil is better suited to woodland and recreational areas than to other uses. In some places, areas of this soil have been filled and used as homesites. As demand for building lots increases, more areas will be filled for use as building sites. Riverhead Series The Riverhead series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur throughout the County in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gently sloping areas on outwash plains. These soils range from nearly level to steep; however, they generally are nearly level to gently sloping. Native vegetation consists of black oak, white oak, red oak, and scrub oak. • In a representative profile, the surface layer is brown to dark brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about 27 inches, is strong brown, friable sandy loam. The lower part of the subsoil is yellowish-brown, very friable loamy sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The substratum is very pale brown and brown loose sand and gravel or sand to a depth of 65 inches. Riverhead soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and in the subsoil and very rapid in the substratum. Natural fertility is low. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is good. The root zone is mainly in the upper 25-to-35 inches. In many places where these soils have been farmed, a plowpan is in the lower part of the surface layer and in the upper part of the subsoil. • 40 Riverhead sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (RdB) • This soil is on moraines and outwash plains. It generally is in the areas along shallow, intermittent drainageways. Slopes generally are moderately short, but large areas on moraines are undulating. The profile of this soil is similar to the one described as representative of the series, though in cultivated areas this soil is likely to be two-to-three-inches shallower to coarse sandy gravel, and the surface layer is likely to contain a slightly larger amount of gravel. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Bridgehampton, Haven, and Plymouth soils in a complex pattern. The texture of these soils is marginal to sandy loam. Near Bridgehampton are included areas of Riverhead soils that have gray and strong- brown silt loam layers at a depth of 26-to-30 inches. Also included are narrow strips of Haven loam, thick surface layer, along drainageways, and soils that have a surface layer of loam or fine sandy loam and a subsoil of sandy loam. Included with this soil on moraines are Montauk soils that have very weak fragipan that formed in loose, sandy till. • The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Riverhead soil. The main concerns of management are controlling runoff and erosion and providing adequate moisture. The soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County, and it is used mainly for this purpose. Most areas in the western part of the County; however, are used for housing developments and as industrial sites. The USDA NRCS website was also consulted for information on the potential limitations to development that each of the soils that may be present on-site. The constraints for these soils are summarized in Table 4. Information conveyed on the website is general data that is useful for preliminary assessments and guidelines as to the characteristics of soil to depths of approximately five feet. Due to the generalities and the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from both the Soil Survey and the website, actual on-site investigations were performed (see On- Site Test Holes). 41 Table 4—Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations • Symbol Mapping Unit Slopes Dwellings with Lawns and Local Roads Basements Landscaping Bd Berryland mucky sand N/A VL(A)(B) NR VL(A)(B) Ca Canadice silt loam N/A VL(B)(G) NR VL(A)(F) (G)(H) De Deerfield sand N/A SL(A) NR SL(A)(F) MfB Montauk fine sandy 3-8% SL(A) SL(A)(E) VL(A)(F) loam P1B Plymouth loamy sand 3-8% NL VL(E) NL Ra Raynham loam N/A VL(A) NR VL(A)(F) RdB Riverhead sandy loam 3-8% NL NL SL(F) Engineering and Planning Limitation Rating: NR =Not rated VL —'Very Limited SL Somewhat Limited NL Not Limited Reasons for Limitations: (A)Depth to Saturated Zone (B)Flooding • (C)Ponding (D)Presence of Organic Matter. (E)Droughtiness (F)Frost Action (G)Shrink-swell (H)Low Strength Source: http://websoilsu ey.nres usda.gov 42 On-Site Test Holes • In order to provide more site specific information and to confirm the suitability of the soils for development, on-site test holes were performed by Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. on March 20, 2008. Paul A. Wingler, Consulting Engineer has provided a geotechnical evaluation associated with the test holes that were performed (see Appendix L). The following is a summary of the report and the results of the test holes. Soil samples were recovered during the performance test and where evaluated and identified, and the ASTM Standard Penetration Test values were recorded. The specific methodology is described in detail in the report found in Appendix L of this DEIS. Five test holes, extending to 27± feet below grade were conducted to determine the depths and horizons of the various strata below the existing ground surface (see Figure 5 and Appendix L). The number, depth, and location of borings were determined by reviewing the location of the proposed structures as shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix C. The test holes revealed that in the • area of the proposed buildings, there are quality soil conditions that are well-suited to standard construction procedures. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered a project issue. More specific information regarding each test hole is presented below. 43 On-Site Soil Boring Location Map N 100 l 0 g••�� x Y w W Y •Y 04 83: Y.•...Y ....Y...YY Y KEY MAP .. •J•.•/•s Y W-TLNCS SCALE: lw-600• mt Y 40 Y Y YY,� •✓� a x � was SURVEY OF PROPERTY wa�'.�+�ar n Y Y Y Y '•:,� + AT GREENPORT �„Y,,.,.••°•+�` � Y Y •� ry� TO WN OF SOfITHULD SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y. y� Y Y 4'•. j 82 � '+ x t000-40-03-01 AUGUSTs,?0.75 AEG da0.5afa(Wrtro,d,c-A•—rra,) // ♦ x Y APR rx ma6(sa 82rhv L.-tib-) Y but �k//////. a►aaM�OlOf 1a��, Y Y j/ •i b Y a heY Y Y Y �aC Y Y Y Y ie. Y •• Y s Y Y Y x. Y ■ Y III��� �x�FV.IM18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y � Y Y Y Y Y Y '•G Y K Y Y M Y.S if-.w, doe ..m v.aon r sn ws Yee+p.wt.aw r•!i9wi:SLXj-F NOMAD RAP o•Wp- maw as an.oar soxewaor..a �Mr)xs-aar:♦u/e• - •*� ..d[Q4tA1�N7 mm:ofs aero•no►�•rw i.•e aa�.ama. AREA=17.1891 ACRES 8-PosT W.W awrw OF""am" 44 Figure 5 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A description of the results of the test holes follows. • Test Hole#B-1 Location: Northwestern portion of the site near Building 5. Description: Fine reddish brown grey silty sand with traces of gravel were documented from zero-to-two feet below grade level ("bgl"). Reddish brown fine silty sands with traces of gravel were documented from two- to four feet bgl. Moist fine medium-to- fine/fine reddish brown silty sand with a trace of gravel was documented at four-to-six feet bgl. At six-to ten feet bgl no classification was documented. Very fine grey clay was documented at ten-to-twelve feet bgl. From 12-to-15 feet bgl no classification was documented. From 15-to-17 feet bgl very fine grey clay was documented. No classification was documented from 17-to-20 feet bgl Fine wet tan/grey sand and very fine clay was documented at 20-to-22 feet bgl and groundwater was encountered at 20 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 22-to-25 feet bgl Very fine grey clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 25-to-27 feet. Test Hole #B-2 Location: South-central portion of the site, in the roadway near proposed Buildings 8, 9 and 23. Description: Fine brown silty sand with traces of wood or roots was documented from zero-to-two feet bgl. Medium-to-fine moist light brown silty sand with a trace of gravel was documented at two-to-four feet bgl. At: four-to-six feet bgl medium-to-fine reddish brown silty sand with traces of gravel was documented. From six-to-10 feet no classification was documented. Very fine reddish brown silty clay was documented from 10-to-12 feet bgl. From 12-to-15 feet no classification was documented. • 45 • Fine reddish brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 17-to-20 feet bgl. Fine reddish brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl. From 22-to-25 feet bgl no classification was documented. Groundwater was encountered at 25 feet bgl. Wet medium brown/tan sand with a trace of gravel was documented from 25-to-27 uet bgl. Test Hole #B-3 Location: East-central portion of the site in the area of proposed Building 16. Description: Fine to medium, damp/moist brown, sand was documented from zero-to- two feet bgl. Fine to medium damp moist brown silt/sand was documented from two-to- four feet bgl. From four-to-six feet bgl fine-to-medium wet brown sand/silt with five percent gravel was documented. Groundwater was encountered at five feet bgl. No classification was documented from six-to-ten feet bgl. Fine brown clay/silt was documented from ten-to-12-feet bgl. No classification was documented from 12-to-15 feet bgl. Fine brown silty clay with a trace of gravel was documented at 15-to-17 feet bgl. From 17-to-20 feet no classification was documented. Wet, medium-to-fine brown clay/sand was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 22-to-25 feet bgl. Fine wet brown clay/silt was documented between 25-to-27 feet bgl. • 46 Test Hole#B-4 • Location: Northeastern portion of the site between proposed Buildings 19 and 20. Description: Fine brown sand with a trace of gravel and four inches of sand was documented from zero-to-two feet bgl. Dry-to-wet, medium-to-fine sand/silt was documented from two-to-six feet bgl. From six-to-10 feet bgl no classification was documented. Medium brown sand/ clay with five-percent gravel, was documented from ten-to-12 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 12-to-15 feet bgl. Fine brown clay was documented from 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was documented from 17- to-20 feet bgl. Coarse to fine wet sand was documented from 20-to-22 feet bgl and groundwater was encountered at 20 bgl. From 22-to-25 feet bgl no classification was documented, and from 25-to-27 feet bgl fine brown clay was recorded. Test Hole #B-5 • Location: North-central portion of the site in the vicinity of the proposed parking area between proposed Buildings 2 and 21. Description: Fine-to-coarse brown sand and a trace of gravel was documented from zero- to-two feet bgl. Fine-to-medium brown sand was documented from two-to-four feet bgl. From four-to-six feet bgl fine-to-medium brown clay/sand was documented. No classification was recorded from six-to-10 feet bgl. From 10-to-12 feet bgl, fine brown clay/sand was documented. From 12-to-15 feet bgl no classification was documented. Fine brown clay with a trace of gravel was documented from 15-to-17 feet bgl. No classification was recorded from 17-to-20 feet bgl. From 20-to-22 feet bgl fine grey clay with a trace of gravel was documented and groundwater was encountered at 20 feet bgl. No classification was recorded from 22-to-25 feet bgl and from 25-to-27 feet bgl fine grey clay sand with a trace of gravel was documented. • 47 A review of the test hole data indicates that groundwater was encountered at 20.0± feet below • grade. The moist soil condition in the upper 22 inches at the location of Test Hole #13-3 is representative of a perched or trapped water condition. A fluctuation of the subsurface water level could be expected through the year due to seasonal variations and weather events, tidal variations and other factors that may vary from the time the test holes were conducted. A surface fill condition was detected. The materials are related to clearing and grubbing, and are marginally consolidated. However, the soils are suitably graded and could be excavated, rendered free of such materials and replaced as engineered fill. The soils encountered are typical of the area, and are dense and moderately consolidated. Thus, the soil bearing capacities of the soils in the anticipated construction area possess sufficient soil bearing value, as indicated in the soil report in Appendix L of this DEIS. 3.1.3 Topography • According to the USGS Topographic Map-Southold Quadrangle (see Figure 6), the topography of the subject property is dominated by a relatively flat surface, which slopes slightly to the south-southeast. Topographic contours depicted on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, prepared by BBV (see Appendix G), indicates the existing elevation ranges from less than 10 feet above mean sea level ("amsl") at the southern portion of the property to approximately 35 feet amsl at the northern property boundary along C.R. 48. The most significant slopes on the subject site are located along C.R. 48. • 48 According to the project engineer, the existing slopes on the subject property predominantly range from zero to 10-percent. A breakdown of the existing slopes is presented below in Table 5. Table 5—Existing Slopes on the Subject Property Slopes Percent of Site 0 to 10 percent 96.0± 10 to 15 percent 3.3± 15 to 25 percent 0.5± Greater than 25 percent 0.2± • 49 Excerpt of Topographic Map FEE 4555 'V >:z Inlet Pt. '} a 6 . ; 4554 Parker Rock 77 28 C. Site Location " �! s` Sewage O 'V- .Disposal a az ` I ' '�J • o M . 1 . r Drive +/ Theater �'` '• �ubstetion W. i y , Name:SOUTHOLD Location: 041'0622.1" N 07223'77.9"W DZ: SAVIOR Scale:1 inch equab 10DOfeet CgYyllg Yt(Cj 1986,®Irllt bYi,llc. Source: Earthvisions, Inc., 1996,U.S.GS. Topographic Map Brooklyn and Central Park Quadrangles Scale: 1 inch= 1,000 feet Figure 6 FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 50 3.2 WATER RESOURCES • 3.2.1 Groundwater The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Manazement Plan ("208 Study") In Suffolk and Nassau Counties, groundwater is present in the Upper Glacial aquifer, Magothy aquifer and the Lloyd Sand member. Water migrates down to the aquifer systems from surface precipitation (e.g., snow and rain), which, under the influence of gravity, migrates vertically through the unsaturated zone. At a certain depth(depending on location, local hydrogeology and precipitation rates), the sand and gravel units become saturated with water and become the aforementioned aquifer material. Precipitation migrates through all open ground surfaces on Long Island, however, as discussed in The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (hereinafter the "208 Study"), extensive research over the years has shown that the deeper aquifer zones (e.g., the • Magothy aquifer) are recharged by infiltrating precipitation from along the elevated central east- west-trending topographic spine of Long Island. Groundwater tends to migrate horizontally away from the central spine of the island towards the north to the Long Island Sound and to the south to the Atlantic Ocean. This infiltration pattern has lead to the formation of a groundwater flow divide in Suffolk County from the Nassau/Suffolk border east to the Town of Riverhead which runs approximately under the Long Island Expressway("LIE"). In Suffolk County, west of Riverhead, groundwater present north of the LIE tends to migrate northward to the Long Island Sound while groundwater south of the LIE tends to migrate southward to the Atlantic Ocean. Further, due to potentiometric conditions, groundwater near the flow divide exhibits a downward flow component (resulting in recharge of the deeper aquifer units) while groundwater in two parallel bands midway between the LIE and the Long Island Sound to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the south exhibits a horizontal flow component. As groundwater migrates towards the north and south shores of Long Island, it exhibits an upward . flow component where it eventually discharges to the Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean. 51 The ramifications of the aforementioned groundwater flow regime are that anthropogenic • contaminants released in the deep recharge area located along the topographic spine of Long Island could eventually impact the deeper aquifers while contaminants injected near the shorelines will only likely impact the shallower aquifers. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") recognized the ramifications of the groundwater flow regime and has developed one of the Country's first groundwater management systems in which allowable industry types and population densities are based upon a sites' underlying groundwater conditions. As the subject site is located on North Fork of Long Island, it has been designated as being in SCDHS Groundwater Management Zone IV (see Figure 7). Hydrogeologic Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern part of the South Fork. This area has unique groundwater conditions and special management alternatives apply to it. The groundwater reservoir on the North Fork consist of four principal freshwater flow systems referred to as the Long Island mainland, Cutchogue, Greenport, and Orient within a sequence of unconsolidated Pleistocene glacial and non-glacial deposit and Late Cretaceous Coastal_ Plan deposits. The aquifer underlying the North Fork is of locally marginal water quality, mainly in areas underlying farms. Due to the adjacent saltwater bodies to the north and south there is the potential for saltwater intrusion if pumping patterns are not carefully managed. Although the groundwater underlying the agricultural areas shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water. 52 F I L. I Hydrogeologic Zone Map F 7F- SUFFOLK COUNTY , NEW YORK Block Island Sound Sit.Location Smithtown Bay Gardiners Bay Long Island Sound t t i V I I i -� viii__ r 1 ' Napeague a I v Bay Great Peconic M Bay i ! A ` V1 I V I v ATLANTIC OCEAN .�HY L hI GLD LO GI C Great South Bay ( (` L T L L L% iiii♦iN�NiI/ Miles »• •_._..... Source Suffolk County Deloartment of Planting,&Ndk County Department ofHearth Services.8 New York State Depa nient of Transpaladon 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Map is subject to revision.This map is not to be used for surveying,conveyance of landor ther precise purposes. Source: Suffolk County Department of Planning, Suffolk County Department of Health Services& New York State Department of Transportation Scale: As Shown 53 Figure 7 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. The relevant highest priority area wide alternatives for Hydrogeologic Zone N include selected • structural and non-structural recommendations, as follows: • Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting, regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells; • Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit/one or more acres), where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings; • Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to surface and ground waters; and • Provide for routine maintenance of on-site disposal systems. Depth and Flow Direction of Groundwater According to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") Contour Map of the • Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk County (1999), the water table in the vicinity of the subject site is less than 10 feet above msl (see Figure 8). Given that the elevations at the subject site range from 10± feet-to-35± feet above msl, the depth to groundwater, based on published information, would typically range from approximately 0 feet-to-25 feet bgl. According to the on-site test holes (see Appendix L), the depth to water beneath the site was generally encountered at 20 feet bgl in the area of the test holes (where construction would occur). However, perched groundwater was found at five feet bgl in Test Hole #B-3 located in the area of proposed Building 14. Based upon the site topography and the SCDHS groundwater flow map, groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site exhibits a north-northeasterly flow direction. • 54 Water Table Elevation Map 22' 30" 15' i { c i F ?� .}; r } �7E r �"". f s-:zw. ,ya..fYa'I".,.,:•r • f r r� .lt � i ._ 4 iu t-z��T 1 Lf v 3 .( .^�?s Y } t r A ✓ ;F - �F' '� s e 'rpp�t � rt.-� r•i 4 r- $: r t -��.3 ,.-., iLlit1 r E `2-- a..Y _}..�t't a 'lrs -'�Y✓' aw7..y rA tw "HN .wlSwrf�j YJ1 y�-�'<-r�� � -Y s r��- Y• �''��.'—is-�y�� V '�-•' J,f' .`�`-4 i74, xi d ♦ ,r ,t 4,a-Jt Flt�lI s�+c�.yd { �,:�'Fu� �"", •.x��5'ra�, �'^•.a,-! '� �4b 0 y fix. /t r. alai i yam_ ars�L + `S167&3�s � r 2,87 �, E t ER { hn Y v- r Y Y Q c..- ,i, .'}iv- •aux ,.�"'-x ,.,, Mme, , { 2.76 - �'-� ��J'• htiJ+i#'^'? s� --a-me �- r '.- �.a`-z.T'tl'a t ,s a � .�,L.<^, c' f-yLx, Rj -i s, t i mss 4 y ✓� } c `55117 xh. rJ ??F� Ati � r� 1 ` 4-- "INr yam . •�_ '-ei;� -�^��cc{ M*.,"`i i ,.a rIM- -fE .. /i sr--j �t^a t..;Y�"t"•LL:'` `�a92 � �t^r�i. _ x '5��y��a��s�r7/�+•..t� GY�u--- D,�?��� r r��-����'$� '' +180 ; '�3� Y�� ��.`�,� ,S:w•sYrrl�r� .y.�c� - �_ '„'`� -t_�f��ls �i A �CC��YY,f�f•��.t... 5.37 t y rte' 1 x y6�s��,.8��y� 4� - (`3 ,:,� t:t•�r �� e', mss':'� '"`'t `�,�-"�- z � i � ��s ".--.:S'r !.r � F- �..-1�=� t F~a S -+ •tx aar' y'�� F�.3��J -r A-r•y �'a ' ,LII �^.._.r t _�—r�,�-+•'t ...QUf►Yc, ��Y _ 4w� � �^ }� F •I,- VV ;�ISLAND _ - �f O � 7dffIRIEEE o 5.1 ur U S57371 HAABOR-; 515048a 6720 6.060 � 65892 l� - �1 ` t c �Zi 8.6205 SE t: P � i s `r soad�:,� c 07 �A1711 ` _ ` 10, 5.76 s✓ 58843 �a a 1 08,77 F a, _� tt 3O 1 736 15, S2 Source: United States Geological Survey (2000) Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island . Scale I" = 2,000 feet Figure 8 FREUDEN1 HAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 55 isThe Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan ("SGPA Plan") As identified in the Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (hereinafter "SGPA Plan"), SGPAs are significant, largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. They represent a unique final opportunity for comprehensive, preventative management to preclude or minimize land use activities that can have a deleterious impact on groundwater. Nine SGPAs are located on Long Island: North Hills; Oyster Bay; West Hills/Melville; Oak Brush Plains; South Setauket Woods; Central Suffolk; Southold; South Fork; and Hither Hills. According to the SGPA Plan, the subject property is not located within an SGPA (see Figure 9). Therefore, no further discussion of this issue is warranted. Suffolk County Sanitary Code ("SCSC") In order to protect the groundwater quality in Suffolk County, the SCDHS adopted Articles 6 and • 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6 is entitled "Realty Subdivisions, Developments and other Construction Projects." Provisions of this article relevant to this project are summarized below. § 760-607 of Article 6 identifies the sewage facility,requirements for construction projects other than conventional single-family residential realty subdivisions and developments, and requires the following. • 56 Special Grounwater Protection Areas (SGPA) Map Excerpt i Site Location, LONG ISLAND SOUND SOUTHOLD • SOUTH SETAUKET WOODS HITHER HILLS BROOKHAVEN PILOT AREA, OYSTER BAY OAK BRUSH PLAINS OYSTER BAY PLOT AREA SOS FORK NORTH HILLS CENTRAL SUFFOLK CITY OF NEW YORK -•. e s ATLANTIC „ OCEAN WEST DILLS/MELVILLE DA'1'i` 12-17•-81 Source: The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan, 1992 57 Figure FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. i • A community sewerage system method of sewage disposal is required for other construction projects when any of the following conditions are present: 1. The construction project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V V and the population density equivalent is greater than that of a realty subdivision or development or single-family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,0000 square feet; 2. The construction project is located outside Groundwater Management Zones III, V or VI, and the population density equivalent is greater than that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consists of an area of at least 20,000 square feet; 3. The construction project, or any portion thereof, is located within an existing • sewer district... 4. The construction project is located in an area where the subsoil or groundwater conditions are not conducive to the proper functioning of individual or subsurface sewerage systems. Article 12 relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. The relevant aspects of Article 12 relate to the storage of fuel oil. in above ground or underground storage tanks. New underground storage tanks have to be "designed and constructed in a manner which will, in the opinion of the Commissioner [of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services] provide the maximum reasonable protection available against leakage or spillage from the facility to due corrosion, breakage, structural failure, or other means." • 58 • 3.2.2 Water Usage As the site is currently undeveloped, there is no water usage. As indicated by the SCWA in Appendix M, public water service is located in an existing water main in C.R. 48. 3.2.3 Sanitary Flow As the site is currently undeveloped, no sewage effluent is generated. However, sewer infrastructure associated with the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the vicinity of the subject property within C.R. 48. As indicated in Appendix J, the Village of Greenport has the ability to provide service to the proposed development. The procedures associated with the connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant depend on the outcome of the annexation petition. If the annexation occurs, the subject property is entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant by virtue of being located within the Village Sewer District (as a direct result of the annexation). Should the . annexation not occur, although there is a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the potential for out-of-district connections, it is uncertain that the proposed development will be allowed to be connected to the Village Sewer District. As explained in detail in Section 2.3 of this DEIS, it is the applicant's opinion that the Stipulation of Settlement is in effect. However, it is the expressed opinion of the Village of Greenport that the Stipulation is "obsolete and void." The applicant has proceeded under the assumption that, according to the Village's opinion, it does not have access to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant if the property is not annexed and remains in Southold. If such Stipulation of Settlement is deemed valid, then connection to the Village Sewer District could occur. There are currently no written procedures for applying for an out-of-district connection. However, as previously indicated and included Appendix J hereto, a letter from the District was issued by the Village's consultant (Cameron Engineering) indicating that the Village of Greenport has adequate capacity to service the proposed development. • 59 3.2.4 Stormwater Runoff • Existing Drainage There is no development on the subject property. Based upon the topography of the site, stormwater currently flows from the north end of the site towards the south end, into the existing wetland area. Nonpoint Source Management Handbook("the Handbook") The Nonpoint Source Management Handbook(hereinafter the "Handbook"), which was prepared as part of the USEPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program, is divided into several elements: Land Use; Stormwater Runoff, On-site Systems; Highway Deicing; Fertilizer; Animal Waste; Wells-Water Supply; Boat Pollution; and Site Plan Review and Ordinances. The Handbook makes a variety of recommendations for counties, municipalities, engineers, etc., to use in the control of non-point sources of groundwater contamination. Relevant recommendations from • this study along with a review of the project's consistency therewith are included in Section 4.2.4 of this DEIS. Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ("NURP Study") Years of study, including various 208 studies, have provided conclusive evidence that in many areas pollutant loading contributed by non-point sources exceeds that contributed by point sources, and urban runoff is the most significant non-point source. With regard to stormwater runoff, the NURP Study (LIRPB, 1982) has made the following findings with regard to groundwater and surface water, that are relevant to the proposed development: • 60 Groundwater • • Most of the runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain that falls directly on impervious surfaces, except during storms of high intensity, high volume and/or long duration; • In general, with the exception of lead and chloride, the concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality; • Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. Although the NURP Study findings concerning chromium are not conclusive, data from a spill at Farmingdale indicate attenuation. Chloride is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on nitrogen is undetermined; • Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through soil; • Lead concentrations in runoff entering a recharge basin appear to be directly related to the extent and characteristics of the road network and the type and volume of traffic in the drainage area served by the basin; • Plant growth on a basin floor enhances infiltration because the plant root system keeps the soil layer loose and permeable, and provides channels for infiltrating water. Removal of basin vegetation is not necessary, and may indeed decrease the infiltration rate. 61 Surface Water • • Any control of chemical constituents in nznoff requires awareness of the year-round presence. The use of highway deicing salts in winter explains the high chloride concentrations found in runoff during that season; and • Stormwater is a major source of coliform loading to Long Island bays. Some of the bays in Suffolk County contain areas where impaired water quality exists for reasons other than stormwater runoff(e.g., localized duck farm discharges). A consistency analysis of the proposed project with the NURP Study is included in Section 4.2 of this DEIS. 3.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and.Floodplains NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map No. 6 of 39 (the Southold Quadrangle) was reviewed for • the potential presence of wetlands on or directly adjacent to the subject site (see Figure 10). The map indicates that the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland SO-1 is situated within the boundaries of the subject property. This wetland is locally known as Moore's Drain. Moore's Drain The freshwater wetlands located on the western, southern, and eastern margins of the project site are hydrologically connected to Moore's Drain, a permanent, slow-moving stream that flows from its headwaters at Silver Lake to Pipe's Cove. The stream is shallow (typically 1-2 feet in depth) and is largely contained within a steeply banked channel approximately 10-20 feet in width. Between Route 25 and Moore's Lane, the stream flows though Moore's Woods, which is composed of high quality, mature oak-tulip forests and forested wetlands. Moore's Drain, its surrounding wetlands, and Moore's Woods encompass approximately 300 acres consisting largely of protected lands owned by the Village of Greenport. Moore's Drain is listed as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the New York State Department of State- Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDOS, 2005). 62 However, Moore's Drain often exhibits elevated levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria • especially following excessive (>6 inches) rainfall events (Town of Southold, 2004). Water quality monitoring of Moore's Drain between 1996 and 2007 by Suffolk County Department of Health Services found high levels of total coliform bacteria (ranging between 20 MPN/100mL7 and 16,000 MPN/100ml) and fecal coliform bacteria (ranging between <20 MPN/100mL) (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 2009). The highest values for total coliform (9,000-16,000 MPN/100 ml) and fecal coliform (5,000-16,000 MPN/100 mL) were typically observed prior to 2005. Since 2005, the highest values for total and fecal coliform observed were 2,200 and 500 MPN/100mL, respectively. The sampling point for this water quality data is located at the southern end of Moore's Drain where the stream flows through a culvert under Main Road at the intersection of Old Main Road. Values for other ecologically-important water quality parameters between 1996 and 2007 include total phosphorus (0.018-0.205 mg/L), total nitrogen (0.16-2.00 mg/L), and nitrate (0.005-0.490 mg/L). Complete water quality records obtained from Suffolk County Department of Health are provided in Appendix M. • A stormwater retention system and filtration facility consisting of a man-made wetland was constructed between Route 25 and Old Main Road to receive stormwater and reduce the discharge of contaminants to Pipe's Cove. At the headwaters of Moore's Drain located to the east of Moore's Lane, this freshwater wetland system consists mostly of deep emergent marshes, shrub swamps, and two small open water ponds (including Silver Lake). Between Route 25 and Moore's Lane, Moore's Drain is located largely within a distinct, steeply-banked stream channel. However, there are numerous ditches and perched wetlands, which drain into the main stream channel. In this portion of Moore's Drain, the wetland community types present include deep emergent marshes, shrub swamps, and mature red maple hardwood swamps. Is 7MPN=Most Probable Number. This is a method of estimating quantitative data on concentrations of discrete items from positive or negative(incidence)data such as microbial populations in water or soil. mL=Milliliter. 63 The upland forests adjacent to Moore's Drain largely consist of mature oak-tulip forests. These • woodlands are dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and various hickories (Carya glabra and Carya ovata). Moore's Woods provide high-quality habitat for a wide diversity of plants and wildlife. Moore's Woods is bordered to the north by the KOA Campground and to the east by the Greenport sewage treatment plant and athletic fields. The southern terminus of Moore's Drain flows into a culvert in a concrete headwall and under Route 25. On the southern side of Route 25, Moore's Drain discharges into a tidal high marsh associated with Pipe's Cove located between Route 25 and the Long Island Railroad tracks. Examination of the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Mapping (718-552) revealed that there are no tidal wetlands located within or contiguous to the subject property (see Figure 12). National Wetland Inventory ("NWI") Map No.822 was examined as to the potential presence of wetlands on or adjacent to the site (see Figure 1.1). The National Wetlands inventory Map • revealed that there are federally-designated wetlands identified within the subject property boundary. These wetlands are classified as Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanent ("PUBH"). A discussion of the ecological characteristics of the wetlands is included in Section 4.3 of this DEIS. The Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM"), panel map (36103C0157G), on which the subject site is located, indicates that the site is located outside the 500-year flood zone and, thus, is not located within a special flood hazard area (see Figure 13). There are no other surface waters situated on or directly adjacent to the subject property. • 64 NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map Number 6 of 39 _ - Inlet f't• .�. `:� - let and �` C Por;q - GOi'NV 10 � Parluer.'Rock. t4:;:.. ,. PARI'. 0 . .Q Mas' i i .�?I�G'•�QC��'�1'�031 � �. E Y - n 9ee - u - \ Gr 3 s; - 10 � t - t - - k _ 1 - - 1 • _ }meq - -- So_ - r _ Vis`•. \ _ dr%,'d�-` iIL y. � Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Map No.6 of 39,Southold Quadrangle, 1991 • Scale: 1 inch=200 feet FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP,INC. Figure 10 65 Excerpt of the National Wetlands Inventory Map I 72-24-0 W 72-23-40 W 72-23-20 W 72-23-0 W c z N - ePSS1/F01E b� � N � Z E2US2P E/UBL I LOCATION z PF 1E Digiftl z 2RS2P Southold _ ip.F01A 1 tr GL PUBF 25 Z D i dP 1F , �E2EM1Pd P s Fh PEM1F 72-24-0 W 72-23-40 W 72-23-20 W 72-23-0 W Ll Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Wetlands Online Mapper Scale: 1:13,218 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 11 • 66 N Excerpt of T' A rp Tidal Wetlands Map 1l� { h' u� SITE LOCATION • Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands Map No. 718-552 Scale: Not to Scale FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 12 67 Excerpt of Floodplain Map ZOW " �_. E L- o- Town of scr�.c Southold wu FEET 360813 �4 ZONE X l M UMM.ew EMiIMAMCE I MM' 'p Site Locat' {I FIRM r ?/ MOOD INSURANCE RIME MAP ZONE X y SUFMLK COU%TY, ZONE X ' \'EW YORK (J I ALL JUMEW.TIMS: PAVEL 161 N W6 I ZONE AE 44 KV l d�JI NUMBERI EFFECHYE DATE: Town of f ONE ZONE � MAY 4.1 X X 996 Southold ZONE 360813 X JFAHa-AY1iR0 t Acme? r e.i*ons n•. m..s..,m..,u..s.er«.na.• 't•>a1�+aps:M•ct.e cc un swop aac c:>m s...+.....r;tr^. • Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map, Suffolk County, New York, Panel 157 of 1026,Map No. 36103C0157 Q May 4, 1998 Scale: As Shown Figure 13 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP,INC. 68 3.3 ECOLOGY • The existing natural resources present on the Northwind Village site were assessed by William P. Bowman, Ph.D. (see Appendix N) between April 2007 and August 2008. Vegetation inventories, rare plant surveys, and avian surveys were conducted based on bi-weekly surveys conducted between April and September 2007. The herpetile community of the subject property was assessed using various sampling techniques including cover boards, pit-fall traps, call identification, and dip-netting in areas of standing water. Herpetogical sampling occurred bi- weekly from late May through July 2007. Mr. Todd Gardner assisted with herpetological sampling and identification (see Appendix N). The small mammal community of the subject property was assessed using small mammal traps between July and September 2007. The invertebrate community of the subject property, specifically the presence of tiger beetles (Cicindela patruela consentanea) or suitable habitat for tiger beetles, was assessed by Dr. Jonathan Mawsdley(see Appendix N) on August 14, 2008. • 3.3.1 Ecological Communities The ecological communities present at the subject property were characterized according to the Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke, 1990; Edinger et al., 2002). Several ecological communities were found to be present on the project site including red maple- hardwood swamps, successional southern hardwoods, and successional old fields. As shown in Table 6, successional southern hardwoods and successional old field were the dominant ecological communities present on the subject property. The red maple-hardwood swamps account for 3.9 acres (22.7 percent) of the subject property and are located along the western, southern, and eastern property boundaries. As shown in Table 6, each of these communities is classified as either G5-S5 or G4-S4 (Edinger et al., 2002). G5-S5 and G4-S4 communities are defined as being demonstrably or apparently, respectively, secure on both global and statewide scales (Reschke, 1990). A general description of each of the ecological communities, including the dominant plant species observed in each community, is presented below. • 69 Table 6— Ecological Communities Present at Northwind Village Site • Ecological Community Acres (% of Subject Property) Global/State Rank' Successional Old Field 2.3 (13.3) G4-S4 Successional Southern Hardwoods 11.0(64.0) G5-S5 Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp 3.9(22.7) G5-S4S5 Classifications from Ecological Communities of New York State(Edinger et al.,2002) In addition, a complete list of the more than 150 woody and herbaceous plant species observed on the subject property is presented in Appendix N. Successional Old Fields Approximately 2.3 acres (13.4 percent) of the subject property consist of areas that have been historically cleared and now feature dense stands of forbs, grasses, and sprawling vines. These dense meadows are dominated by various goldenrods (including Solidago altissima, S. rugosa, S. canadensis, and S. gramnifolia), field thistle (Sonchorus arvensis), wild lettuce (Letuca canadensis), and various brambles (including Rubus flagellaris, R. ideaus, and R. occidentalis). . There are several patches within these sucessional fields that are dominated by native grasses including purple-top (Triodia flava), redtop bentgrass (Agrostis alba), broomsedge and little blustems (Andropogon virginicus and A. scoparius), pamcgrass (Panicum sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and purple lovegrass (Eragrostis spectabilis). The property's fields were interspersed with trees typical of early successional habitats including eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), bayberry (Morella pennsylvanica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and red oak (Quercus rubra). • 70 Successional Southern Hardwoods • This ecological community consists of young stands of various hardwood trees that have regenerated on previously cleared sites. This community exists on approximately 11.0 acres (64.0 percent) of the subject property. In the northeastern portion of the property, these forests stands are dominated by black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) with an understory consisting of various honeysuckles (including Lonicera villosa and L. tartarica), black cherry (P. serotina), and spicebush (L. benzoin). However, throughout the remainder of the property, these stands are dominated by red maple (A. rubrum) with quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), grey birch (Betula populifolia), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides) also present. Some of these A. rubrum-dominated successional stands have a relatively sparse shrub- and ground-layer while other stands have a well-developed shrub layer dominated by honeysuckles. The edges of these successional forests, particularly on the eastern portion of the property, feature dense thickets of woody vines including common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), prickly dewberry (Rubus flageris), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orientalis), and wild grape (Vitis aestivalis and Vitis labrusca). • Red Maple-Hardwood Swamps The wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are red maple-hardwood swamps and are located along the western, southern, and eastern property boundaries. This community type exists on approximately 3.9 acres (22.7 percent) of the subject property. These wetlands are connected hydrologically to a larger wetland complex to the south and east, Moore's Drain. As noted in Section 3.2.5, Moore's Drain is a NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetland (SO-1, Southold USGS Quadrangle) and is listed as a Class C surface water. Moore's Drain occurs within Moore's Woods, a large, diverse forest consisting of mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands which provides large areas of mature, high quality, and largely unspoiled habitat. The wetlands and surrounding forests associated with Moore's Woods provide habitat for a number of rare plant species including cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor) (Lamont and Fitzgerald, 2000), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and cat-tail sedge (Carex typhina). See the New York Natural Heritage ("NYNHP") correspondence dated September 4, • 2006 and August 2, 2007 in Appendix N. 71 Within the red maple-hardwood swamp are small stands of trees, found on hummocks and the • tops of banks, that are dominated by various upland species such as oaks (Quercus sp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickories (Carya glabra and Carya ovata), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). These stands are likely to be remnants of the oak-beech-tulip forest that is present in upland portions of Moore's Woods located to the south of the subject property. In addition, the Arshamonaque wetland complex is located less than one mile to the west of the project site on the opposite side of Chapel Lane. Arshamonaque wetland is the largest complex of freshwater wetlands in the Town of Southold (Town of Southold, 2004) and is also known to contain habitat for rare plant species and ecological communities (see Appendix N). In the forested wetlands on the subject property, red maple (Acer rubrum) is the dominant canopy tree with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) as the most common co-dominant tree species. The shrub layer is well-developed, particularly in the southern part of the property, and • is dominated by spicebush (Lindera benzoin), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and Northern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum). The herbaceous layer is dominated by ferns, including sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis). Skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.), and water willow (Decodon verticillatus) were also abundant in the muck soils and mucky sands located on the property. The herbaceous layer in the hardwood swamps along the western property boundary tended to be sparser with jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) as the dominant ground cover and some starflower (Trientalis borealis)present. • 72 These wetlands typically possess a well-developed forest canopy; however, there are several • sites located to the south of the subject property where gaps in the tree canopy exist over wetland swales. These swales feature a diverse herbaceous plant community dominated by Sphagnum moss, S. foetidus, blue-flag iris (Iris versicolor), and various sedges including Carex crinita, Carux lurida, Carex stricta, Carex vulpinoidea, and Carex stipata. The water level in these swales varies markedly throughout the growing season from approximately two-to-2.5 -feet in the late spring and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. 3.3.2 Wildlife A diverse range of wildlife including birds, herpetiles, and mammals were observed on the subject property due both to the wide range of habitats present and the high-quality of the mature forested wetlands and hardwood forests located on and adjacent to the subject property. • Birds As shown in Appendix N, 46 bird species were observed on the subject property with eighteen bird species expected to also utilize the site based upon records from Inlet Pond Park(North Fork Audubon Society, 2006). Many of these bird species are expected to breed on the subject property (NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, 2000), as shown in Appendix N. The mature red maple- hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods provide high-quality habitat for a variety of forest songbirds including American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), wood thrush (Ilylocichla mustelina), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), black-and-white warbler (Mniotitla varia), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), and northern parula (Parula americana). These forest- dwelling species were largely observed on the southern and southwestern portions of the property or on the adjacent property. • 73 Dead trees, snags, and limbs in these forests provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds and • woodpeckers including red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). In addition, the dense thickets of low shrubs and woody vines in both the black locust- and red maple-dominated successional hardwood stands provide excellent habitat for songbirds which prefer dense vegetation including yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis triches). Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) were the most commonly observed birds on the subject property and were present in the shrub layer in the hardwood swamps, the stands of Lonicera shrubs located within the successional forests, and thickets of brambles (Rubus sp.) and woody vines at the margins of the successional fields. Bird species commonly observed in the open fields and forest edges included eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglotta), northern cardinal (Cardinal cardinal), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia, yellow-ramped warbler (Denroica coronata), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Due to the presence of successional fields and grass- dominated habitats surrounded by mature forest stands, the property provides suitable habitat for various raptors and owls which can forage for small mammals in the open areas from nearby trees. Several species of raptors and owls were observed including sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great-horned owl (Bubo virginanus), and Eastern screech owl (Megascops asio). Herpetiles High-quality habitats were observed for several types of aquatic and terrestrial herpetiles on or adjacent to the subject property. Various sampling techniques including cover boards, pit-fall traps, call identification, and dip-netting in areas of standing water were employed and resulted in the observation of nine species of reptiles and amphibians (see Appendix N). i 74 Four frog species and three salamander species were found to live and breed in the areas of • standing water located in the wetlands on the western and southern portion of the property. Larval spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were observed in these wetlands while four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) and red-backed salamander(Plethodon cinerus) were observed in the moist woods surrounding these wetlands. Eastern garter snakes (T hamnophis sirtalis) and eastern box turtles (Terrapene car- lina) were commonly observed on the subject property. Adult box turtles were observed in the successional hardwood stands and in open, sandy areas in the successional fields. In addition, two small clearings in the property's successional old fields were found that are utilized by box turtles as nesting areas. These areas are small (approximately 400 square feet in size), open clearings with sandy soil and sparse ground vegetation. Mammals The mammals observed at the subject property during the plant, avian, and herpetile surveys were commonplace species typical of suburban habitats including eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus • floridanus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procryon lotor), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Small mammal traps were deployed in the late summer through early Fall of 2007 in successional field, succession southern hardwoods, and red maple-hardwood swamp communities. White-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) were found to be abundant in the property's successional fields. No small mammals were successfully collected in forested communities as the traps were always disturbed by raccoons. However, other small mammals expected to be found on the subject property include short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), masked shrew (Sorex cinerus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). For a complete list of all mammals observed or expected at the subject property (see Appendix N). • 75 3.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Correspondence from the NYNHP dated September 4, 2006 and August 2, 2007 (refer to Appendix N), indicates that there are records of historical and recent occurrences of rare or state- listed animals or plants and significant ecological communities in the vicinity of the subject property. None of these significant ecological-resoyurces were observed on the subject property. The following section lists the significant ecological resources indicated by the New York Natural Heritage Program and discusses the suitability of the habitats at the subject property for these rare, listed, or significant ecological resources. Red Maple-Sweetgum Swamp Red maple-sweetgum swamps are a rare ecosystem type known to occur at only 10-30 sites within New York State (NYNHP, 2007). Red maple and sweetgum dominate the canopy in this community with subdominant species including swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) and red oak (Quercus rubra). Red maple-sweetgum swamps are known to provide habitat for several rare Splant species including swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). The closest known occurrence of a red maple-sweetgum swamp is within one mile of the subject property in Arshamonaque Wetland to the west of Chapel Lane. This rare community type is not present on the subject property. Red maple is a dominant tree species at the subject property. However, sweet gum, although present sporadically, is not dominant or co-dominant on the subject property. Eastern Box Turtle Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina), a species of Special Concern, have been observed on the subject site and two small box turtle nesting sites have been identified. The box turtle inhabits moist woodlands, pastures, and marshy meadows from New England to northern Florida (Ernst et al. 1994) and is listed as a species of special concern in New York State. Eastern box turtles are in decline throughout the eastern United States with population reductions of 50-75 percent since the 1940s-1950s (Williams and Parker 1987; Hall et al. 1999). 76 Habitat fragmentation and the pet trade are the most significant contributors to box turtle • population decline (Nazdrowicz et al. 2005; Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ["CTDEP"] 2008). The fragmentation of woodland habitats by roadways and residential development has resulted in increased turtle mortality from automobiles and lawnmowers. Road-killed turtles are often gravid females looking for nesting sites (CTDEP 2008). In addition, eastern box turtle populations are adversely--impacted by the pet trade as poachers capture turtles and remove them from the breeding population. Due to the slow reproduction and late sexual maturity of box turtles, populations of box turtles in the eastern United States have not been able to overcome the loss of mature adult turtles due to automobile- and lawnmower-mortality and poaching. Eastern box turtles are long-lived, with some adults reaching 50-70 years in the wild, and typically inhabit very small home ranges (2.2 to 24.4 acres) for many decades (Hall et al. 1999; Donaldson and Echternact 2005). Box turtles inhabit moist woodlands, pastures, and marshy meadows and are known to soak in the shallow edges of marshes, small ponds, streams, and ditches to cool themselves during warm, dry periods in the summer (Donaldson and Echternacht 2005). Box turtles have a diverse diet consisting of insects, worms, slugs, berries, and mushrooms. During the winter months, box turtles burrow into the soil in wooded areas and hibernate just below the leaf litter (Claussen et al. 1991), they then emerge from hibernation in mid-March to April. Box turtles begin to breed in April and females typically nest in mid-May to late July (CTDEP 2008). Female box turtles deposit 4-5 eggs annually in sunlit areas with bare, exposed, well-drained soils (Flitz and Mullin 2006). Female turtles may migrate up to one mile in search of suitable nest sites (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2007). During the summer months, box turtles are most active in the morning and evening and after precipitation events (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2007). Young turtles emerge from nests in September and then live within the leaf litter layer of woodlands for several years. Young box turtles do not begin to reproduce until they are—10 years of age (CTDEP 2008). s 77 Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks • Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipter striatus) has been observed in the woodlands to the south of the subject property. Cooper's hawk (Acciptiter cooperii) is expected to be present based upon the suitability of the woodlands and nearby edge habitats for foraging and nesting of this species. These raptors inhabit various woodlands and forests throughout the United Stakes-and Canada and both are listed as species of special concern in New York State. The populations of both these species declined substantially between the 1940s and 1972 due to the adverse effects of DDT on reproduction and egg survivorship, but then rebounded after the use of DDT was banned. More recently, sharp-shinned hawk breeding occurrences have declined on Long Island between 1980-1985 and 2000-2005, while increasing in other portions of New York State (McGowan and Corwin 2008). In contrast, Cooper's hawk breeding has increased on both Long Island and throughout New York State (McGowan and Corwin, 2008). Sightings of sharp- shinned hawks have also declined during migration periods and may be the result declining productivity of breeding populations, loss of breeding habitat, and/or changes in migration • patterns (Viverette et al. 1996). Cooper's hawk populations may be increasing across New York State due to both the increased availability of older forests stands suitable for nesting Cooper's hawks and the propensity of this species to hunt for birds at bird feeders and in residential areas (Corwin 2008). Both of these hawks prey largely on birds, but will occasionally take small mammals, lizards, insects, and frogs (Erlich et al. 1989). Both the sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks often prey on songbirds at residential bird feeders (Dunn and Tessaglia 1994). In suburban and urban areas, sharp-shinned hawks feed primarily on sparrow-sized birds, particularly house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and dark-eyed junco (Juncus hyemalis) and intermediate-sized birds, such as European, starling (Sternus vulgaris) and American robin (Turdus migratorius) (Roth et al. 2006). Cooper's hawks feed almost exclusively on intermediate-sized birds such as European starlings, American robins, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and rock doves (Columba livia) (Roth and Lima 2003). These hawk species both feed in a variety of habitats including woodlands, grassed areas, and residential settings although they tend to focus their hunting • activity in forest edge habitats (Roth et al. 2008). 78 The project site and the surrounding woodlands and wetlands are expected to provide suitable • hunting habitat for both sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks nest between April and June (McGowan and Corwin, 2008) in broad, flat nests adjacent to tree trunks constructed from sticks and twigs (Stokes and Stokes 1989). Sha.Y shinned hawks tend to nest in young forest stands with a high density of smaller trees, while Cooper's hawks tend to use older stands with a lower density of tall trees (Trexel et al. 1999). Sharp-shinned hawks tend to nest in coniferous trees, whereas Cooper's hawks tend to nest in broad-leaf trees (Trexel et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 2002). The absence of young stands of coniferous trees on the subject property or in nearby woodlands associated with Moore's Woods indicate that the area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for sharp-shinned hawk. However, the mature deciduous woodlands in Moore's Woods provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk and nesting of this species has been confirmed in the Greenport area (McGowan and Corwin, 2008). • Cat-tail Sedge (Carex typhina) Cat-tail sedge is a small, clump-forming sedge typically found in wet meadows and open wet woodlands. C. typhina is typically found in association with Carex lurida, Carex vulpinoides, and Carex crinita (Mohlenbreck, 1998). Field inspection of the subject property indicated that several wetland areas on the southwestern portion of the property feature numerous areas dominated by sedges including known associates of C. typhia such as C. lurida and C. vulpinoides. However, C. typhina was not found at these locations. The NYNHP stated that a population of Carex typhina is located in the southern portion of Moore's Drain at the edge of a shrub swamp. The absence of C. typhina at the subject property may be due to the presence of shaded conditions resulting from the mature forest canopy instead of the sunny wet meadow or shrub swamp habitats typically preferred by C. typhina. However, due to the presence of its associates, it is concluded that suitable habitat for C. typhina is present in the red maple- hardwood swamps located on the southern and southwestern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. • 79 Swamp Cottonwood(Populus heterophylla) • Swamp cottonwood is a southern tree species occasionally found in bottomland hardwood swamps growing at the edge of muck soils (Burns and Honkala, 1990). This uncommon species is known to occur in approximately 20 extant and historical populations in New York State (NYNHP, 2007b) including a known occurrence in the hardwood swamps located in Moore's Drain. P. heterophylla is typically found in association with A. rubrum, F.pennsylvanica, and Q. bicolor (NYNHP, 2007b). As stated previously, the hardwood swamps located on and near the subject property are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The wetland areas located on the subject property were intensively surveyed for the presence of P. heterophylla. No specimens of this species were observed. However, suitable habitat for this species exists in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. Cranefly Orchid(Tipularia discolor) • This small, rare orchid occurs in large tracts of mature forests dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red oak (Quercus rubra), swamp white oak (Quercus rubra), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Small stands of these trees were observed in hummocks and on the tops of banks within the red maple-hardwood swamps located on the subject property. No cranefly orchids were observed on the subject property during surveys conducted in the summer and winter months. It is concluded that small areas of suitable habitat for T. discolor are present in the red maple-hardwood swamps located on the southern and southeastern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. Northern Cricket Frog(Acris crepitans) The Northern Cricket Frog is a small tree-frog that inhabits the edges of sunny marshes, marshy ponds, impoundments, and slow-moving streams in open country (NYNHP, 2007c). Known populations of A. crepitans in New York State occur in Orange, Ulster, and Dutchess counties. • 80 Historically, this species occurred on eastern Long Island. Intensive survey efforts to assess the • herpetological community of the subject property did not indicate the presence of A. crepitans. However, as previously discussed, seven amphibian species were observed. The areas of standing water on the subject property are largely shaded by the surrounding mature forest canopy and do not appear to provide suitable habitat for A. crepitans which prefers more open, sunny habitats. Tier Beetle (Cicindela patruela consentanea) This rare beetle species is historically known from Greenport (NYNHP, correspondence dated October 12, 2007, see Appendix N) and other locations on eastern Long Island including Port Jefferson, Riverhead, and Westhampton (Leonard, 1926). These tiger beetles inhabit pine-oak woodlands dominated by pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and various oak species, including scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), and post oak (Quercus stellata), with adult beetles typically found along sandy trails and firebreaks (Mawdsley, 2007). On August 14, 2008, Dr. Jonathan Mawdsley visited the 17.2-acre subject property, and investigated the entire property for microhabitat features that might provide suitable habitat for tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Based upon this habitat survey, the subject property does not contain suitable habitat for the tiger beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. This tiger beetle is closely associated with high-quality pine-oak barrens, an ecological community that is not present at the subject property. In pine-oak barrens, Cicindela patruela consentanea is often associated with white sandy substrates, or white sandy substrates with pebbles. These substrates are not present at the subject property. Neither adult tiger beetles, nor larval burrows of tiger beetles, were observed during the site visit. No adult bombyliid flies (parasites of larval tiger beetles often visible when neither adult larval nor larval tiger beetles are active) were observed during the site visit. The subject property contained several areas of potentially suitable habitat for two common species of tiger beetles. Both of these species (Cicindela punctulata Olivier, Cicindela Ssexguttata Fabricius) are common and widespread in New York State. 81 Both species have Natural Heritage Status Rand G5, meaning that they are demonstrably • widespread, abundant, and secure. The complete report prepared by Dr. Mawdsley, as well as his qualifications and literature review, are contained in Appendix N of this DEIS. Marsh Straw Sedge (Carex hormathodes) Marsh straw sedge is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs most commonly in and adjacent to salt or brackish coastal, or rarely slightly inland, tidal marshes. It can also occur in dune swales, fens, the margins of coastal wetlands, and wet forests adjacent to the coast (NYNHP, 2006; NYNHP, 2007d). This plant is typically found in association with common reed (Phragmites australis), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), seaside bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp. paludosus), and beach plum (Prunus maritima) (NYNHP, 2007d). No tidal marshes and coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable • habitat for C. hormathodes. Orange-fringed Orchid(Platanthera ciliaris) This New York State-Endangered orchid occurs in a variety of wetlands habitats including bogs, damp and sandy meadows, floodplains, seepage areas, and other sites with damp and sandy soils. Orange-fringed orchid was not observed during surveys of the wetlands on the site. However, due to the presence of large areas of wetlands with sandy soils, it is concluded that suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the southern and southeastern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. • 82 Nuttall's Tick-Trefoil (Desmodium nuttallii) and Smooth Tick-Trefoil (Desmodium • laevigatum) Both of these plants are endangered in New York State and known to inhabit dry, sandy soils in open habitats. Both species are known from historical records to have occurred in the Greenport area. No Desmodiums were observed on the subject property and it appears that the areas of suitable sandy soils are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Green Parrot's Feather(Myriophyllum pinnatum) This native aquatic milfoil is endangered in New York State and is known from a 1919 report in a ditch in Greenport. M. pinnatum is a submergent plant found in the shallow water and muddy banks of coastal ponds (Massachuesetts Natural Heritage Program, 2006). No coastal ponds are present on the subject property and the wetlands that are present do not contain a submergent plant community due to the shallow and variable water levels. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for M pinnatum. • Cut-leaved Evening-Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) This New York State-Endangered plant is found in cultivated fields, sandy waste places, and roadsides (Clewis et al. 2007). O. laciniata was not observed on the subject property and it appears that the areas of suitable sandy soils, roadsides, and waste places are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Opelousa Smartweed(Polygonum hydropiperoides var. opelousa) This rare native sub-species of the commonplace Water Smartweed(P. hydropiperoides) inhabits wet, sandy to peaty soils near running water or in swales (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). Opelousa smartweed is known from various historical reports on Long Island, including a 1939 report in Greenport. P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa was not observed on the subject property; however, P. hydropiperoides was found in the areas of standing water on the southern portion of the • property. 83 The two sub-species are readily differentiated by leaf shape as P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa • has linear-lanceolate leaves compared with the broadly lanceolate leaves of P. hydropiperoides (Mitchell and Dean, 1979). Although there are no areas of permanent running water on the subject property, the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site suggest that the abundant wet soils provide suitable habitat for P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa. Swamp Sinartweed(Persicaria setaceum) This New York State-Endangered smartweed inhabits shaded swampy forests and lake margins (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). Swamp smartweed was not observed during surveys of the red maple-hardwood swamps located on and adjacent to the site; however, the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site suggests that suitable habitat for P. setaceum is present. Red PiQweed(Chenopodium rubrum) Red pigweed is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs in salt marshes, saline soils, and • sandy frontal dunes (Maine Department of Conservation, 2004; NYNHP, 2006). No tidal wetlands or coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for C. rubrum. Velvet Panic Grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) Velvet panic grass is a New York State-Threatened plant that occurs in open or partially open, moist ditches and swales and sandy soils of adjacent woodlands (Gould and Clark, 1978). Velvet panic grass was not observed during surveys of the wetlands on the subject property. However, due to the presence of large areas of wetlands with ditches and sandy soils, it is concluded that suitable habitat for D. scoparium may be present on or adjacent to the site. • 84 Small-flowered Pearlwort(Sagina decumbens) • This diminutive plant is found in dry, sandy soils (Britton and Brown, 1913) in open areas in fields, pastures, and waste places. Open, sandy areas within the subject property's successional old fields were investigated for small-flowered pearlwort. No specimens of this species were observed. Maryland Milkwort(Polyaala mariana) Maryland milkwort is found in wetland habitats, but is presumed to be extirpated from New York State (NYNHP, 2006). Accordingly, while wetland habitats exist on or adjacent to the site, Maryland milkwort is not expected to be found on the site nor was this species observed during surveys of the wetland habitats. • 85 3.4 LAND USE AND ZONING, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COMPREHENSIVE • PLANS/STUDIES 3.4.1 Land Use and Zoning The subject property consists of 17.19 acres located on the south side of C.R. 48. Currently, the subject property is undeveloped, consisting of forested upland area and forested wetlands and is located within the Hamlet Density ("HD") Residential District, according to the Town of Southold New Zoning Map, Section 2 of 4, adopted by the Town Board on November 3, 2004 (see Figure 14). The HD zoning district permits the development of one-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple dwellings, townhouses, or row or attached dwellings. Uses permitted by special exception from the Board of Appeals include accessory apartments in single-family homes, bed-and-breakfast uses and health care facilities. As community water and sewer would be available to the development, the bulk regulations for such condition have been included in Table 7. • The bulk and dimensional regulations of the HD District are included in Table 7. Table 7—Bulk and Dimensional Regulations—HD District Parameter Re uirement Minimum Lot Size—Multiple Dwellings/Townhouses Without Utilities 20,000 SF per Unit With Community Water 20,000 SF per Unit With Community Water and Sewer 10,000 SF per Unit Lot Width 60 Feet Lot Depth 80 Feet Front Yard 30 Feet Side Yard(Both Side Yards) 15 (30) Feet Rear Yard 30 Feet Livable Floor Area(SF per Dwelling Unit) 850 SF Lot Coverage 25% Height(Feet) 35 Feet Height(Stories) 2'/2 Stories Potential development of the site under the existing HD zoning is discussed in Section 7.2 of this • DEIS. 86 The land uses and zoning designations surrounding the subject property are as follows. Unless • otherwise noted, the zoning is that of the Town of Southold: North: Properties to the north of the subject property, on the north side of C.R. 48, are developed with single-family residences and are situated within the R-80 Residential Low-Density ("R-80") District, although the existing development lots do not appear to be one acre in size, thus they do not conform to the density requirements of this zoning district. To the northwest of the subject property, along the north side of C.R. 48, the area is developed with a motel (Sunset Motel) and a condominium complex (Cliffside Condominiums). These properties are situated within the RR—Resort Residential District. South: Land to the south of the subject property is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands (Moore's Woods) situated within the Village of Greenport and designated on the Village Zoning Map as PD—Park District. East: The land to the east of the subject property, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped woodland with some single-family residential development, and is designated, according to the Town zoning map, as R-80 District. The land to the east-southeast of this area is developed with the Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds (KOA), which is designated as RR— Resort Residential District, within the Town. Further along C.R. 48, immediately east of Moores Lane, is an existing residential development within the Affordable Housing District ("AHD") West: The property to the west of the subject site, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped, wooded land within the boundaries of the Village of Greenport. This area is designated as PD-Park District. To the west of this property is a parcel developed with a nursing and rehabilitation center, which is situated within the HD District of the Town of Southold. • 87 Zoning Map Excerpt R-40 IR-80f HD --t r R-80'.- ' �' - y- - -R-80 _ 4K _ R-40C -$� ao _ RR 1HR D ;tRR ko _ , R-so� 8o _ ,-t \ R-80 - �mlj R-8o1 R- �7 �. Re40 1 Wil- _�� i�. _ p,4 T-`iR-40 u l g ` ` _ \0�� t fi`✓ LIO U �.•—•-� n _ R-80 —, —"" �" RRz- RAO Mil RR AC *0 It R40 (RR _ tiru R-40 Site Location j R.m R-80 R-40 R.40 14C _ �r -- _ l - Zeno UeaeMP�n R4 //� \y AC At Ayx;At�!a Gonssnator. R4C I. "Donkey AA LR � Rxnaow D R40 D—'.y6 RevW"U;low D-11Y C D-V, AC k-46` ReydenGal Low :f "n Hemk!C W,ReJ—& Awordebe HOUf'n;NMC1 - RR Res4tlRlesgerttN / RG RncbmiWlr�lRc� R-40 ..6 Hemlp.Bu7mess A tF 4�,.Me F-naves.. j3 - � � {NrlliBf 9U51P65 ia r�:✓gj v, tMi.��r i �'# � '_U i,pht Indutn,e:'3ftKe i'4rs TRt Town of Southold Section 2 of4 R$oi New Zoning Map Adopted i by Southold 1'ovvn Board ---f on November 3, 2004 as Local Law No. 23 of 2004 Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet 88 Figure 14 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. • 3.4.2 Community Character Character of the Community The character of the community is somewhat diverse with residential and lodging facilities interspersed among woodlands. The area surrounding the site to the north and east consists primarily of undeveloped woodland with some single-family residential dwellings. The land further east-southeast of this area is developed with the Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds. Properties to the northwest of the subject property, along the north side of C.R. 48, are developed with a motel and a condominium complex. Land to the south of the subject property is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands (Moore's Woods) situated within the Village of Greenport. The property to the west of the subject site, along the south side of C.R. 48, includes undeveloped, wooded land within the boundaries of the Village of Greenport. Further west of this property is a parcel developed with the San Simeon Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation. • Overall, the residential development and limited commercial uses among the wooded areas in the area surrounding the subject property creates a suburban atmosphere, with pockets of more intense development, especially along C.R. 48. Visual Resources In order to determine the visual characteristics of the subject site and surrounding area, site and area inspections were performed and photographs were taken to document the existing conditions. Photographs of the subject site and the surrounding area are contained in Appendix O of this DEIS. • 89 • The subject site is currently undeveloped and contains forested upland area, close to the roadway, and forested wetlands, to the south. Views of the subject property from C.R. 48 and the residential properties to the north are of the existing on-site vegetation, which obscures the visibility of the property's interior, and the utility poles and overhead wires that traverse the roadway. There are no public roadways located directly west, south or east of the property. Therefore, visibility of the site is extremely limited. The appearance of the area to the north of the subject property, on the north side of C.R. 48, is similar to the subject site. These lands contain vegetation, which obstructs the view of the existing residences, which are, for the most part, significantly setback from the roadway. This vegetation also obstructs many of the potential views of the Long Island Sound. However, some of the driveways associated with these residences provide intermittent views of the Long Island Sound, through narrow visual corridors. 3.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies The following is a brief summary of the comprehensive plans and studies that have been prepared for the area in which the subject property is located. The plans and studies are arranged from earliest to most recent. Town Master Plan Update (1985) According to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), discussed in Section 3.4.4, in 1967, a Comprehensive Development Plan was prepared by Raymond and May Associates. The Town Board incorporated portions of this 1967 Plan into a Development Plan prepared by the Town in 1978. In the fall of 1982, the Town retained Raymond, Parish, Pine, and Weiner, Inc. ("RPPW" formerly Raymond and May Associates) to update the Town's Comprehensive Development Plan. In 1984, a series of background reports and maps prepared by RPPW that examined existing conditions including land use; natural resources; water supply; the local economy (emphasizing agricultural, fishing, and tourist industries); population; and housing _ community services and facilities; transportation; historic features; planning issues; and planning goals and policies were incorporated into the Master Plan Update-Background Studies. 90 The Master Plan Update - Background Studies formed the basis of a Preliminary Plan. After a • series of meetings for public review and discussion of the Preliminary Plan, the Southold Planning Board developed the Master Plan Update in 1985. The goals of the Master Plan Update were divided in to the following categories: overall planning, housing and residential development; economic development; waterfront; agricultural preservation, environment; cultural environment; community facilities/ utilities; and transportation. The overall goals are to provide a community of residential hamlets that provide a variety of housing opportunities, maximize the natural assets of the Town and achieve a land use pattern sensitive to the water supply and which would not degrade the subsurface water quality. In addition, the Master Plan Update sought to preserve the existing housing stock, while meeting the needs of a variety of resident at various ages, income levels and household compositions. In addition, the Master Plan Update seeks to preserve the Town's natural environment, including woodlands and wetlands, and to maintain its open space qualities. Also, one of the goals is to maintain and improve existing utility systems and determine where it is appropriate to expand them to support the desired level of development and protect a healthy living environment, a viable economic base and the natural environment. Four major hamlets were identified: Mattituck; Cutchogue; Southold and Orient. These were to continue to be the "residential-business-service centers" of the Town. New Suffolk, Laurel, Peconic, East Marion and Fishers Island were also considered to be hamlet center. For each hamlet, the plan was designed to provide for a range of housing for younger and older residents, with a range of income levels within the hamlet areas. Also, it recommended that residential densities be the highest in the hamlet centers and become lower as one moves away from the centers. Based on the work of its consultants and input from the public, the Southold Planning Board recommended the Master Plan Update to the Town Board. However, the Town Board never adopted the Master Plan Update. • 91 • Town Affordable Housin,-Policies & Proaram (1993) The "Description and Evaluation" of Southold's Town Affordable Housing Policies &Programs (hereinafter "Evaluation') was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in October 1993. The purpose of the Evaluation was to determine whether or not the need for affordable housing within the township was being met. The Evaluation reviewed the Town's five approaches used since 1980 to meet the need for affordable housing. These approaches are: Financial Assistance; Accessory Apartments; Density Incentives; Direct Action; and Public / Not-for-Profit Partnerships. The Financial Assistance Program The Program was designed "to assist low income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable by operating programs that will combat gentrification and discrimination; continue rehabilitation and construction of low cost housing; secure subsidies which could reduce shelter • costs; stabilize and increase the number of low cost units for our target population; and utilize trainees in the rehabilitation program to curtail construction costs." According to the Evaluation, the Financial Assistance Program reached more than 500 households within the low to very low income bracket and concluded the program was working. Accessory Apartments Prior to 1986, accessory apartments in single-family residences were not permitted in Southold. According to the Evaluation, in 1986 Southold enacted the accessory apartment law with the intent "...to promote the fuller utilization of excess housing capacity in existing single-family dwellings: provide an increased opportunity for affordable housing; assist empty nest homeowners in the maintenance and security of their property and reduce the necessity for the construction of new subsidized housing for small households and the elderly..." • 92 • In order to obtain permission for an accessory apartment, the law specifies that a Special Exception from The Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals must be issued. However, from the enactment of the law in 1986 to 1992, only 15 applications for accessory apartments were made to the Town of Southold Zoning Board. According to the Evaluation, it is unclear whether the accessory apartment law failed to encourage the creation of accessory apartments or an ongoing lack of enforcement encouraged a lack of compliance. Density Incentives In 1985, a Housing Advisory Committee, created by the Town Board, considered various approaches to meeting the affordable housing needs of the Town. According to the Evaluation, the Committee recommended encouraging private developers to construct affordable housing by providing a density bonus. In 1986, the Town added an Affordable Housing District ("AHD") to its Zoning Code which adopted the Density Incentives approach. The legislative intent of this approach, as stated in the Zoning Code Article §280-24, is "to provide the opportunity .within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate • income." It worth noting, although the AHD zone provides for a density bonus, all units must be affordable and connect to community water and sewer. The applicant respectfully submits that this creates a situation wherein it is financially infeasible to develop affordable housing without substantial subsidies. At the time of this study, forty-five houses in two subdivisions had been constructed under this program since 1986. Both subdivisions are located within the hamlet of Southold. According to the Evaluation, dissatisfaction with the AHD arose as each project progressed to completion due to the following: • the Code does not expressly prohibit a developer from adding surcharges which would cause the total cost to the buyer to increase beyond the maximum allowed limits set by the Code; • 93 • • the streamlining procedures built into the legislation did not work, as the length of time from the submission of a zone petition to subdivision approval took 22 months; • the maximum incomes and sales prices were too high to be truly affordable to the average working family living and working in the Town of Southold; • the land and the house can be sold out of the affordable range seven years after its creation, thus requiring an ongoing down-zoning of land by the Town in order to meet affordable housing needs, and • the program's potential to compete with the private housing market. Direct Action In 1907, a total of approximately 13 acres of land from the County and the Town were committed to the program. The land was subdivided to create a total of 14 building lots, • including nine in the hamlet of Southold, one in Peconic, and four in Mattituck. According to the Evaluation, three years elapsed between the acquisitions of the land to occupancy by the new homeowners. The Evaluation concluded that this time frame could have been shortened considerably had there been a clearer delegation of both responsibility and authority to the Community Development Director. Public/Not-for-Profit Partnerships In 1992, the Town and Housing Alliance partnered with Habitat for Humanity, an independent not-for-profit agency specializing in mobilizing community resources to construct affordable housing quickly. According to the Evaluation, this program provided the most inexpensive single-family housing for the lowest possible income bracket. The Evaluation concluded that the mortgage payments were affordable and covered the loan, taxes and insurance. The Evaluation determined the following: • 94 • • although the Town's financial assistance programs appear to be working well, they are insufficient to meet current needs of existing Town residents; • the Town's accessory apartment law has failed to achieve its original objectives; • the focus of the Town's affordable housing zoning district AHD program is geared to providing new moderate-income housing even though the need for lower income housing appears to be greater; • affordable housing is distributed disproportionately within the Town and there are no incentives built into the program to encourage otherwise; and • there are insufficient incentives for developers to create new affordable rental stock or to renovate existing larger homes into affordable year round rental units. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) The Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (hereinafter "Stewardship Study") was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in June 1994 by the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force"). The purpose of the Stewardship Study was to evaluate the recommendations of the 1991 report from the U.S./UX. Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team (hereinafter "U.S./UX Report"), an international group of planners who came to Southold, invited by the 1991 North Fork Planning Conference, to provide pro-bono consultant services to selected case study sites to address the issues of sustainable economic development and countryside stewardship. Based upon the evaluation of U.S./UX Report, the Stewardship Study set forth a series of recommendations to the Town Board including: • Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space; • • Sustainable Economic Development; 95 • • Water; • Affordable Housing; and • Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting. Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space According to the Stewardship Study, farmland and open space preservation was generally considered the most important issue of the Stewardship Task Force. The Stewardship Study recommended the best way to preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of farming and the most direct protection is large lot zoning (i.e., 25 acres or agricultural zones), in which non-agricultural activity is allowed. The Task Force recommended programs pioneered by the Town, Suffolk County, and State of New York, which have been helpful in preserving North Fork farmland and open space, be extended. In addition, the Task Force recommended other steps to improve economic opportunities for farmers, including the implementation of new programs, such as the transfer of development rights. • Sustainable Economic Development In order to protect and improve the quality of life of the Town's residents, the Stewards Study recommended recognizing and enhancing the following strengths of the existing local economy: • agriculture; • marine activities; and • tourism. Agriculture and Marine Activities According to the Stewardship Study, agriculture and marine activities could be encouraged by preserving the land and water on which they depend and through innovative farming techniques and diversity of crops, development of markets, and the adoption of beneficial governmental • policy so that, these traditional industries would hopefully continue and thrive. 96 • The Stewardship Study recommended the Town work with Greenport to fulfill its potential as a maritime center; carefully reviewing marina uses in light of the environmental limits of the local waters, as well as the economic potential they offer. Tourism While the current season runs from late spring to mid-fall, according to the Stewardship Study, the Task Force recommended the season be extended to a year-round basis through the scheduling of Town-wide seasonal festivals. In addition, the Stewardship Study also recommends series of measures to mitigate the serious traffic problems, which come with a flourishing tourist trade. Water The quality of both surface waters and groundwater is of critical importance to Southold. The Stewardship Study recommends special steps should be taken to preserve and improve the quality of water within Southold. Specifically, the management of surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters is a priority including, protecting the quantity and quality of Southold's fresh groundwater. In addition, the Stewardship Study indicates that due to the nature of the soil types in Southold, groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities and it is important to discourage over pumping, which could result in salt water intrusion. The Stewardship Study states "careful management of this resource is essential to secure the right of all Southold residents to high quality potable water without overly resorting to the extension of public water mains." The extension of public water should in no circumstance alone provide the basis for more dense development. • 97 • Affordable Housing Southold residents in need of housing assistance are young families, the elderly, low wage earners, and the working poor. According to the Stewardship Study, the availability of affordable housing is critical to the overall health of the local economy. The Stewardship Study recommends a variety of initiatives and programs. Specifically, the successful cooperation between the Town and the North Fork Housing Alliance should continue as the basic administrative structure for affordable housing programs throughout Southold. The current affordable housing program, set forth by Section V. of the Town of Southold Zoning Code, AHD Zones, involves granting developers increased housing densities beyond what is normally allowed in the area in exchange for a commitment that a certain portion of the proposed units would be affordable. The Town of Southold Zoning Code establishes housing costs and income limits, which define affordability based on initial values set by the Town Board in 1989 and then adjusted annually to reflect changes in cost of living. The Town of Southold Zoning Code also provides that cash subsidies provided at initial construction shall be entirely appropriated by the homeowner after seven years. In addition, the Stewardship Study recommends encouraging the rehabilitation of existing homes rather than the construction of new ones, encouraging more rental units, and that subsidies provided by the Southold should be recaptured and recycled. Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold. Considered to be a desirable pattern of development, the Stewardship Study recommends allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. Specifically, a rural pedestrian oriented village quality consistent with Southold's history and traditional pattern of development should be fostered. • 98 In addition the Stewardship Study recommends the countryside should maintain its open rural atmosphere, vistas of fields, woodlands, and water should be preserved. Specifically, the "blurring of the distinction between hamlet and countryside should be avoided as a priority" and the consistency of new development in these areas, with the historic character of the landscape, should be carefully considered. Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold(199 7) The Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold, 1997 was submitted to the Suffolk County Legislature as Southold's Industrial and Commercial Incentives Plan ("ICIP"). The Economic Development Plan indicates that the economy of the Town of Southold has had three base industries: agriculture, commercial fishing, and tourism and recreation. The current economic state and potential growth of each of these industries, as well as other industries, is detailed in the Economic Development Plan. The Economic Development Plan provides a "Vision of the Future," which makes • recommendations for future economic growth within the hamlets of the Town "...while preserving and enhancing the surrounding rural areas." The Economic Development Plan recommends the following: • encouraging existing local businesses in targeted industries to expand, upgrade or diversify in order to meet changing needs of the 21" century; and • encouraging new businesses in targeted industries to locate within Town to broaden the tax base and provide local employment. 99 • Finally, the Economic Development Plan provides a "Strategy - How to achieve the Vision." This section states that the: "Town's goal or vision is to encourage economic growth and expansions within its hamlets. This is in keeping with its goal of conserving the countryside (agricultural industry) and consolidating its capital infrastructure investments within geographically-manageable boundaries." The Economic Development Plan identifies industries which the Town may consider targeting for tax incentives. These industries include: agricultural, maritime, tourism and other (i.e., affordable health care facilities and recreational facilities). Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan, 1998-2001 (hereinafter the "CPPP"), was prepared July 1998. The CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act, which was enacted on June 22, 1998. According to the CPPP, this "...legislation created a mechanism whereby the Town of Southold may establish a fund financed solely by revenues from a real estate trans er tax to be levied on certain types of real estate transactions within the Town." Use of the funds is limited to implementing CPPP. • The CPPP identifies how the Town intends to preserve or protect properties that are integral to the unique community character of Southold. The Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act specifically provides for the preservation and protection of specific types of land as follows: • Open space and agricultural lands; • Parks, nature preserves, recreation areas; • Lands of exceptional scenic value; • Fresh and salt water marshes, wetlands; • Aquifer recharge areas; • Undeveloped beachlands or shorelines; • Wildlife refuges with significant biological diversity; • Unique or threatened ecological areas; • Natural free flowing rivers or river areas; 100 • ® Historic places and properties whether listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places or protected by municipal law; and ® Any of the aforementioned types in the furtherance of a greenbelt. The CPPP explains how the Town developed the listing of properties that would be eligible to participate in the CPPP program, prioritizes the type of proper ies that should be preserved or protected, identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties, and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected the CPPP. As indicated in the CPPP, its purpose was intended to be a guide for interested land owners who voluntarily chose to work with the Town to preserve and protect privately-owned real estate assets in a way that benefits the community and as well as the land owner. The CPPP was only valid for three years beginning in November 1998. The 1998 CPPP lists the subject property as one of many parcels eligible for preservation. The 2006 update of the CPPP, discussed later in this section, continues to list the subject property. As of the time of this writing, the Town of Southold had not approached the applicant regarding the preservation of the subject property. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) The County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (hereinafter "the Corridor Study") was prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Southold in April 1999. The subject property is situated within the study area of the Corridor Study. The purpose of the Corridor Study "is to provide recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate land use and zoning within the corridor." The Corridor study is comprised of four steps including the identification of "the characteristics of the corridor and surrounding areas that the Town and its citizens believe are important and valuable," the analysis of the existing conditions along the corridor, an outline of "the outstanding needs of the corridor based on a comparison of the desirable characteristics of the Town to the existing conditions of the corridor," and, to "provide recommendations relative to satisfy outstanding needs." 101 Section N of the Corridor Study is entitled Existing- Conditions and provides "the current zoning • along the corridor and the existing land use that has developed." The study area, along the County Route 48 Corridor, was divided into six segments, which are identified by the hamlet in which the segment is located. The subject property is situated within the Greenport Hamlet segment, which is described as starting slightly east of Albertson Lane and extending approximately 2.7 miles to the west side of Manhasset Avenue. The Corridor Study provides a description of the zoning for the hamlet of Greenport segment. The area in which the subject property is located is described, in part, as the following: "The south side of County Route 48 from the Greenport hamlet line east to Chapel Lane is zoned exclusively R-80. It is important to note that further east of Chapel Lane and continuing east to Moore Lane, several parcels are located within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. The Village of Greenport parcels are not included in the scope of this study. However, the remaining parcels between these two roadways are in the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and are residentially zoned HD, R-80, RR and R-40. • Many of these parcels contain freshwater wetland vegetation. " The existing land uses within the Greenport Hamlet segment are described, in part, as the following: "Parcels to the north of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane are primarily developed for residential use. Many of these parcels front directly on Long Island Sound. Within this same area, two hotels and a condominium complex take advantage of the views of Long Island Sound. Some of the parcels within 1,000 feet to the south of County Route 48 are within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. These parcels are not within the scope of this study. Of the parcels to the south of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane that are not within the Village of Greenport, most are vacant or residential use. San Simeon nursing home and Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds are also located in this area. • 102 • It is important to note that many of the parcels south of County Route 48 and west of Moore Lane are zoned HD and contain freshwater wetlands vegetation. Due to the proximity to the wetlands, these parcels may be more appropriately zoned to lower density residential uses. " Section V of the Corridor Study is entitled Outstanding Needs, which provides goals for the Town. Some of the relevant goals enumerated in this section of the Corridor Study include the following: • Provide for viable land use development at intensities sensitive to subsurface water quality and quantity; • Provide for a variety of housing opportunities for citizens of different incomes and age levels; • Ensure the efficient and safe movement of people and goods within the Town; • Encourage appropriate land uses both inside and out of hamlet centers; and . • Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands and woodlands. The final section of the Corridor Study is entitled "Recommendations and Opportunities." This section provides recommendations for future development within the study area. Some of the relevant recommendations include the following: • Orient buildings to limit the interruption of scenic vistas and views, • Cluster residential development away from the roadway; • Require vegetated buffers between residential development and the roadway; • Develop and implement the use of visual resource best management practices (Appendix B of the Corridor Study includes Visual Resources Best Management Practices) • Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands and woodlands; • 103 • • Modify the Town Code to limit curb cuts to one per site unless unusual circumstances exist; and • Require that subdivided residential lots access side roads and not directly to County Route 48, where appropriate. Based upon the Corridor Study, the Town, on its own motion sought to change the zoning of the subject parcel from HD to R-80. Although an environmental review of this action was commenced, the rezoning has not occurred. The relevant recommendations will be addressed in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS. Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiative Numerous attempts were made to obtain a copy of this plan from the Town for review; however, the applicant was unsuccessful. The Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiative was summarized in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP'), which is • discussed in Section 3.4.4. of this DEIS. A summary of the LWRP discussion follows. According to the LWRP, in 1997 "the Town unveiled a working strategy to initiate a more aggressive and concentrated long-term planning effort, within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan." This was done in response to increasing development pressure in the Town. The LWRP indicates that one of the purposes of the initiative "was to address certain issues that had been discussed in the Master Plan Update, but which were in need of more research and implementation: e.g., transportation, groundwater protection, and water supply management... This initiative drew on all planning studies and documents that had been undertaken by the Town since the 1980s because these documents collectively reflected the Town's vision for itself as articulated in the comprehensive plan studies." • 104 The initiative accomplished: (1) the upgrading of the Town's geographic information system mapping capabilities, (2) the development of capital programming and budgeting to allow the Town to leverage financing to implement projects, (3) the completion of the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy, and (4) provided the basis for public water supply service and groundwater protection (see following subsection). Town Water Supply Mana,-ement& Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) The Town Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy ("WSM & WPS") for the Town of Southold was prepared to address the protection of the quality and quantity of Southold's groundwater supply and the maintenance of the community's rural agricultural character. Based on the analysis of Southold's geology and soil characteristics, surface and groundwater resources, land use, development characteristics, and demographic trends, the WSM & WPS proposes a number initiatives including the establishment of new zoning and special district designations, as well as coordinating the expansion of services. • A consistencyanalysis of the proposed action with the findings of the WSM & WPS is presented Y p p in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary of the management strategy is presented herein. In 1997, the SCWA purchased the Greenport Water District. According to the WSM & WPS, as a significant percentage of agricultural properties are situated within Southold's two SGPAs and groundwater recharge areas located within the central area of the Town, the SCWA recognizes that the expansion of its public water main distribution system to this area as being a major determinate of future development activities. • 105 The WSM & WPS advises limiting population density and controlling growth to the maximum extent possible, seeking a commitment from the SCWA to not extend public water lines to such areas, and coordinating future extensions in accordance with its watershed protection objectives. The WSM & WPS also recommends Southold explore Water Quality Treatment Districts ("WQTD"), a Critical Environmental Land ("CEL") ordinance that specifically recognizes land with"..-.the municipality determined to be envie—Onmentally sensitive, and the establishment of two Watershed Protection Zones ("WPZ"). The WSM & WPS recommends within WPZ's, Southold adopt a Conservation Subdivision Program ("CSP") to create a disincentive for landowners to propose traditional developments utilizing cluster or grid style designs and alternatively redirect their projects to more desirable locations within the Town. In addition, the WSM & WPS recommends that the Town consider the possibility of establishing an open space land preservation fund with fees collected from non-conforming lots that receive variances and increase public awareness of the importance of significant environmental areas. • Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) The Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (hereinafter "the Corridor Management Plan") was prepared for the Town of Southold in April 2001. The purpose of the Corridor Management Plan is to "...inventory the resources along proposed scenic byways, identify opportunities and constraints and, based upon the vision and goals articulated by the public and local stakeholders, define a set of implementation tools and policies that will help preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of the roads to be examined." A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the Plan is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS and a brief summary of the Plan is presented herein. Seven roads within the Town were chosen for study, including C.R. 48, State Route 25, Narrow River Road in Orient, Sound View Avenue in Southold, Main and North Bayview Road and Avenue in Hogneck, Oregon Road from Cutchogue to Mattituck, and New Suffolk Road and • Avenue from Cutchogue to Mattituck. 106 Section 2 of the Corridor Management Plan is entitled Corridor Conditions: An Inventory and identifies "...the scenic resources of each road, the services and facilities that affect the user's experience, and the environmental, regulatory and land use issues that impact the future of each road. The purpose of the inventory is to assess existing conditions, to identify threats to preserving the scenic attributes of the Town and its roads, to recognize opportunities for improving the scenic and functional quality of the study roads, and to inform discussion of policy tools." In this section of the Plan, C.R. 48 is identified as being "...a by-pass, offering a higher-speed and more limited access alternative to Route 25." The Corridor Management Plan indicates "Route 48 offers expansive, long views of farmland and vineyards.....emphasizing its rural agricultural ambiance, as opposed to its more commercial aspects." From the northern edge of Greenport Village westward, Route 48 "follows a tree-lined route past mostly hidden residential enclaves with occasional glimpses of north shore sound views..." • In Section 3 of the Plan entitled Recommended Byways Designation in Southold, the roles that both Route 25 and Route 48 play in defining Southold's visual heritage are identified as follows: • Route 25 embodies the Town's basic pattern of hamlets defined by open space, giving access to recreational facilities, rural and urban views, natural features from woodland to meadow to marshland to seascape, cultural landmarks, working farms and waterfronts and historic structures and complexes. • Route 48 is characteristic of the Town's basic agricultural character -- wide expanses of farm fields defined by distant treebreaks, punctuated by intermittent views of the Long Island Sound or undeveloped woodlands. In this Section, the Plan recommends both roads "...should be designated in their entirety, not as partial segments..." as scenic byways. • 107 The methodology set forth in Section 4 of the Plan consists of two strategies, a stewardship • strategy and an implementation strategy. The stewardship strategy "focuses on maintaining and enhancing Southold's scenic resources through partnership actions in hamlet development, transportation, and visual/design improvements." The implementation strategy "focuses on tools and techniques for scenic preservation policies for managing growth, encouraging limited and appropriate Tourism, and sustaining the effort through administrative organization." North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment(2002) The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment is a subcomponent needs analysis of the Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion, known as the LITP 2000 Study Subtask 7 (hereinafter the "LITP 2000"). The principal goal of this effort is to meet the future transportation needs of the community while maintaining or improving the rural quality of life on the North Fork. The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural, primarily recreational North Fork of . Long Island. The study area included that portion located on the east end of Long Island beginning at the easterly terminus of the LIE north of the Peconic River in the Town of Riverhead and extending eastward to the Orient Point Terminal Facility for the Cross Sound Ferry in eastern Southold and Shelter Island. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary is presented herein. A Technical Advisory Group ("TAG"), consisting of representatives from the Towns of Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island, the Village of Greenport, the LIRR, Suffolk County Transit, and the NYSDOT provided input to the study. Suggested strategies for improvements to the local transportation system reflect input from the TAG and from the public through the Local Agency/Stakeholder Participation Program conducted for the study. • 108 Recently the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council ("NYMTC") designated a consultant team to begin the Sustainable East End Development Strategies ("SEEDS") initiative, a consensus building process intended to link land use and transportation planning decisions for the five East End towns, including the North Fork Transportation Study area. The strategies for improvements to the local transportation system developed during the course of the North Fork Transportation Study served as input to the SEEDS process. The SEEDS process, administered by the East End Transportation Council ("EETC") and NYMTC would be provided with a comprehensive examination of the capacities demands and highway safety deficiencies of the transportation system on the North Fork. With the exception of Sound Avenue, which is a Town of Riverhead road, access management on the major State and County roadways falls under the purview of those municipalities. Typically, the State or County cannot deny access to an uncontrolled arterial if it is the sole access point to the property. A number of larger agricultural parcels still exist, many with frontage along or access to more than one road. The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment recommends, when property owners or developers make application for subdivision of such parcels, parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors should have such access preserved during the subdivision review process. In addition, the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new, smaller properties are not created that only have access to arterials, thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. Site plans for the subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal roadways. Where practical, the residences in such subdivisions should be oriented so that they back on the arterial with a suitable buffer between the residences and the highway right of way. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads, access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point, providing combined access to affected parcels which would limit the number of potential conflict points on an arterial road. • 109 • Based on the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment, traffic volumes on the North Fork are expected to grow at rate of nearly two percent annually. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold, Final Report(July 2002) The Blue Ribbon Commission ("BRC'", was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific recommendations for preserving operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the Town, which included issues of environmental quality, open space potential, population density, affordable housing, and public water. Specifically, the BRC was required to recommend specific preservation targets, feasible steps to achieve those targets, and seek a consensus in the Town regarding both the targets and the steps by June 30, 2002. The result is the BRC Final Report. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the findings of the BRC Final Report is presented in Section 4.4.3 of this DEIS, and a brief summary is presented herein. The BRC Final Report identifies three preservation targets: • The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected land currently in the Town's agricultural inventory, which consists of approximately 6,900 acres, • The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected open space, which includes approximately 3,900 acres; and • A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 percent relative to what would be permitted with full build-out at current zoning. • 110 In order to achieve the above goals, the BRC Final Report recommended the following: • Conservation subdivisions, which give priority to preserving land rather than to the creation of house lots, must have a significant and permanent conservation preservation element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire acreage relative to current zoning; • A new Planned Development District ("PDD"), referred to as a Rural Incentive District ("RID") to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space and maintain landowner equity; • A modification to the Town's Purchase of Development Rights ("PDR") program to permit some of the development rights to be rejoined to the land under carefully constructed guidelines where the Town would issue a "Preservation Credit" for each unit • of density reduction resulting from a specific PDR; • No general up-zoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the RID to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density; • The Planning Staff establish a detailed monitoring and quarterly reporting system providing a current breakdown of the preservation and development processes; and • The Town Board review planning staff quarterly reports on a regular basis and consider possible zone changes on the basis of the reviews. According to the BRC Final Report, the BRC concluded that over a ten-year period, from 2002 to 2012, approximately 5,674 acres (82 percent) of farmland and 3,167 acres (81 percent) of open space would realistically be preserved. 111 The recommendations of the BRC, cited above, were not formally adopted or implemented as policy by the Town of Southold. Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment June 2005 The Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment June 2005, (herein after the "Needs Assessment") "pertains to the specific housing needs of households whose incomes are considered "moderate". Due to the rising concern of the inability of local residents to obtain affordable housing, the Town of Southold has assumed responsibility for maintaining current information regarding the housing needs of its residents." According to the Needs Assessment, the lack of affordable housing is having many adverse effects within the Town as "employers struggle to hire and retain local employees at prevailing wages due to the limited availability of affordable housing." The Needs Assessment indicates that the Housing Assistance Council reported in February 2005 that gentrification in rural areas frequently means the loss of affordable housing. The Housing Assistance Council also stated "when wealthier households move to rural areas, developers focus on meeting the housing needs of the higher end market • while ignoring the needs of the lower end." The Needs Assessment found that the scarcity of vacant land on Long Island has limited opportunities for development, specifically affordable housing, and the Town's efforts to preserve open space has further limited the amount of raw land available for the development of new housing. In addition, the Needs Assessment indicates that development is further curtailed by the lack of sewage treatment outside the Village of Greenport and the accessibility to public water. According to the Needs Assessment, the Town attempted to address the lack of affordable housing, however it did not anticipate that housing prices would increase exceedingly beyond inflation. As such, the Town did not see the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Thus, the Town no longer had an inventory of affordable housing. According to the Needs Assessment, as of April 30, 2005, approximately 114 housing applications had been received and pre-screened by the Town of Southold as meeting qualifications to receive housing assistance from the Town. The Needs Assessment indicates that Greenport provided Section 8 vouchers to 87 households and as of May 2005, Greenport • reported 62 households were on a waiting list for rental assistance. 112 • The Needs Assessment concluded that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities to do so without assistance. In addition, the Needs Assessment found that there are other distinct housing needs that are not addressed in the assessment such as seasonal housing to accommodate workers in the tourist industry and year-round laborers. Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The Town of Southold Hamlet Study (hereinafter "the Hamlet Study"), adopted in July 2005, provides an overview and a vision for the future of each of the eight hamlets within the Town of Southold. These hamlets are identified as the following: Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Peconic, Southold, Greenport West, East Marion, and Orient. The subject site is located within the hamlet of Greenport West, which is described as the area that surrounds the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The Hamlet Study indicates that the Incorporated Village of Greenport serves as the hamlet center for Greenport West, which is • "essentially comprised of a series of residential neighborhoods," and includes businesses, marinas and restaurants on its western edge and to the north and east of the Village of Greenport limits. According to the Study, the hamlet includes notable features, such as preserved lands and wetlands, which "...serve to establish a distinctive character for the Hamlet." The vision for the future of Greenport West is as follows: • The Hamlet of Greenport West is comprised of a series of distinctive residential neighborhoods. While individually unique, collectively these neighborhoods establish the overall character of Greenport West. It is imperative that the individual integrity of the Hamlet's residential neighborhoods are [sic]preserved- • Embrace a diversity of housing types, such as townhouses, attached single family dwellings, multi family dwellings, etc., within the overall context of the existing character of the Hamlet; 113 • s The creation of affordable "workforce" housing opportunities is a priority. A new HALO zone is recommended to facilitate this goal. The parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of up to '/ acre; • If appropriate i nV astructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to L,4 acre within clustered subdivisions are acceptable; i Accessory apartments are also viewed as an opportunity to meet housing need; • In the Goldsmith's/Port of Egypt/Albertsons area where a number of traditional businesses operate, large scale commercial development would be clearly inconsistent, and should be prohibited. However, appropriately scaled, well designed traditional business enterprises are encouraged; and • • Greenport West has a unique "sense of place" that should be preserved, protected and reinforced. The aforementioned HALO zone is depicted on two maps, dated November 2004 and December 2004, respectively, and are included herewith as Figure 15 and Figure 16. According to the map entitled Halo Map, the subject property is situated within the Greenport West hamlet. According to the second map entitled HALO Non-Buildable Lands Map, the subject property is not designated as a protected land nor does it contain community facilities. In addition, the Town of Southold adopted the Greenport Halo zone map shown in Figure 17, on March 20, 2008. According to this map, the subject property is not situated within the Greenport HALO zone, which is contrary to the recommendations in the Hamlet Study. The Hamlet Study also provided recommendations for hamlet-wide specific improvements. These improvements were identified under sixteen headings. Of these sixteen headings, the following were determined to be relevant to the proposed project: Streetscape, Building Design, • Vehicular Circulation, Infrastructure, Maintenance, Housing, and Open Space Preservation. 114 i Halo Map November 2004 TOWN OF Legend SOUTHOLD Protected lands Community Facilities Wetla nds _J HAMLET STUDY Site LocationW. e owl e (�RE �Ii T'el'l)l . � ' � 4� �Ae'��' its � �#'" ►.►' HALO a t r NON BUILDABLE ,,� , t �. •�, ��.�r, t :� ��j LANDS t. `'+... � p �� Z �� 'a #T �bi7� � .p�,� ^��, �t,'._i r•d, - v S .�� ,g x �5gs � ,s' -�:1�, �,_� �� =Az� � -,��r ,7�"� - .^.'4'� t7f` .� r/r'�a•+..+ ��" �� #�-s!'�r�",, LEGEND: Hamlet Boundary Lot Lines G- 11104 Southold GIS J Source: Town of Southold Halo Map,November 2004 115 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 15 i FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Halo Map December 2004 r TOWN OF HF SOUT14OLD �a 9 Site Location HAMLET STUDY �' s. a �...Ar RIC F/ j) jam+ '�\ ti{3 {4 4` i 1 i 3 1� 'hili �`if -`► ! #a ��ii ' ♦i7 HALO MAP r LEGEND: ..•...-"'.'.` f;i ♦. ,�`" ,v i ;� tlsrh ry.� t Yw w.� ri e..: aa..�� @4 ' �'-`'"r ` I ��. a� ti ='}, r r.iay � `f "! tfi tai /a ! t+$v ■ Hamlet Boundary I� r'} rG`i.to } ;,LL•' ✓ w qa� w6►}ii+` !� �a?`,r,,;,� :i''"�.�'�' � , d{rf �, ��y M 'r .,._. f,- � :, lot Lines * r� �/#�,�s t#-�•rT°xa' *!�'��k ,r�'i * -i• �, +1{:''"y r`.1/ Kl►= " er`=k'e«r." HALO Boundary 121G4 ti- , . : N.T.S s Southold GIS L i Source: Town of Southold Halo Map, December 2004 116 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 16 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Adopted Greenport Halo Zone Map i -%1 v k 1 Town of Southold t j� Hamlet of Greenport HALO Map HALO Boundary f Village Boundary ® School Districts i LR Protected Land x . Community Facilities Map Prepared by Town of Southold \ Geographic information System March 20,2048 SY�CIk CQ.MY RHI PmW,Ta..S&ece&w4 BmemW MPYW.HT 276.Q—vd&,gjk NY 1 {V-1 SITE Nd t LOCATION > J r I i.. n 1 j l \ 1, 1 Source: Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas, 2004 Scale: 1 inch =2,000 feet • Figure 17 FREUDENTHAL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 117 Streetscape • The recommendations of the Town Southold Scenic Corridor Plan should be implemented; • Sidewalks (one side of the street) are encouraged to promote walking; • Off-street parking should be setback from the road to allow for a substantial landscaped buffer. Parking should be placed behind front yard setback line next to buildings; • Adequate parking should be provided in newly created residential and commercial areas; • Part of Greenport West's charm are [sic] its scenic vistas. These vistas should be preserved and protected. In instances where activities encroach in the vistas, mitigation measures that involve new planting shall utilized native plants and tree; • To promote the natural landscape, use natural/preserved buffers (75'-100) along the Hamlet's main roads (if they do not already exist). These buffers would be mandatory zoning setbacks, and would prevent any structures from be [sic] erected, or existing trees and/or vegetation from being removed. The exception would be to allow for a single curb cut and a driveway to traverse through the buffer zone. Non-compliance would result in a violation of the zoning code; and • One of the attractive aspects of the Hamlet Center's streetscape are [sic] its street trees. Preserving these trees however, requires an on-going commitment. A street tree planting program is recommended that incorporates regular pruning and maintenance as well as the replacement of damaged or dead trees on a regular basis. • 118 • Building Design • The Hamlet supports a diversity of housing types and styles, and this is viewed as a strength. Restricting housing design "types" is unnecessary; and • Landscape planning is a [sic] integral element of good overall building design, and is an important concern. Natural/native plantings should be used for all new projects. Vehicular Circulation • Roads in new developments should be integrated into the existing roadway network. Individual isolated cul-de-sacs should be avoided. Infrastructure • • Drainage and stormwater runoff should be handled by each site and not permitted to flow off the specific site onto public "right of ways, ' [sic] or towards protected/wetlands type properties. Drainage and stormwater runoff engineering shall be emphasized in site development and design and shall conform to NYSDEC Phase II requirements. Possibly consider natural and permeable surfaces for stormwater. Maintenance • Greenport West's scenic vistas are one of the hamlets most important attributes. These vistas must be maintained. Litter must be removed, trees pruned,fences mended, etc. • 119 .. ..._ -.-.-. • Housing • A new HALO zone is recommended that permits a variety of dwelling types as of right, including detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, townhouses, garden apartments, multi family dwellings, and accessory apartments; • The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning up to '/ acre (I dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area). To promote affordable housing, densities of zip to 1/8 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available; • The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town; and • One specific site has been ident f ed for worVbrce housing in the Greenport West MLO • zone as of this point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 and Main Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). Open Space Preservation • The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries; • Preservation of open spaces is a priority as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Hamlet; and • The hamlet's sensitive wetland resources must be protected and preserved. • 120 Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) • The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan, 2006 Update (hereinafter the "2006 CPPP") was adopted by the Town Board on January 31, 2006. As previously indicated, the CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act, which was enacted on June 22, 1998. The 2006 CPPP provides an update to the List of Eligible Parcels (noted in the previously-discussed 1998 CPPP) which includes: • The addition of 188 parcels, totaling approximately 350 acres, to the existing List of Eligible Parcels; • The deletion of parcels that have been preserved using various preservation methods; • The deletion of parcels that have been developed; and • • Corrections, where applicable, of the Suffolk County Tax Map numbers for parcels included on the existing List of Eligible Parcels. As of January 2006, the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels contained 947 parcels totaling 17,900 acres. The Community Preservation Project Plan January 2006 Update Map shows 672 parcels totaling 9,551 acres as existing protected parcels. Since the adoption of the Community Preservation Fund (the two-percent real estate transfer tax), the Fund has been used to partially or totally fund 56 acquisitions, totaling over 950 acres. The land acquisition cost for these projects was approximately $20,500,000. Since its inception, the Community Preservation Fund has raised over $27,000,000 to date. The subject parcel is shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels. The 2006 CPPP classifies the subject property using Classification Code A and B (open space, including agricultural lands and parks, nature preserves, and recreation areas). 121 The 2006 CPPP explains the list of properties that: will be eligible to participate in the CPPP program, prioritizes the type of properties that should be preserved or protected, identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties, and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected the CPPP. Housing Implementation Plan 2007 The Town of Southold Housing Implementation Plan (hereinafter "Implementation Plan") is to "ensure that an efficient, cost effective and well-designed affordable housing supply is created and maintained to address the on-going housing needs of local citizens." According to the Implementation Plan, the Town, "is committed to supporting a socioeconomically and racially diverse population to enhance its vitality. The availability of affordable housing within the Town will benefit seniors, first-time homebuyers, low and moderate-income residents and others struggling to remain in the Town." The Town's Affordable Housing Program would provide housing assistance (rental apartments and homeownership opportunities) for local residents based upon level of income. According to the Implementation Plan, "due to the high cost of land, affordable housing will most likely result from clustered housing such as townhouses or through increased zoning density for single-family dwellings." This Implementation Plan was written based upon the findings of the Housing Need Assessment that was prepared in June 2005. The Implementation Plan indicates the median price of single family housing in 2004 was $440,000, which represents a 129.1 percent increase over a five-year period. The Implementation Plan indicates the median price of single-family housing in 2004 was $440,000, which represents a 129.1 percent increase over a five-year period. According to the Implementation Plan, Suffolk Research Service, Inc. reported the median sale price of single family housing within the Town of Southold in April 2006 was $540,000, which represent a 23 percent increase in 16 months. The Implementation Plan indicates the housing crisis is due to the limited land available for development coupled with a demand for housing from outside the Town of Southold. The Implementation Plan states that the median household income for the Town of Southold, according to the 2000 Census, was $49,898. • 122 • According to the Implementation Plan, local residents in need of housing earn-lot compete with the second homeowners' wages and are priced out of the market due to the rise in housing costs outpacing the increase in their incomes. According to the Implementation Plan the Town "shall implement the Plan by accomplishing the following goals and objectives to ensure that affordable housing opportunities exist:": • Promote a diversity of housing stock of rentals and home ownership to address the need for affordable housing throughout the Town of Southold. • Identify potential locations for affordable housing sites within existing buildings and unimproved lots for new construction. • Assess and monitor the need of affordable housing. • Encourage the implementation of design standards for affordable housing that will foster • energy efficiency. • Ensure that a fare and transparent process determines the selection of qualified participants to avail affordable housing opportunities. • Foster successful and stable housing tenure through education to landlords, tenants, and first-time homebuyers. • Engender support of Town government and the community at large by soliciting input and feedback of proposed affordable housing sites through establishing dialogue with housing sponsors and the following: - Affordable Housing Welcoming Committee (Supervisor, Town Attorney, Planning Director and Special Projects Coordinator); - Planning Board; • - Town Board; 123 • - Hamlet stakeholders; - School Boards, - Communities where sites are proposed, and - Housing Advisory Committee • Advance legislative initiatives to farther affordable housing. • Ensure that all affordable housing remains perpetually affordable Consistency analyses of the proposed project with the plans discussed herein are included in Section 4.4.3. 3.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan — Village of Greenport (1988) • The Greenport Village Board of Trustees adopted the Village of Greenport Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("hereinafter the Greenport LWR_P") on September 29, 1988. The Greenport LWRP "serves the Village of Greenport both as a statement of overall planning and development policy" consistent with the objectives of the New York State Coastal Management Program. The Greenport LWRP is a comprehensive revitalization effort designed to achieve a pattern of development and a mix of uses that are responsive to the needs of year-round residents, marine industries, seasonal or week-end residents, and tourists. The goals of the Greenport LWRP are as follows: • To maintain and protect existing water-dependent uses and, where it is possible and necessary encourage expansion of these uses; • To redevelop the remaining underutilized or deteriorated waterfront properties for water- dependent uses; • • To strengthen Greenport's role as a commercial fishing seaport; 124 • ® To provide for continued and expanded public access to the waterfront; o To enhance the Village's position as the commercial and business center of Southold Town; • To conserve and enhance the strong residential character of established residential areas throughout the Village; • To improve the Village's visual quality; and i To provide necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate development proposals in the waterfront and Central Business District. As indicated in Section I of the Greenport LWRP, the entire incorporated Village of Greenport is situated within the coastal area boundary as established by the New York State's Coastal Management Program. The coastal area boundary is coincident with the municipal boundary of the Incorporated Village of Greenport and the Village's legal jurisdiction extending out from the shoreline into Shelter Island Sound. The coastal policies are enumerated in Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS along with the proposed action's consistency therewith. Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan — Town of Southold(November 2004) The Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (hereinafter "Southold LWRP") acts as the Town's comprehensive plan, as it contains a complete inventory of the Town's resources and analyses of all existing land use conditions, and incorporates the goals of all existing planning studies and policies, as outlined in Section Il, which provides a history of planning policies, programs and documents. • 125 • A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant sections of this document is presented in Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS and a brief summary of the relevant sections are presented herein. The Southold LWRP follows the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies ("LISCMP") in outlining thirteen waterfront revitalization policies to specifically address the Town of Southold's resources, that will "determine the appropriate balance between economic development and preservation that will permit beneficial use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources.-8 These thirteen policies have been categorized into Developed Coast Policies, Natural Coast Policies, Public Coast Policies, and Working Coast Policies. The LISCMP describes a specific goal for each Coast, and these goals are identified within the Planning Framework section of the Southold LWRP. The "Developed Coast" has the goal of "enhancing community character by improving the quality of existing development, promoting a sense of connection to the Sound, and focusing • growth and investment to preserve the positive relationship between the built and natural landscapes and between existing and new development." The goal defined for the "Natural Coast" is to "reclaim the value and achieve sustainable use of the Sound's natural resources by improving the quality and function of ecological systems, respecting the dynamics of shoreline change, and providing high quality coastal waters." According to the LISCMP, the "Public Coast" should"connect people to the Sound and its public resources by improving visual and physical access and by providing a diversity of recreational opportunities." The goal defined for the "Working Coast" is to "reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront, its jobs and products, at appropriate locations by protecting uses dependent on the Sound, furnishing necessary infrastructure, providing business and marketing assistance, and promoting efficient harbor operations." • s Town of Southold, LWRP I1I-1 126 Section III of the Southold LWRP outlines the thirteen central policies, categorized within Developed Coast, Natural Coast, Public Coast, and Working Coast headings, from which standards are derived, as indicated above. These policies implement the New York State Department of State's ("NYSDOS") 44 coastal policies, and represent a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies. These are listed within the Southold L,WRP as follows: Developed Coast Policies: 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development; 2. Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold; and 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of • Southold. Natural Coast Policies: 1. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion, 2. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold; 3. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem; 4. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold; and 5. Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. • 127 • Public Coast Policies: 1. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. Working Coast Policies: 1. Protect the Town of Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations; 2. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold; 3. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold, and 4. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. An analysis of the proposed action's consistency with these policies in included in Section 4.4.4. Inventory and Analysis • The Southold LWRP contains an inventory and analysis for the existing conditions of land use, zoning, and development within the Town. The inventory identifies the two dominant land uses with in the Town of Southold in 1995, as agriculture and residential. Residential development, which comprises approximately 30 percent of the land area, is concentrated in the Incorporated Village of Greenport, the Town's hamlet areas, and in the vicinity of the many creeks and inlets found along the Peconic Estuary shoreline. In 1999, roughly a third of the Town's land area, nearly 10,000 acres, were in active agricultural production. According to the Southold LKW, based on the U.S. Census data between 1950 and 1990, the Town's housing stock grew at approximately 2,000 units per decade since the 1950s. However, this did not include homes occupied seasonally, and thus, was classified as vacant housing. • 128 • Reach Analysis The Southold LWRP divides the land within the Town into 10 distinct "Reaches" in order to appropriately organize inventories and analyses of' existing conditions, and to develop proper goals, policies, and standards specific to the lands contained in each. The subject property is located within Reach 6, whose coastal boundaries extend from the western boundary of the Incorporated Village of Greenport to Founders' Landing in the hamlet of Southold, and whose inland boundary is S.R. 25 and C.R. 48. The predominant land uses within Reach 6 are inedium-density residential uses followed by agricultural, resort residential, and vacant lands. The Southold LWRP identifies the greatest concentration of residential development to be located south of the LIRR track. Other uses include marine commercial uses, hamlet business resort, seasonal residential development, and institutional uses. The LIRR tracks run close to the waterfront in this Reach_ The northern edge of Reach 6, where it borders Reach 3, also contains water. Together the two reaches combined contain the largest concentration of seasonal cabins and motels within the Town. The Southold LWRP identifies Reach 6 and 7 as containing the "bulk" of business within the hamlet of Southold. In addition to small retail businesses and professional business offices, a total of four small-to-medium sized motels, seven operational restaurants, one campground facility, a canvas manufacturing facility, two lumber supply companies, an asphalt plant, and a car dealer ship are located within Reach 6. According to the Southold LWRP, Reach 6 also contains over 300 acres of land in active agricultural production of which approximately nine percent is protected. is 129 In the section Agricultural Protection, the analysis of Reach 6 identifies areas of existing agricultural land still in production and areas subject to development pressure. The Southold LWRP also indicates the land that had been cultivated or used for dairy or horse breeding farms within the Reach has reverted to fields, meadows and woods. According to the Southold LWRP, as some of this land is "on (or adjacent to) the waters of Hashomomuck Pond and Southold Bay, the potential for this land to be subdivided into residential communities is enormous." in addition, the Southold LWRP suggests that, although this land may be needed to absorb additional residential growth, this agricultural land has significant potential to act as a visual and physical boundary that buffers the hamlet of Southold from the marina operations to the east, as there are limited amounts of protected open space within Reach 6. Based on the Southold LWRP, development trends show a shift of land from agricultural use to residential development. The Master Plan Update proposed the future pattern of land use should encourage residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets. Further, the Master Plan Update proposed that lower residential densities should be located in the remainder of the • Town, specifically in agricultural and coastal areas. The LWRP "seeks to advance these land use goals with particular emphasis on ensuring that local residents who work in the Town are not priced out of the housing market." • 130 3.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES • 3.5.1 Public Schools The subject property is located in the Greenport Union Free School District ("UFSD"). Since the property is undeveloped, it generates no school-abed children. A discussion of the Greenport UFSD as well as demographic trends follows. The Greenport UFSD operates an elementary school (grades kindergarten through six) and a secondary school (grades seven through twelve) located at 720 Front Street, in Greenport. The, total enrollment and enrollment per grade for the years 1998-99 through 2006-07 is provided in Table 8 below: Table 8- Total Student Enrollment, 1998-99 to 2006-07 YEAR PerceDifference Change. • 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006 1998/99- 1998/99- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006/07 2006/07 GRADE Kindergarten 41 49 36 42 47 42 35 34 40 -1 -2.4% First 64 49 60 48 41 59 45 53 55 -9 -14.1% Second 61 48 39 45 41 33 58 45 38 -23 -37.7% Third 44 47 44 43 39 41 38 47 48 4 9.1% Fourth 36 43 51 43 42 41 39 38 45 9 25.0% Fifth 42 34 42 50 41 49 38 41 39 -3 -7.1% Sixth 39 38 35 41 50 46 50 38 35 -4 -10.3% Ungraded 12 15 14 16 13 12 14 6 0 -12 -100.0% -Elementary _Seventh'_ 50 55 70 67 74 79 70 66 52 2 -4.00% Eighth 56 50 63 59 57 58 68 68 67 11 19.6% Ninth 44 60 49 54 55 66 56 70 78 34 77.3% Tenth 51 43 64 47 54 54 62 60 66 15 29.4% ' Eleventh 48 44 43 53 43 53 63 58 45 -3 -6.3% Twelfth 35 51 48 44 54 35 42 50 53 18 51.4% Ungraded 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 -3 -100.0% Secondary Total K-12 626 628 658 652 651 668 679 676 1 661 35 5.6% Source:New York State Education Department, Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continued Education (NYSED • EMSC) 131 Total enrollment in year 2006-07 was 661, only 60.1 percent of the stated capacity of the school. Enrollment figures have been relatively stable in the six years between 1999-00 and 2006-07, with a total increase of 5.6 percent, or approximately 0.6 percent per year. This rate of growth is equivalent to only four new students per year, on average. Table 8 illustrates a dramatic decrease in enrollment in grades 'Kindergarten through three, where enrollment in those four grades has decreased by 29 students, or approximately 13.8 percent, over the course of the analysis period, as shown in Figure 18. • s 132 Total Enrollment Grades K-3 tj Total Enrollment,Grades K-3,Greenport School District I i 1 200 N C D N `o TOTAL K-3 a � E Z 175- 150- 1998-99 751501998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 200405 2005-06 2006-07 Source: New York State Education Department,Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continued Education(NYSED EMSC) • Figure 18 FREUDENTHAL&ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 133 Conversely, consistent growth in enrollment has occurred only in grades seven through 12, with a majority of this increase taking place between the years 2003 and 2005. Much of the variation in enrollment during the previous eight years can be explained by changes in the demographics of the area, largely due to the lack of affordable workforce housing and the exodus of young families that has occurred as a result. Table 9 below summarizes the changes in the population under 45 years of age in the Town of Southold between 1990 and 2000. Table 9—Population Change Between 1990 and 2000 Southold Percent Southold Percent of Difference Percent 1990 of Total 2000 ' Total 1990-2000 Difference Total 19,836 20,599 - 763 3.8% Population Under 5 1,030 5.2% 1,051 5.1% 21 2.0% 5 to 9 1,074 5.4% 1,295 6.3% 221 20.6% 10 to 14 1,228 6.2% 1,343 6.5% 115 9.4% • 15 to 19 1,091 5.5% 1,101 5.3% 10 0.9% 20 to 24 969 4.9% 700 3.4% -269 -27.8% 25 to 34 2,605 13.1% 1,828 8.9% -777 -29.8% 35 to 44 2,804 14.1% 3,068 14.9% 264 9.4% Under 35 7,997 40.3% 7,318 35.5% -679 -8.5% Under 45 10,801 1 54.5% 10,386 50.4% -415 -3.8% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Decennial Census • 134 "fable 9 highlights two trends that are relevant to the past, current, and future demands that would • be placed on the school systems of the Town of Southold, including Greenport Union. First, in the ten years between 1990 and 2000, there has been a sharp decline in the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 34, decreasing by 29.3 percent. Comparatively, in New York State between 1990 and 2000, the same age cohort decreased in population by only 12.0 percent, while in Suffolk County the decrease was only 6.1 percent, indicating that the loss of persons between the ages of 20 and 34 was five times greater in Southold than in the County as a whole. This decrease in Southold's young population is exceptional and points to a major exodus by this important segment of Southold's community. It also suggests that the slow rate of increase of the population of children under the age of five is not an anomaly and is, in fact, a trend that will continue until the causes of the young family population out-migration are addressed and reversed. Second, there has been a pronounced spike in the population of five-to-nine year-olds in the Town of Southold, with the age group growing by more than 20.6 percent between 1990 and • 2000. Compared to New York State, the Southold population of persons between the ages of five and nine grew by approximately six percent more. The increase can be attributed in part to the "Baby Boom Echo," the increase in births due to the Baby Boom population.9 This growth could have directly contributed to the increase in enrollment in grades seven through nine in the Greenport UFSD. According to the New York State Education Department ("NYSED") website (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/documents/Masterfile_forweb.xls), per pupil expenditure for the Greenport UFSD in 2005-2006 was $18,951. • 9 The Baby Boom Echo, 1996 Report,U.S.Department of Education, 1996. 135 3.5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service • The subject property is currently located in, and. served by, the Village of Greenport Fire Department, whose headquarters are located 236 Third Street, Greenport. According to its website,10 the Greenport Fire Department protects approximately 12,000 people living in an area of eight square miles. The department operates out of two stations that protect a primarily residential area. The Department has 109 volunteer members and responded to 749 calls in 2007, which is a 5.74 percent increase over 2006. The vast majority of the calls (70 percent) were ambulance calls. The Department consists of five Companies: Eagle Hose Company; Relief Hose Company; Star Hose Company; Standard Hose Company and Phenix Hook & Ladder Company. The department has a Rescue Squad complete with 2 ALS Ambulances, a Heavy Rescue Truck, Heavy Rescue/Engine and 2 Schwinn Rescue Bikes. The closest receiving Hospital for emergency care is the Eastern Long Island Hospital located at 201 Manor Place in Greenport. The Greenport Fire Department provides the following services: firefighting; Advance Life • Support, emergency medical service; vehicle rescue (extrication); and search and rescue. There are two fire stations— 236 Third Street and 514 Flint Street. According to the Greenport Fire Department's Annual Report-2007 (see Appendix Q), the Greenport Fire Department responded to 749 calls in 2007. This was 43 calls more than in the previous year (a 5.74 percent increase). Of the 749 calls, 312 originated in the Village and 399 were from the East/West Fire Protection District, in which the subject site is located. Of the 749 calls, 18.82 percent were from Peconic Landing (life-care retirement community) and 5.73 percent were from the San Simeon Nursing Home. • 10 http://cros.firehouse.com/dept/GreenportNY 136 Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Cliff Harris on February 17, 2008 to • advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Fire Department. Follow-up letters were sent on March 31, 2008 and July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Greenport Fire Department recording secretary responded for Chief Harris via e-mail to the applicant (see Appendix P). The response verified the number of Department members, total number of calls responded to in 2007 and the receiving hospital for emergency care. 3.5.3 Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department, with its headquarters located at 51505 State Route 25, Peconic, New York. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Carlisle Cochran on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Police Department. Follow-up letters were sent on March 31, 2008 and July 12, 2008. The Town of Southold Police Department has not yet responded(see Appendix P). • 3.5.4 Water Supply Currently, as the subject site is undeveloped, it does not generate a demand for water. However, there are SCWA water supply mains located in C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the site. 3.5.5 Sewage Disposal As the subject property is undeveloped, no sewage is generated. Village sewer lines are located in C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Based on a discussion with the Jack Naylor, a representative of the Village of Greenport Department of Utilities,'1 the Village's sewage treatment plant has a total permitted capacity of 650,000 gpd and it currently receives approximately 325,000 gpd of sanitary waste. • " Telephone communication July 17, 2008. 137 3.5.6 Solid Waste • The subject property is currently undeveloped. Therefore, it does not generate solid waste. 3.5.7 Energy Suppliers As the subject property is undeveloped, it does not have any connections to energy suppliers. However, utility poles exist in front of the subject site along C.R. 48. 3.5.8 Recreation The site is undeveloped and privately-owned. The subject property does not currently provide any recreational facilities. The subject property is adjacent to 300+ acres of designated open space known as Moore's Woods. Moore's Woods is available to the public for passive recreation activities such as hiking. Furthermore, Arshamonaque Preserve is located just west of Chapel Lane, with a trailhead located along Chapel Lane. This large preserve, situated • approximately one-half mile from the site, also provides passive recreational and open space features. Finally, the KOA campgrounds, which require a fee for use, are situated east of the subject property, along the south side of C.R. 48. • 138 3.6 TRANSPORTATION • A traffic impact study ("TIS") was prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "Dunn Engineering") (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). The TIS quantifies existing and projected traffic conditions and compares changes in operating conditions with the proposed development. The purpose of the study is to determine any significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project and to evaluate and propose mitigation measures, if required. The TIS presents the findings of the analysis, and summarizes the data collection process, traffic analysis procedures, and study conclusions. The study methodology and existing conditions are summarized herein. 3.6.1 Methodology As part of the preparation of the TIS, the following tasks were undertaken: 1. Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions; • 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network; 3. An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ("SCDPW") and the files of Dunn Engineering, 4. Supplementary machine traffic counts and turning movement counts were collected as necessary to update the available volume counts; 5. An examination was made of the traffic flow on North Road, Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane in the vicinity of the subject site; 6. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing recent accident records obtained from the SCDPW; • 7. The availability of police and fire protection services was examined; 139 • 8. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development; 9. Directional distribution analyses were made to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the surrounding street network; 10. Trip assignment analyses were performed to examine the composite traffic volumes that 'would result due to the addition of the site-generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes, in order to determine the traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways; 11. Capacity analyses were performed at key intersections in order to examine their ability to accommodate the addition of the site-generated traffic; 12. A review of the access arrangements was made; 4013. An evaluation of the available parking and on-site circulation was made in regard to traffic circulation, safety, maintenance, and adequacy of layout; and 14. An evaluation of existing public transportation services in the project area and general vicinity. 3.6.2 Existing Roadway Network C.R. 48 (North Road) is a major east/west County highway facility located north of the site that will provide direct access to the site. In the vicinity of the proposed development, North Road consists of two lanes (one in each direction) with additional turning lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the site is 50 miles per hour. 140 Chapel Lane is a north/south roadway located west of the site. Chapel Lane terminates at its • intersection with North Road and continues to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Chapel Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Chapel Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. Oueen Street is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Queer. Street has no pavement markings, but allows for two-way traffic onto and off North Road. Queen Street serves as access to the KOA campground located at its southern terminus. Moores Lane is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Its northern terminus is North Road and it continues to the south from that point. In the vicinity of the site, Moores Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted area speed limit on Moores Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. 3.6.3 Unsignalized Intersections • In the vicinity of the site, the following unsignalized intersections were investigated: • North Road at Chapel Lane; • North Road at Queen Street; and • North Road at Moores Lane. The lane configurations at the unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Chapel Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A separate left-turn-lane and a through lane. 3. Northbound Chapel Lane Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. • 141 • The lane configurations at the unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Queen Street consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A combined left-turn/through lane. 3. Northbound Queen Street Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. The lane configurations at the unsignalized T-intersection approaches of North Road at Moores Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined through/right-turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: I combined left-turn/through lane. 3. Northbound Moores Lane Approach: A combined left-turn/right-turn lane. 3.6.4 Traffic Volumes Available traffic flow information was obtained from the SCDPW and the files of Dunn Engineering. The available information consisted of automatic traffic recorder ("ATR") counts on C.R. 48. The Average Annual Daily Traffic ("AADT") in the vicinity of the site on North Road was 13,737 vehicles per day in 2005. This AADT was not utilized for analysis purposes but is presented for information only. The SCDPW data obtained can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "SCDPW Traffic Flow Data" (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). An examination of the traffic volume information reveals that the peak weekday traffic volumes occur between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M., respectively. The peak existing weekend traffic volumes occur on Saturdays between 11:00 • A.M. and 12:00 P.M. 142 Although the SCDPW data indicated that the midday traffic volumes during the weekday are • generally higher than the morning traffic volumes, manual counts were collected for the weekday A.M. peak hours instead of the weekday midday peak hours because it is during the weekday A.M. commuting hours, not the weekday midday peak hours, when condominium communities generate more trips and any potential impacts will be found. During the week, condominium communities generatc trips primarily during the weekday A.M. and P.M. commuting hours (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., respectively). Hence, to obtain specific turning count information of the existing traffic during the peak hours of the proposed development, manual intersection turning movement counts for morning and evening peak hours were collected on weekdays at three intersections on C.R. 48 located within the study area. The three locations where the manual counts were performed are as follows: • North Road(C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; • North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and • North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. The traffic counts at the above three locations were taken on a typical weekday in August from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. as well as on a typical Saturday from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. The manual traffic volume counts performed can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts-Manual" (see Appendix Q of this DEIS). To supplement the August 2005 SCDPW traffic machine count data, additional ATR counts were collected for a full-week, including a weekend, during the month of August 2007 at several locations. The locations where the ATR counts were performed are as follows: 1. C.R. 48 west of Queen Street (in both the eastbound and westbound directions); • 2. Chapel Lane south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions); 143 • 3. Queen Street south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions); and 4. Moore's Lane south of C.R. 48 (in both the northbound and southbound directions). The automatic traffic recorders at the above four locations were installed on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 and continued to Friday, August 31, 2007 during the peak summer season. The supplemental ATR counts collected by Dunn Engineering on C.R. 48, Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane can be found in the section of Appendix Q, entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts— Supplemental ATR." 3.6.5 Accident Records Accident history data were obtained from the SCDPW concerning all the reportable and non- reportable accidents that have occurred on C.R. 48 within the study area. The data obtained from SCDPW consisted of accident history information from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006. This represents the latest full three-year period available from the County at the time of the writing of this study. A summary of the accidents on North Road within the study area by year, severity (property damage only ["PDO"], injury ["INJ"], or fatal ["FAT"]) and location is shown in Table 10. As can be seen in Table 10, the intersection with the highest accident experience is North Road at Moore's Lane. This intersection experienced a total of 10 accidents in the three year study period, or an average of just over three per year. It is not unexpected that this is the highest location as this is the intersection that sees the highest level of side street traffic. 144 North Road at Chapel Lane experienced an average of between two and three accidents per year (total of seven) while North Road at Queen Street experienced an average of less than one accident per year (total of two). Existing Public Transportation Services Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, on the north fork this route travels on Main Road (NYS Route 25), which is south of the site through the Village of Greenport (see map for the S-92 bus route in the section of Appendix Q entitled "Public Transportation"). The distance from the site to the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile, measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane. As the generally accepted pedestrian walking limit distance is 0.25 mile, it is questionable that many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. • Discussions were held with representatives of Suffolk County Transit regarding whether there were any plans to expand the Suffolk County bus route to include service on North Road (C.R. 48). Suffolk County Transit confirmed that, due to the rural nature of this section of Greenport with some sections on North Road already developed and other properties remaining undeveloped, although the County is conducting a planning study of the general area, at this time it does not foresee that the study would result in bus service being provided on or extended to C.R. 48. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. • 145 • . • Table 10 —Accident Summary: North Road (C.R. 48) Number of Accidents 3 Year 2004 2005 2006 Period Location PDO INJ FAT PDO INJ FAT PDO INJ FAT Total North Road at Chapel Lane 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 7 North Road between Chapel Lane 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 15 and Queen Street North Road at Queen Street 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 North Road between Queen Street 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 1 0 10 and Moores Lane No Road at Moores Lane 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 10 TOTAL 14 2 0 13 2 0 11 2 0 44 Source: Traffic Accident Records: SCDPW 146 • 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.7.1 Introduction Between August 18 and September 24, 2007, TRACKER — Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey (collectively known as the Phase I Study) at the subject property. This information is included in a report entitled Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta .Subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (hereinafter "Phase I Report") (see Appendix R). The methodology and results of the Phase I Report are summarized herein. The purpose of the Phase IA documentary study was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. It was implemented by reviewing past and current environmental data, archaeological site files and other archival literature, maps and documents. The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted using the resources of • the New York State Historic Preservation Office ("NYSHPO") in Waterford, New York. Various historic and/or archaeological website were visited to review any pertinent site information. The purpose of the Phase IB field survey was to provide physical evidence for the presence or absence of prehistoric or historic sites on the subject property. This was accomplished through subsurface testing and ground surface reconnaissance. Specific environmental conditions such as wetlands, geology, soils and topography, hydrology and vegetation are described and discussed in the Phase I Report (see Appendix R). 3.7.2 Prehistoric Potential A prehistoric site file search was conducted at the NYSHPO. The search included a one-mile radius around the subject property. The results indicate the following: • 147 • e Freshwater wetlands are on the property. The site is located approximately 700 feet south of the Long Island Sound; ® The project area is comprised of level-to-moderately-sloped terrain with well- and poorly-drained soil; • The subject property is located on a peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have shown these area as more desirable for prehistoric occupations (Cammisa, 1996); i A prehistoric site was found near the subject property; and. • Indian trails were located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon this assessment, the study area has a higher than average potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small processing/procurement site. 3.7.3 Historic Potential Contact Period(17th Century) At the time of European contact and settlement, the study area was likely occupied by the Manttobaugs. These were probably branches or villages of the large Corchaug tribe. The previously-mentioned Indian trails were reported along the southern and north portions of the north fork. It may have been Town policy to keep the Indians grouped in the western portion of the Town, which was considered wilderness at this time. In 1664 it was voted that the Indians could plant in Hogs Neck if they had sufficient fencing. 148 181h Century • Oyster Ponds, now called Orient, was connected with the rest of the "Town by a low, sandy beach which was, at times, covered by water. This tract was called Poquatuck by the Indians which means tidal river, cove, or creek. Previous to the American Revolution, there was a wharf near Stirling Creek where sloops from West India landed with rum and molasses. During the Revolutionary Period, there were six houses in the Village of Greenport, five of which were along Stirling Street. The 1797 Town of Southold survey depicts Pipes Cove, Inlet Pond and Routes 25 and 48. No structures are on or adjacent to the project area. 19t1' Century The territory upon which Greenport was built, was sold by the heirs of Captain John Webb at auction to three neighbors in 1820. Greenport was founded circa 1827. Main Street was laid out during this same year, as well as the first set of marine railways. The first store was constructed by 1828, the first school house built in 1832, and the name of Greenport adopted in 1834. The 1836 Colton map shows that no structures are situated nearby the project area. The 1858 Chace map shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area. Finally, the 1896 Hyde atlas depicts no structures on or adjacent to the property. 20' Century The 1904 USGS map shows no structures on or adjacent to the subject property. In the late 19th century, farming in the Town became highly specialized in areas such as potatoes, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, peas, beans and the like. An historic site file search was conducted at the NYSHPO. The search was based upon a one-mile radius from the subject site, and three sites were identified including Pipes Neck, Great Plains Swamp and Five Wigwams. • 149 3.7.4 Field Methods for Phase IB Walkover Exposed ground services were walked over at approximately three-to-five meter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15 meter intervals for any aboveground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations that may be evidence of a prehistoric or historic site. Photographs were taken of the study area (see Appendix R of this DEIS). Shovel Tests Shover tests ("STs") were conducted at 15 meter intervals across the subject property. Each ST pit measured approximately 30 to 40 centimeters ("cm") in diameter and was dug into the . underlying B horizon (subsoil) to 10 to 20 cm, or more, where possible. All soils were screened through one-quarter-inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. Each ST was flagged in the field. Any positive ST was double-flagged. All STs and any archaeological finds were mapped on the project are map. Soil stratigraphy (detailed in Section 3.7.5) was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre- printed field forms and in a notebook. 3.7.5 Field Results Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 125 STs across the subject property. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. Results for all 125 STs are included in Appendix 2 of the Phase I report (see Appendix R of this DEIS. • 150 • 3.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Phase IA study determined the study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites, with a moderate-to-low potential for historic sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 125 STs. No prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered. Therefore, no fiarther work was recommended. • i 151 • 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS,AND TOPOGRAPHY As the site is currently undeveloped, the proposed development would disturb soils that have previously been essentially undisturbed. Table 4 of this DEIS, provides a breakdown of the soil engineering and planning limitations, based upon general soil data found on the USDA NRCS website. An analysis of the proposed projects compliance follows. Based upon a review of the proposed development and the soil map, no development is expected to occur in either the Be or Ca soils, which have the most development limitations. In addition, as much of the wetland area is comprised of Ra soils (which are also very limited), no development would occur in these areas. The majority of development is proposed to occur within the RdB, MfB and PIB soils. These mapping units have few, if any, limitations to development that cannot be easily overcome. • One of the predominant soil groups on the site, PIB, is described as having slight erosion potential. The slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential and detailed erosion and sediment control plans would be an integral part of the final development plans. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") prepared for compliance with Phase II Stormwater Regulations will address measures necessary to meet water quality standards for runoff and safe accommodation of flows from extreme storm events. Erosion and sediment control measures will include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties, which will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2.4 of this DEIS. • 152 As indicated in Figure 4 of this DEIS, the potential engineering limitations for the establishment and maintenance of lawns and landscaping on P1B soils are noted as being potentially severe due to a sandy surface layer. However, in developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped, the grade will have a maximum slope ratio of 1:3. Slopes created due to construction would be minimal. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas that are proposed to remain. Due to the potential for actual on-site soils to differ from those shown on the Soil Survey, actual on-site investigations were performed, as described in Section 3.1.2.. The on-site test borings revealed that there was some surficial fill conditions on the site. Overall, the test-hole exploration revealed quality soil conditions that were judged well-suited for standard construction practices. Subsurface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered an issue. Therefore, the soils appear suitable for development, and no significant adverse impact is anticipated. • The nature and scope of the development would necessitate regrading of the site in order to p p � g provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas, building areas and drainage and sanitary facilities. As the site is currently undeveloped, particular care would be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed would be protected from development. The soils that constitute the wetland areas of the site would not be disturbed by the proposed development. The following measures would be incorporated into the development of the subject property to minimize impacts: • the limit of disturbance would encompass the areas landward of the wetlands and their associated 100-foot buffers; • silt fence would be installed at the limit of disturbance to protect existing vegetation, • clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the extent of open areas and limit the time areas are open; and • a stabilized construction entrance would be installed; 153 Based upon the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (see Appendix G of this DEIS), the • project engineer has prepared an analysis of proposed cut and fill for the development. Table 11 assumes that none of the units would have basements: Table 11 — Proposed Earthwork (in Cubic Yards) Source Cut Fill Net(Cut) Site Grading 9,075 8,517 558 Drainage Structures 2,396 - 2,396 TOTAL, 11,471 8,517 2,954 154 • 4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 Groundwater The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan ("208 Study') In order to ensure the protection of groundwater, the proposed project will comply with the relevant recommendations of the "Highest Priority Areawide Alternatives" of the 208 Study regarding Hydrogeologic Zone IV, as described below. • Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting, regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells. No irrigation is proposed as part of this action. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not require the permitting, regulation or monitoring of • irrigation wells. • Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit/one or more acres), where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings; and The proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to existing municipal water and sewer facilities. Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. • Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to surface and ground waters. • 155 • As shown on the Preliminary SWPPP and the Preliminary Utility Plan (see Appendix G), stormwater runoff would be recharged on-site through the use of drywells. In addition, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be implemented both during construction and post development. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the above criterion. Suffolk County Sanitary Code ("SCSC") Suffolk County has promulgated various regulations and standards that are designed to protect the water resources of Long Island. Article 6 of the SCSC specifically governs sanitary wastewater discharges. The regulations contained in Article 6 protect water resources by limiting the "population density equivalent" within specific Groundwater Management Zones. • The subject property is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, and therefore, pursuant to Article 6 of the SCSC, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 600 gpd per acre or approximately 10,314± gpd, based upon 17.19 acres. As the proposed development includes the connection to municipal sewer system, and there would not be any on-site sanitary discharge, this limitation does not apply. As the proposed development would comply with Article 6, no significant adverse impacts to water resources associated with increased sanitary flow on site would be expected. See Section 4.2.3, below for a more detailed discussion of sewage disposal. • 156 Article 12 relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. The relevant • aspects of Article 12 relate to the storage of fuel oil in above ground or underground storage tanks. New underground storage tanks have to be "designed and constructed in a manner which will, in the opinion of the Commissioner [of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services] provide the maximum reasonable protection available against leakage or spillage from the facility due to corrosion, breakage, structural failure, or other means." As no above ground or underground storage tanks are proposed, there would be no adverse impacts to water resources. 4.2.2 Water Usage Potable water would be supplied by the SCWA through an existing main located under C.R. 48. According to the project engineer, as domestic water for the 128 units is calculated using the SCDHS design flow rates for sewage generation, which is 225 gpd/unit for housing units between 601-1200 square feet and 300 gpolunit for housing units greater than 1200 square feet, the proposed development is estimated to use 34,050 gallons of potable water per day. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA confirmed • water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action(see Appendix M). As SCWA has sufficient capacity to serve the subject development, no significant adverse impacts to water supply are anticipated. 4.2.3 Sanitary Flow As described above, the total projected sewage flow would be 34,050 gpd, based upon Suffolk County sewage flow standards, as calculated by the project engineer. The proposed development will be connected to the Village of Greenport sewer system through a sewer main located under C.R. 48. Due to the topography of the property and the location of the sewer lines within C.R. 48, a small pump station is proposed to be constructed in the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to the emergency access (see Appendix G). 157 Based upon a discussion with Jack Naylor (see Section 3.2.3), a representative of the Village of Greenport Department of Utilities,12 and correspondence from Cameron Engineering, dated November 16, 2006 (see Appendix J), the Village's sewage treatment plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development (34,050 gpd). In addition, Mr. Naylor indicated that the sewage treatment plant is also undergoing an upgrade. As such, no significant adverse impacts associated with the projected increase in sanitary flow would be expected. 4.2.4 Stormwater Runoff The proposed stormwater management system for the Northwind Village would be designed according to the local requirement to store the runoff from a two-inch rainfall over the developed portion of the subject site. According to the project engineer, storage of stormwater will be accomplished using drywells placed throughout the subject site. General calculations for the storage volume required, based on proposed area coverage, are included in Table 12. . Table 12— Stormwater Runoff Storage Volume Area Storm Event Runoff StorageVolume Surface FactorRequired (Square Feet) Inches Coefficient'' (Cubic Feet Building 81,582 x 2/12 1.0 13,597.05 Road 86,799 x 2/12 1.0 14,466.45 Pavement 12,147 x 2/12 1.0 2,024.44 Landscaping 109,299 x 2/12 0.3 5,464.95 TOTAL 1 35,552.89 Stormwater runoff generated on the site will be collected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area drains, and will be transported by subsurface piping to a system of drywells throughout the site. The system would include 23 drywells, 12 feet in diameter placed at 11 feet in depth for a storage capacity of 25,522.64 cubic feet, and 10 drywells, 12 feet in diameter placed at a depth of 10 feet, for a capacity of 10,088 cubic feet. Therefore, total storage would be 35,610.64 cubic feet, thus exceeding the required storage volume of 35,552.89 cubic feet. • 12 Telephone communication July 17, 2008. 158 • Required maintenance of the stormwater storage systems is expected to be minimal. When designed properly, most sediment can be trapped in the catch basins, making cleaning of the system more efficient and localized. Subsurface leaching structures (drywells) are typically fitted with cast iron covers to provide for access and cleaning, as necessary. If appropriate sediment control measures are employed during construction, leaching structures should not require maintenance more often than every 10 to 15 years. It should be noted that each of the development units or phases proposed for construction will require the submission of detailed site plans to the Village, including detailed plans for grading, drainage and erosion control. The Village will review each section or phase for compliance with local drainage requirements, thereby ensuring that the storage criteria are met. As a result of the studies conducted under the NURP, stormwater discharge from construction activities disturbing more than one acre requires a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). In order to implement the regulations, the NYSDEC has issued • General Permit GP-0-08-001 for stormwater discharge from construction activities, under which the applicant for this project will be required to obtain coverage. In order to obtain coverage, the necessary SWPPP will be developed, and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") will be filed with the NYSDEC. Under the criteria set forth by the Village Engineer, the project will be required to provide storage and recharge of runoff from a two-inch rainfall. Under the provisions of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, which is the primary NYSDEC reference used for compliance with the Phase II regulations, the SWPPP will demonstrate that Water Quality Control and Water Quantity Control goals are met through the use of various Best Management Practices to control stormwater runoff. In this case, the storage of two-inch of runoff ensures that the Water Quality Control goals are met in that the storage volume exceeds the calculated Water Quality Runoff Volume (which only requires storage of the runoff from a 1.3-inch storm). Water Quantity Controls are not required since there would not be any discharge to a stream. • 159 The Narrative Report and Plans to be prepared in conjunction with the filing of the NOI will provide the necessary background information for the project and will fully detail required erosion control measures, compliance with Water Quality Control requirements, and compliance with Water Quantity Control requirements using Best Management Practices ("BMPs") developed for the NYSDEC. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix -G). The following is a summary of the pollution control measures proposed for the Northwind Village development: • Existing vegetation to remain will be protected by installation of a construction fence (or other approved means) and will remain undisturbed; • Clearing and grading will be scheduled so as to minimize the extent of exposed area and the length of time that areas are exposed. A maximum of five acres will be disturbed at one time unless written permission is received from the NYSDEC; • • Grading and stripped areas will be stabilized through the use of temporary seeding, as required; • Bare soils will be seeded within 14 days of exposure, unless construction will begin within 21 days, as sections are completed, or if construction on an area is suspended, the area will be seeded immediately, • The length and steepness of cleared slopes will be minimized in order to reduce runoff velocities. Runoff will be diverted away from cleared slopes; • Sediment will be trapped on site and not permitted to enter adjacent properties, public, roadways, drainage systems or water bodies:, • Sediment barriers will be installed along the limits of disturbance prior to the start of construction and will be maintained until construction is complete; • A stabilized construction entrance will be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads. Any sediment tracked onto public roads will be removed or cleaned on a daily basis; • 160 • • All runoff will be retained on-site, in accordance with local regulations. Drainage inlets installed on-site will be protected from sediment build-up through the use of appropriate inlet protection, • Appropriate means will be use to control dust during construction; and • Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures will remain in place until upland disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Following permanent stabilization, paved areas will be cleaned of soil and debris and drainage systems will be cleaned and flushed, as necessary. Based on the preparation of the SWPPP, no significant adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development would be anticipated. 4.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplains • The proposed development has been designed and modified to ensure there is no infringement into the 100-foot freshwater wetland setback area. There will be no disturbance to the wetland setback area during construction, as the proposed development has been modified to provide a minimum of 10 feet between the buildings and the 100-foot wetland setback. As such, the applicant has submitted a request to the NYSDEC for a letter of non-jurisdiction as explained in Section 2.7 of this DEIS. As stated in Section 3.2.5, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. These wetlands exhibit large fluctuations in water level with approximately 2.0-to-2.5 feet of water in the late spring and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. Periodic drying allows germination of seeds of emergent plants that survive high water periods as buried seeds (Schneider 1994). • 161 Development in the watersheds of wetlands has the potential to adversely impact the existing • hydrology due to increases in impervious surfaces, import of municipal water supplies, and construction of stormwater collection systems (Paul and Meyer 2001; White and Greer 2006). However, in this instance, the proposed residential units will be served by municipal water supply and sewer systems. Furthermore, recharge will occur wholly on the subject property. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition or removal of water to the adjacent wetlands from those sources. In order to help minimize impacts associated with clearing, grading and the installation of impervious surfaces and landscaping, all of which contribute to the alteration of existing site hydrology (as the site is undeveloped), the stormwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to accommodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stoimwater drainage system will prevent the transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Precipitation events greater than two inches in magnitude will result in surface • runoff from impervious surfaces to landscaped areas and subsequently infiltration into the ground. In conjunction with the preliminary drainage design, soil borings were taken at five locations throughout the subject property. The borings show groundwater generally located at 20-to-25 feet bgs, which will not interfere with the installation or operation of the proposed drainage system. The drywells installed as part of the drainage system for recharge of runoff will only extend to a depth of two feet above groundwater elevations, and may require excavation and backfill of unsuitable materials to facilitate leaching. Where excavation is not practical, other methods (such as the use of deeper diffusion wells) have been used in this area to facilitate groundwater recharge. One of the borings (in the vicinity of Building 16) (formerly Building 14) does indicate perched water at approximately five feet bgs. However, this is considered a localized condition likely due to poor soils. As the proposed buildings do not have basements, any dewatering required for • the footings and foundations would be minimal. 162 Dewatering of trenches for footings would be limited to intermittent pumping of the trenches, as necessary; it is unlikely that dewatering will be required to the extent that well points, permits, etc. would be necessary. In addition, excavation of drywells installed in this area may serve to lower the perched water level by puncturing strata of unsuitable materials. As demonstrated above, the project has been designed to be protective of both groundwater and surface water resources. The development will conform to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study and the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. ]Furthermore the site will be served by public water and the municipal sewer system, both of which agencies indicated their ability to serve the proposed multi-family development. Stormwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon water resources. • 163 • 4.3 ECOLOGY 4.3.1 Ecological Communities The proposed action will result in the elimination of 2.0 acres of successional old field habitats and 4.6 acres of successional southern hardwood forests. Approximately '10.54 acres of existing red maple-hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods, old fields, and successional southern hardwood forests will be preserved under the proposed action. The loss of 6.65 acres of old fields and successional hardwood forests will be associated with permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals, herpetiles, and songbirds which utilize thickets, shrublands, forest edges, and/or open habitats, including northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglotta), grey catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and common yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas). • Successional old fields and successional southern hardwood forests are common habitats and are classified as "demonstrably" or "apparently" secure, respectively, in New York State indicating that these habitats are abundant throughout the State (Edinger et al. 2002). Field observations and correspondence from the NYNHP (Appendix N) indicate that the subject property does not provide habitat for any endangered or threatened species of wildlife. Two species listed by New York State as species of special concern, the eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroliniana) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), were observed on the subject property. Populations of many songbirds are declining throughout North America (Bohning-Gaese et al. 1993). However, the populations of the commonplace species inhabiting the old fields, successional forests, and edge habitats of the subject property are largely considered to be stable by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology(www.birds.cornell.edu). Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of old field and successional forest habitats, the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor as no sensitive species will be impacted and the effected ecological communities are abundant. • 164 Nesting sites for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene caroling) were observed within the successional old fields of the subject property. These nesting sites consist of open, sandy areas (approximately 400 square feet in size) located in the northwestern portion of the property. One of the nesting sites will be destroyed during construction, the other site is located within the dirt access road on the western side of the property and will not be destroyed. Eastern box turtles are recognized to be declining due to loss of habitat from develop�.Tient and mortality on roadways (Williams and Parker 1987; Nazdrowicz et al. 2008). Accordingly, this potential impact to Eastern box turtle populations is expected to be insignificant in magnitude; however, the loss of the nesting site could be easily mitigated by providing additional habitat (see Section 5.3 of this DEIS). Approximately 4.6 acres of forest will be cleared as a result of the proposed project. As stated previously, these are early successional forests dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). These successional hardwood forests are re-growth stands and • are likely to have resulted from the abandonment of historical agricultural activities on the property. These stands are contiguous with the mature, second-growth upland forests and forested wetlands associated with Moore's Woods. The adjacent upland areas of Moore's Woods feature various oaks (Quercus sp), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipefera), hickories (Carya glabra and Carya ovata), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). Small remnants of this oak-beech-tulip forest type are present on the subject property. These unique habitats are found within the boundaries of the NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or occur as a narrow band surrounding its landward margin. No areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100-foot buffer area. 165 Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6+ • acres), the magnitude of this adverse impact is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e., oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). The clearing of 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests adjacent to the mature forest communities associated with Moore's Woods has the potential to degrade the quality of forest habitat provided by these forests. For example, removal of these areas of successional hardwood stands will result in the creation of a new forest edge. Forest edges exhibit differences in microclimate, plant composition, plant density, and habitat quality than forest interiors and, accordingly, forest edges and forest interiors are often utilized by different wildlife species. The new forest edge will result in higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, wind speed, and lower relative humidity and soil moisture (Chen et al. 1995; Gehlhausen et al. 2000) in adjacent areas of forest. Studies have found that changes in microclimate in forests (i.e. ambient light, air and soil temperatures, wind speed, relative humidity, etc.) occur up to 240' from the forest edge (Gehlhausen et al. 2000). These changes in forest microclimate near the edge of the forest have been found to be more pronounced in south- and east-facing edges than north- and west-facing edges (Fraver, 1994). The forest edges to be created by the proposed project will be west-, north-, and east-facing. The proposed project will result in a new forest edge and, accordingly, result in changes in microclimate that will penetrate up to 240± feet into the existing forests associated with Moore's Woods. The altered microclimate, particularly increased light levels, associated with the new forest edge created by the proposed project is likely to result in colonization and increased growth of invasive plant species (Brothers and Spingarin 1992), within the 100-foot-wide buffer area. Invasive plants expected to increase in abundance include honeysuckles (Lonicera tartarica and Lonicera japonica) shrubs, and various invasive and native woody vines including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus occidentalis), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and . brambles (Rubus sp.). 166 The habitat quality for nesting songbirds in surrounding forests may also be degraded by the • proposed project due to presence of lights in parking areas and buildings, increased levels of noise and disturbance resulting from human activities, and increased abundance of predators and invasive competitors. For example, increased numbers of feral and pet cats and native predators (such as red fox, raccoons, skunks, and opossums) resulting from increased food supplies from garbage dumpsters and pet food may adversely effect resident songbirds d1le to increased predation of eggs, chicks, and adults (Terborgh 1989). In addition, the proposed project will result in increased numbers of invasive birds, such as European starling (Sternus vulgaris), house sparrow (Parus domesticus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), as these birds thrive in habitats created by humans and often nest on or in buildings. Starlings compete with native birds for nest sites in the cavities of trees, often resulting in a decline in abundance of native cavity nesters such as woodpeckers and flycatchers (Koenig 2000). Cowbirds are nest parasites and may have similar adverse impacts on native birds. The magnitude of the adverse impact associated with alteration of the forest edge on • microclimate and abundance of invasive plant and wildlife species is expected to be minor and small, as no Federal- or State-endangered or threatened species will be impacted and the high- quality oak-tulip, secondary forests or forested wetland that may be within 240± feet of the new forest edge account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). In addition, the magnitude of these impacts can be mitigated as described in Section 5.3 of this DEIS. As stated in Section 3.3, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property are ecologically diverse and provide high quality habitats for both plants and wildlife. These wetlands exhibit large fluctuations in water level with 2.0-to-2.5 feet of water in the late spring and after heavy rains to nearly complete drawdown during the peak of summer water deficits. Periodic inundation and drying is a primary causal factor resulting in the development of a diverse plant community and providing suitable habitat for amphibians. Periodic drying allows gennination of seeds of emergent plants that survive high water periods as buried seeds (Schneider 1994). • 167 Development in the watersheds of wetlands has the potential to adversely impact the existing hydrology due to increases in impervious surfaces, import of municipal water supplies, and construction of stormwater collection systems (Paul and Meyer 2001; White and Greer 2006). As stated in Section 2.0 (Description of Proposed,,I ction), the proposed residential units will be serviced by a municipal water supply and sewer systems. Accordingly, the project will not result in the addition of water to the hydrological budget of the adjacent wetlands resulting from the discharge of wastewater from septic systems into the wetland's watershed. Under natural conditions, precipitation falling on the project site percolates into the ground uniformly across the project site. Under the proposed. site conditions, precipitation which falls on impervious surfaces will be collected, concentrated, and discharged into drywells located under the proposed roadway. Accordingly, the proposed project will result in a perturbation to the existing pathways by which precipitation falls on the site, drains through the site's soils, and discharges through the site's wetlands. It is likely that this perturbation will not impact the surrounding wetlands uniformly as some wetland areas may receive greater water supply from • nearby uplands, while other areas receive less. In addition to potential impacts on the discharge of groundwater to the surrounding wetlands, the proposed project has the potential to alter the chemistry of water flowing towards the wetlands. The chemical composition of water flowing through soils reflects the biogeochemical characteristics of those soils. The conversion of successional field or forests habitats to landscaped lawn will alter the underlying soil conditions, therefore altering the chemical composition of water infiltrating through these soils. The human activity associated with the proposed project has the potential to result in increased flow of petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and other contaminants to the surrounding wetlands. i 168 • However, significant impacts to water quality in the wetlands associated with Moore's Woods are not likely to occur due to the installation of the proposed stormwater collection system, establishment of a 100-foot-wide buffer area, and implementation of other mitigation measures, as described in Section 5.3 of this DEIS. 4.3.2 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species A discussion of potential adverse impacts to the endangered, threatened or rare species identified in Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS follows. Red Maple-Sweetgum Swamp This rare community type is not present on the subject property. The closest known occurrence of a red maple-sweetgum swamp is within one mile of the subject property in Arshamonaque Wetland to the west of Chapel Lane. Accord—ingly, adverse impacts to red maple-sweet swamps will not result from the proposed project. • Eastern Box Turtle The woodlands, open fields, and wetlands are known to provide habitat for Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) and two small areas on the subject property have been identified as box turtle nesting sites. The proposed action would result in the loss of 2.0 acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forest that are used as foraging habitat for box turtles. As previously described, the proposed action would result in the loss of one box turtle nesting site. Another observed box turtle nesting site is located within the 100-foot wetland buffer area and would not be impacted by the proposed development. However, the proposed action may result in increased mortality of adult box turtles when box turtles travel into the proposed development. As described in the Section 5.3 (Mitigation - Ecology), a box turtle nesting area will be created on the western portion of the property in order to mitigate for any potential adverse impact to box turtle reproduction (see Appendix N). • 169 • Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks The woodlands, open fields, and forest edges are suitable hunting habitat for the Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Under the proposed action, 2.0 acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forests will be converted to residential buildings, parking areas, and landscaped areas. Both Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks are known to be adaptable to urban and suburban habitats and hunt at bird feeders and in woodland edges located in residential areas (Roth et al. 2008). Large residential developments and subdivisions often result in a proliferation of invasive songbirds, such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and European starling (Sternus vulgaris), which nest under the eaves of buildings. Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks are known to prey upon these species in urban and suburban settings (Roth et al. 2003, Roth et al. 2006). Accordingly, the proposed action is not anticipated to adversely impact prey availability for Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. Sharp-shinned hawks typically nest in dense stands of young conifer trees (Trexel et al. 1999). • The project site does not contain any stands of young conifer trees, accordingly, the proposed action is not expected to adversely impact the availability of nesting habitat for Sharp-shinned hawks. Cooper's hawks tend to nest in mature deciduous forests (Trexel et al. 1999). Therefore, the mature oak-tulip forests and red maple hardwood swamps located in Moore's Woods are likely to provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk. The proposed action will result in the loss of 4.6 acres of red maple-dominated successional hardwood stands. It is expected that the trees present in the areas of oak-tulip forest on and surrounding the project site provide better nesting habitat than the successional hardwood stands, due to the increased age of the trees in these oak-tulip stands. Therefore, the high-quality nesting habitat available for Cooper's hawks in Moore's Woods will not be adversely impacted by the proposed action and no reduction in the availability of nesting habitat for Cooper's hawks is expected. • 170 • Cat-tail Sedge (Carex typhina) Carex typhina was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for C. typhina is present in the Red Maple-Hardwood swamps located on the southern and southwestern portion of the property and on the adjacent properties. Due to the absence of C. typhina and preservation of on-site wetland habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Swamp Cottonwood(Populus heterophylla) Swamp cottonwood was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. heterophylla is present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. Due to the absence of P. heterophylla and preservation of on-site wetland habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Threatened species will result from the proposed project. • Cranefly Orchid(Tipularia discolor) Cranefly orchid was not observed at the subject property during the summer or winter months; however, suitable habitat for T. discolor is present on hummocks and the tops of banks in the wetland areas located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Woods. Due to the absence of T. discolor and preservation of its potential habitats, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Opelousa Smartweed(Polygonum hydropiperoides var. opelousa) Opelousa Smartweed was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa may be present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Threatened species will result from the proposed project. 171 • Swamp Smartweed(Persicaria setaceum) Swamp Smartweed was not observed at the subject property, however, suitable habitat for P. setaceum may be present in the wetland areas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P. setaceum and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Orange-fringed Orchid(Platanthera ciliaris) Orange-fringed orchid was not observed at the; subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the wetland areas located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of P.ciliaris and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State- Endangered species will result from the proposed project. • Velvet Panic Grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) Velvet panic grass was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for P. ciliaris may be present in the ditches and sandy wetlands located on the eastern and southern sides of the property and in the wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site. Due to the absence of D. scoparium and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Maryland Milkwort(Poly,-ala mariana) Maryland milkwort was not observed on the site and is presumed to be extirpated in New York State. However, suitable habitat for this wetland-dependent species may be present on the site. Due to the absence of P.mariana and preservation of its potential habitat, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. • 172 • Small-flowered Pearlwort(Sagina decumbens) Small-flowered Pearlwort was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for S. decumbens may be present in the property's successional fields. Due to the absence of S. decumbens, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Threatened species will result from the proposed project. Cut-leaved Evening-Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) Cut-leaved evening primrose was not observed at the subject property; however, suitable habitat for O. laciniata may be present in the property's roadsides and waste places. Due to the absence of O. laciniata, no adverse impacts to this New York State-Endangered species will result from the proposed project. Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans), Tiger Beetle (Cicindela patruela consentanea), iyuttall's Tick-Trefoil (Desmodium nuttallii) and Smooth Tick-Trefoil (Desmodium • laevi-atum), Green Parrot's Feather (Myriophyllum pinnatum), Marsh Straw Sedge (Carex hormathodes), Red Pigweed(Chenopodium rubrurn) These protected and special status species were not observed on the subject property. For a specific discussion of the potential for impacts to tiger beetle, please refer to report prepared by Dr. Jonathan Mawdsley (See Appendix N). Furthermore, suitable habitat for these species is not present on the subject property. Accordingly, no adverse impacts to these species will result from the proposed project. Overall, the proposed action is not expected to substantially affect ecological resources, including species diversity and carrying capacity. • 173 • 4.4 LAND USE AND ZONING, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS/STUDIES 4.4.1 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character The subject property is currently a vacant, unimproved parcel. The proposed action includes the annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into Village of 1reenport and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units, 64 of which would be "workforce" units, as described in Section 2.5 of this DEIS. Given the configuration of the subject property, with wetlands surrounding on three sides, the proposed development has been designed with the; dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. Twenty-three buildings containing the 128 dwelling units are proposed to be developed on the property. Each building would be two stories in height and would contain from four to • eight units. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and 70 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,500 square feet in size. All of the one- and two- bedroom units and six of the three-bedroom units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 64 three-bedroom units would be market-rate units. Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access drive along North Road (C.R. 48), and a proposed emergency access from North Road would be constructed at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. The development would be connected to the Village sewer system and the municipal water system. Stormwater runoff would be collected and recharged on site. • 174 • As previously noted, the proposed action involves annexation from Southold into Greenport. Upon annexation, the applicant would apply to Greenport for inclusion in the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 district permits the development of one- and two-family dwelling units. A variance would be required to permit the development of more than two units in a building. The bulk and dimensional requirements for the R-2 district and the proposed development's compliance with such are included in Table 13. Table 13 —Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District Parameter Required/Permitted Proposed Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 300 feet N/A Side Yard Setback 25 feet N/A Building Lot Coverage 35% 10.9% Building Height 21/2 stories/35 feet 2 stories • While residential units could be developed on the site under the Town of Southold HD zoning district, the annexation to Greenport and the R-2 zoning would permit the development a greater number of workforce units (64 versus five) than would be permitted by the Town's HD zoning district. This is due to the location within the Village, which would allow for sewer connection. Therefore, although greater density would be permitted in Greenport than in Southold, the specific land use — residential development — would be permitted within either municipality. Furthermore, the annexation of the subject property into the Village would allow for an internal subsidy of the workforce housing units. The greater overall density would allow the price of the workforce units to be absorbed into the market-rate dwellings, thus requiring no external subsidy to maintain the affordability of the units. Therefore, the annexation would create no significant impact on the land use of the property, although the specific zoning of the property would change from HD to R-2. • 175 • The proposed development incorporates Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission,13 which guide many aspects of the proposed development. The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration of several of the adopted Smart Growth principles, including: • Direct development to strengthen existing communities; • Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a range of housing opportunities; • Provide a variety of transportation choices; • Create pleasant environments and attractive communities; and • Preserve open space and natural resources. Special attention will be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open space. Several sustainable design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage • energy conservation, alternative forms of transport:, and community interaction. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the US Green Building Council ("USGBC"), as previously described.14 To earn certification under LEED for Homes, a building must meet performance credits. On average, "green" buildings save approximately 40 percent in water use, 30-50 percent in energy use, 35 percent in carbon dioxide emissions, and saves approximately 70 percent of construction and demolition waste from being disposed in landfills. 13 Smart Growth Through Smart Communities:Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and • Villages, Suffolk County Planning Commission,March, 2000. 14 USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development, ("ND"). LEED-ND is currently only a pilot program that has specifically enrolled projects. 176 • • The proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEED- Neighborhood Development certification. These include: • Site location within a half mile of existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure; There are water and sewer lines located in C.R. 48, in the vicinity of the subject property. • Site within a quarter mile of community resources; The site is within walking and bicycling distance to downtown Greenport, which contains shops, restaurants, and recreational facilities.. • Site within a half mile of green spaces; The subject property is located adjacent to Moore's Woods and campgrounds, and is within one-mile of Arshamonaque Pond. • • Compact development,- Compact evelopment;Compact development would be achieved by allowing an increase in density on the subject property. The notion of compact development would provide two specific benefits. It would allow the preservation of natural resources, while also permitting a greater number of workforce housing units to be constructed on the site. • Minimization of disturbed area of the site; Disturbance would be limited to an area within a 100-foot-wide buffer around the existing wetlands. A limit of disturbance will be established and maintained during the construction period through the use of silt fencing. Once construction is complete, no disturbance would occur within 100 feet of the existing wetlands. • 177 o Erosion control during construction; A Prelinzinary SWPPP has been prepared and is discussed in Section 4.2 of this DEIS. Upon approval and prior to construction a formal SWPPP and NOI for construction would be submitted to the NYSDEC. The SWPPP would ensure that no stonnwater runoff during both construction and operation of the proposed project would encroach on neighboring properties (including the adjacent wetlands) and roadways. ® Meeting Energy Star for Homes requirements; Energy Star appliances would be specified for the proposed residential units. Also, as noted below, the buildings would be sufficiently insulated and energy-efficient windows would be specified. • Conservation of Uvetlands areas; • The site contains approximately 3.93 acres of wetlands. All of these wetlands as well as pp Y a 100-foot-wide buffer around that would be preserved. No disturbance would occur seaward of the 100-foot-wide wetland boundary. See section 4.3 of this DEIS for additional details. • Providing a diversity of housing types; and The development would include a ranging of housing sizes — from approximately 850 square feet to 1,500 square feet. One-half of the units (64) would be designated as workforce units, which would be affordable to many of those working in the Village and in the Town. • Providing affordable housing. • See previous bullet. 178 In addition, the following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of • the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:15 • Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; • Save existing mature trees on site, where possible; • Where possible, provide usable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; • Use patios, front yards, porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; • Provide for alternative transportation, e.g., bike paths and storage, pedestrian links, car shares; • Prioritize pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; • Provide a well-insulated building that minimizes heat gain and loss; • Specify energy-efficient windows; • Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use, and • Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner or tenant for use. Overall, as the proposed action would result in the development of a vacant and undeveloped property and would incorporate LEED building elements for environmental sustainability, no significant adverse land use impacts would be expected to result upon implementation of the proposed action. • 15 Affordable Green Guidelines,American Institute of Architects. 179 4.4.2 Community Character Although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. Therefore, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. The proposed development would continue this pattern. The proposed development would remove a portion of the on-site vegetation along North Road and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to the north, would increase. However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. Appendix S contains architectural renderings of the typical architectural styles being considered for use within the proposed development as well as a rendering of the proposed entry sign at C.R. 48. The architectural design of the residential units will be harmonious with the local vernacular, following the architectural styles of those found in the surrounding houses and Greenport Village. A blend of traditional architectural style with contemporary material and finishes will provide low-maintenance, high-value homes. The workforce housing units will be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in architectural appearance. Hardiplank cement board siding is proposed to be; used. This material provides an attractive shingle or clapboard appearance, while being maintenance-free and fire resistive. All the materials will be of the highest quality. Multiple front and side gables, varying roof heights and styles as well as the different styles of architecture would add visual interest to the community. • 180 • The variety of housing sizes will provide a residential setting that meets the needs of various populations. According to the applicant, the goal is to design the landscaping and homes within this community to be contextual with the surrounding architecture and environment of the Village of Greenport, as noted above. Some design elements will include: • We'll-landscaped public areas and preservation of mature vegetation; • Integration of walkways and bike paths to encourage pedestrian access; • Homes with front porches, situated close to the street, to encourage community interaction and to maximize public safety, • A mixture of housing types to meet community needs; and • A variety of home design and styles instead of uniform suburban sprawl. While changing the property from an undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, such development would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent • with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. 4.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies Town Master Plan (1985) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, based on the work of its consultants and input from the public, the Southold Planning Board recommended the Master Plan Update to the Town Board. However, although adopted by the Southold Planning Board, the Southold Town Board never adopted the Master Plan Update. As such, the Town of Southold LWRP acts as the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, a consistency analysis of the proposed action with the 1985 Town Master Plan was not prepared. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant sections of the Town's LWRP is presented in the Section 4.4.4 of this DEIS. • 181 • Town Affordable Housing Policies & Program (199 As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Evaluation prepared by the Southold Town Board evaluated Southold's five policy approaches used since 1980 to meet the need of affordable housing. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with these approaches follows: Financial Assistance As noted in Section 3.4.3, the policy of the financial. assistance approach is "to assist low income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable..." According to the Evaluation, this policy is aimed at giving those who have nowhere else to turn a chance to help themselves obtain decent housing through the programs that have been developed by the Town/ North Fork Housing Alliance ("N-FHA") partnership. Implementation of the proposed action would provide 64 workforce units in which the Village of Greenport would be responsible for determining occupant eligibility. As such, the proposed action would be in keeping with this policy. However, should the subject property not be annexed into Greenport • the proposed development density would not be permissible. Thus, the number of workforce units would be lower than proposed (five verses 64), due to financial feasibility. Accessory Apartments As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the accessory apartment policy is aimed "...to promote the fuller utilization of excess housing capacity in existing single family dwellings..." The proposed action does not include accessory apartments, thus this policy is not applicable. • 182 • Density Incentives As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the intent of the density incentive policy is "to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income" and to encourage developers to construct the same. As such, the Town adopted the Affordable Housing District ("AHD"), which gives the Planning Board the authority to reduce or amend yard setback requirements, etc. Although the subject site is not located within the AHD, it would provide 64 workforce units within a multi-family development located within a R-2 Zoning District. Direct Action As indicated in Section 3.4.3, approximately thirteen acres of land from the County and the Town were committed to the program. This approach required the Town obtain the land and construct the homes. The subject site is privately-owned and proposed to. be privately- developed, while still providing 64 units of workforce housing. The proposed project involves no subsidy or dedication of land for development. Public/Not-for-Profit Partnerships As previously indicated, this approach involved a partnership between the Town and Housing alliance with Habitat for Humanity which resulted in the most inexpensive single-family housing for the lowest possible income bracket. Although the housing program may be administered by a public or not-for-profit agency, such agency would not be involved in either building or subsidizing the development. Overall, the proposed project fits within the policy approaches established in the Town Affordable Housing Policies and Programs document. • 183 • Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Study sets forth a series of recommendations to the Town Board. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with each recommendation follows: Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space As previously indicated, the Stewardship Study recommended that the best way to preserve farmland is to preserve the economic viability of farming and the most direct protection is large lot zoning (i.e., 25 acres or agricultural zones) in which non-agricultural activity is allowed_ In addition, the Stewardship Study explored the uses to which preserved open space can be put and recommended that "the land need not be totally idle, but would best serve the needs of residents if uses consistent with the character of open space could evolve in a "partnership with the land." The subject site is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes. The property is privately-owned Szoned for residential use and proposed to be privately developed. Therefore, as indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the proposed development involves situating the dwelling units such that they would preserve the greatest amount of vegetation and open space with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland(see Appendix G). Sustainable Economic Development As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Study recommended recognizing and enhancing the strengths of the existing local economy. • agriculture, • marine activities; and • tourism. • 184 Implementation of the proposed action would not directly enhance the local economy as suggested as the site is not and has not been used for agricultural purposes, is not located adjacent to marine waters and would not enhance or promote tourist activities, as the subject parcel is zoned for residential purposes. A brief consistency analysis with other sections of the Stewardship Study follows: Water As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the Stewardship Stual recommends specifically, the management of surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters. In addition, the Study indicates that due to the nature of the soil types in Southold groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities and it is important to discourage overpumping which could result in salt water intrusion. The SCWA has provided a letter of water availability for the proposed development. In addition, the development would be connected to the municipal sewer system, which has the capacity to serve the site. Furthermore, . stormwater will be collected and recharged on-site. Thus, the proposed development would not have significant adverse impact on water resources and would, thus, be consistent with this recommendation. Affordable Housing Southold residents in need of housing assistance include young families, the elderly, low-wage earners, and the working poor. Implementation of the proposed action would contribute to the availability of affordable housing by providing 64 workforce housing units. Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting As previously indicated, the hamlets have been the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold and the Stewardship Study recommends allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. The proposed development would occur • within a HALO Zone identified in the Southold Hamlet Study but not within a historic district. 185 • As demonstrated above, the subject site and proposed development is in an area that includes higher density residential and residential type (lodging, nursing home) facilities. Thus, the proposed development would fit with the character of the community. Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold(199 7) The crux of the Economic Development Plan is to encourage economic growth and expansion in and around the hamlets within the Town. While the proposed development is residential, it will bring more people into the downtown area and will allow people of varying incomes to contribute to the local economy. Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) The 1998 CPPP, prepared July 1998, identifies how the Town intends to preserve or protect properties that are integral to the unique community character of Southold. The CPPP's purpose was intended to be a guide for interested landowners who voluntarily chose to work with the • Town to preserve and protect privately-owned real estate assets in a way that benefits the community and as well as the landowner. According to the CPPP, the subject parcel has been listed as an eligible parcel for preservation. However, at the time of this writing, the Town of Southold has not approached the landowner regarding preservation. It the intention of the landowner to develop the subject parcel with multi- family residences. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) The purpose of the Corridor Study, "...is to provide recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate land use and zoning within the corridor" by identifying the characteristics of the corridor..." As previously indicated, the C.R. 48 study area was divided into six segments, which are • identified by hamlet. The subject property is situated within the Greenport Hamlet segment. 186 Although this Section of the Corridor Study recommends lowering the density of the subject property, the proposed development meets the needs criteria that have been identified and that are discussed below. A Consistency Analysis with the Outstanding Needs section of the Corridor Study follows: • Provide for viable land use development at intensities sensitive to subsurface water quality and quantity; The proposed action would require an increase in housing density on the subject parcel. Implementation of the proposed action involves connection to municipal sewer and water. The SCWA (water) and the Village (sewer) have indicated sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development. Furthermore, stormwater will be captured and recharged on-site. As such, significant impact to subsurface water quality and quantity would be minimized. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is in • keeping with this criterion. • Provide for a variety of housing opportunities for citizens of different incomes and age levels; As previously indicated, the proposed action involves the development of 128 residential units of which 64 would be designated as workforce units, available to citizens of different incomes. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is consistent with this goal. • Ensure the efficient and safe movement of people and goods within the Town; The Traffic Impact Study indicates a minimal increase in the traffic volumes along C.R. 48 as a result of the proposed action. As such, the safe movement of people and goods would be maintained. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this criterion. • 187 • • Preserve visual quality of hamlet centers,- The enters;The proposed development is located along C.R. 48 and, thus, would be visible from the surrounding roadway. However, the frontage of the development, with the exception of the access drive and the emergency access drive, would be landscaped with screening vegetation. Thus, the implementation of the proposed action is in keeping with this goal. • Encourage appropriate land uses both inside and out of hamlet centers; and The proposed action includes the development of residential units within an existing residentially-zoned and developed area. As such, the proposed development blends with the existing land use pattern in the area. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this goal. • Preserve the integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, including freshwater wetlands • and woodlands. As shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan in Appendix G of this DEIS, the limit of disturbance of the proposed development would not encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer. In addition, the proposed on-site drainage would accommodate stormwater runoff. As such, implementation of the proposed action would preserve a significant portion of the existing vegetation and minimize any significant impact to the freshwater wetlands. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with this criterion. Southold Township Plan: 2000 Planninz Initiatives As indicated in Section 3.4.3, this plan was unavailable for review, although attempts, through telephone contacts, were made with several Town departments, including the Town Clerk and the Planning Department. • 188 • Town Water Supply Management& Watershed Protection StrateQV (20 0) As indicated in Section 3.4.3, the WSM & WPS for the Town of Southold was prepared to address the protection of the quality and quantity of Southold's groundwater supply and the maintenance of the community's rural agricultural character. The WSM & WPS proposes a number initiatives including the establishJuent of new zoning and special district designations as well as coordinating expansion of services. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the findings of the WSM &WPS, follows: • The WSM & WPS advises limiting population density and controlling growth to the maximum extent possible, seeking a commitment from the SCWA to not extend public water lines to such areas, and coordinating future extensions in accordance with its watershed protection objectives. The SCWA has provided a letter of water availability for the proposed development. • The WSM & WPS also recommends Southold explore Water Quality Treatment Districts ("WQTD'), a Critical Environmental Land ("CEL') ordinance that specifically recognizes land within the municipality determined to be environmentally sensitive, and the establishment of two Watershed Protection Zones ("WPZ'). This recommendation is directed to the Town of Southold. At the time of this DEIS, it is the applicant's understanding that the Town:has not adopted WQTDs, CELs or WPZs. • The WSM & WPS recommends within WPZ's, Southold adopt a Conservation Subdivision Program ("CSP') to create a disincentive for landowners to propose traditional developments utilizing cluster or grid style designs and alternatively redirect their projects to more desirable locations within the Town. • 189 As noted above, it is the applicant's understanding that the Town has not adopted any • WPZs. Scenic Southold Corridor Mana-ement Plan (2001) The Scenic Southold CMP evaluated seven roads within in the Town, which included C.R. 48. Section 3 of the Scenic Southold CMP entitled Recommended Byways Designation in Southold, recommends that C.R. 48 should be designated in its entirety as a scenic byway.16 Preserving the distinct essence of hamlet areas through urban design is vital to Town character. General urban design principles address not only the existing prominent scenic routes, but also in other parts of the hamlets where new development or change to existing areas is being contemplated within the Town. A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the Planning and Design Guidelines for Hamlet areas as recommended in the Scenic Southold CMP follows: . • Maintenance of urban rural distinction ensuring that edges of hamlets are defined by adjacent open space and scenic views; As the shown on the proposed Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, development would be directed toward the center of the site maintaining a buffer around the edges of the property. This buffer contains both forested area and wetlands that will be preserved with the exception of the access and emergency access, the frontage of the property would be landscaped. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be in keeping with this recommendation. 16 According to http://byways.or�, (National Scenic Byways Online)only Route 25 in the Town of Southold is considered part of the North Fork Trail Scenic Byway. 190 _.... _.... • • Patterns of new development where possible consolidating new development close to hamlet centers with small lots mixed-uses, interconnected streets and dense walkable neighborhoods to maintain the vitality and affordability that is lost to large-lot suburbia; As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action would increase the density of housing on the subject parcel, which would allow a significant number of workforce housing units to be provided. In addition, according to the Southold Hamlet Study, the subject parcel is located within the Greenport West Halo Zone. As such the proposed development is situated proximate to the hamlet center of Greenport. Thus, the implementation of the proposed action would comport with this recommendation. • Landmarks-- designed and positioned in central and visible locations such as the ends of streets,public destinations, or congregation points within the hamlet; . The proposed action does not involve the creation of any landmarks. Thus, this recommendation would not be applicable to the implementation of the proposed action. • Sidewalks-- wheelchair accessible and a minimum of five feet in width, and tree lined with optional seating (benches) or planters. Specific character or stylistic elements can be delineated by hamlet to provide further visual continuity to a streetscape; As shown on the Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action would provide an internal sidewalk system as the subject property is not located within a downtown area. • 191 • 0 New street patterns and widths wherever possible creating redundancy and interconnection with clear direct and understandable patterns. Streets should accommodate emergency vehicles and on street parallel parking but generally be as narrow as possible to encourage pedestrian use and slow traffic; As shown on the Preliminary _Alignment Plan in Appendix G, the proposed action involves the construction of a single dual-access driveway, capable of accommodating emergency vehicles. Thus, the proposed development would comport with this criterion. ® Building alignment facades parallel to the street and adhering to setback lines that define an edge to the public space along hamlet streets; The development would occur within the Greenport West HALO Zone not within the Hamlet Center or downtown area. Thus, this recommendation would not be applicable. • • Fences and landscape screening-use native grasses or landscape materials wherever possible to buffer parking. Use street trees sited and sized to work with utility wires in the short to medium term. Fences should be shorter than four feet and colored/shaped according to established character of village context; The proposed frontage of the development, with the exception of the access drive and the emergency access drive, would be landscaped with screening vegetation. Thus, the implementation of the proposed action is in keeping with this goal. • 192 • . Parking lots located to the rear of buildings or where not possible on the side screened from the street Parking lots on corner lots should be strongly discouraged as these areas should be designed with an emphasis on pedestrian use. They should be designed with permeable surfaces wherever possible eventually a goal of the Planning Board in granting any site plan approval; and As indicated above, proposed parking would be situated toward the interior of the site and behind the structures proposed closest to North Road. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this recommendation. • Residential garages built behind houses or kept to the rear of the lot where possible garage doors should never dominate the facade of a building This is imperative in Southold where the integrity of older- historic buildings may be jeopardized where the automobile taxes prominence,- As rominence;As shown on the proposed Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G of this DEIS, residential garages are not proposed. Thus, this recommendation would not be applicable to the implementation of the proposed action. North Fork Travel Needs Assessment(2002) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural primarily recreational North Fork of Long Island. 193 A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the North Fork Travel Needs Assessinent follows: According to the LITP, C.R. 58 was originally constructed to serve as a bypass route around downtown Riverhead where the main road, Route 25), had become congested. However, the LITP indicates considerable development has occurred along C.R. 58 in recent years and traffic volumes now exceed those found on either Route 25 or C.R. 48. As the proposed development would be situated on C.R. 48 North Road, the incremental increase of additional traffic would not substantially increase the traffic volume on C.R. 58. As a number of larger parcels of farmland still exist, many with frontage along or access to more than one road, the LITP recommends, when property owners or developers make application for subdivision of such parcels, parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors should have such access preserved during the subdivision review process and the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new smaller properties are not created that only . have access to arterials thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. The subject property only has access to C.R. 48. 194 According to the LITP site plans for subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections, either driveways or internal roadways. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point providing combined access to affected parcels which would limit the number of potential conflict points on an arterial road. As the only access to the subject property is along C.R. 48 North Road and the proposed development does not require the subdivision of land, the proposed development would include the construction of a single dual-access driveway from C.R. 48 and off-street parking. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with this recormnendation. Blue Ribbon Commission for.Rural Southold,Final Report(July 2002) The BRC was charged by the Southold Town Board to make specific and detailed recommendations for preserving operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the Town, which includes issues of environmental quality, open space potential, population density, affordable housing, and public water. Although these recommendations were never formally adopted or implemented, a consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant findings of this study follows: • Conservation subdivisions, which give priority to preserving land rather than to creation of house lots, must have a significant and permanent conservation preservation element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire acreage relative to current zoning; Although not a typical conservation subdivision, as defined above, due to the shape and configuration of the subject site, the proposed units would be oriented toward the center of the parcel, thereby preserving approximately 10.5 acres of existing red maple swamp, old fields and southern hardwood forests. By developing multifamily units on the property instead of single-family units across the entire site, it allows for large contiguous natural areas to be preserved as common open space, which is one of the principle • objectives of conservation subdivisions. 195 • • Southold proposed a new planned development district ("PDD'), referred to as a Rural Incentive District ("RID) to.facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space and maintain landowner equity; At the time of this DEIS, a RID zoning district has not been established. Thus, no further analysis is required. • That there be no general up-zoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the RID to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density; At the time of this DEIS, a RID zoning district has not been established. Thus, no further analysis is warranted. Town of Southold Housin,-Needs Assessment June 2005 As noted in Section 3.4.3, the Needs Assessment found that the scarcity of vacant land on Long Island has limited opportunities for development, specifically affordable housing, and the Town's efforts to preserve open space has further limited the amount of raw land available for the development of new housing. In addition, the Needs Assessment indicates that development is further curtailed by the lack of sewage treatment outside the Village of Greenport and the lack of accessibility to public water. According to the; Needs Assessment, the Town attempted to address the lack of affordable housing, however the; Town did not anticipate that housing prices would increase exceedingly beyond inflation. As such, the Town did not see the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Thus, the Town no longer has an inventory of affordable housing. The Needs Assessment concludes that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities; to do so without assistance. • 196 'The proposed action would provide 64 affordable workforce housing units and involve the • connection to the Village of Greenport's municipal sewer system. As described earlier, the Village has the capability and capacity to provide disposal and treatment for sewage effluent generated by the proposed project. Moreover, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property with municipal water. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would help fulfill the need for workforce housing as identified in the Needs Assessment. Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The Southold Hamlet Study notes that the subject site is located within the hamlet of Greenport West, which is described as the area that surrounds the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The Southold Hamlet Study indicates that the Village of Greenport serves as the hamlet center for Greenport West. Greenport West includes notable features, such as preserved lands and wetlands, which "...serve to establish a distinctive character for the Hamlet." A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the relevant hamlet vision recommendations • for the future of Greenport West follows: • The Hamlet of Greenport West is comprised of a series of distinctive residential neighborhoods. While individually unique, collectively these neighborhoods establish the overall character of Greenport West. It is imperative that the individual integrity of the Hamlet's residential neighborhoods are (sic)preserved. The proposed action involves the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town of Southold into Greenport, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property into a multi-family residential community consisting of 128 dwelling units. As such, the annexation and development of the subject parcel as a multi-family residential neighborhood would not jeopardize the :individual integrity of the Hamlet's other residential neighborhoods. Thus, implementation of the proposed action is consistent with . this recommendation. 197 • © Embrace a diversity of housing types, such as townhouses, attached single family dwellings, multi family dwellings, etc., within the overall context of the existing character of the Hamlet_ The proposed development includes one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate as well as workforce housing units. Northwind Village will provide for diverse housing within the Greenport West area in compliance with this criterion. • The creation of affordable "workforce" housing opportunities is a priority_ A new HALO zone is recommended to facilitate this goal. The parameters of this new zoning, should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, at densities of up to % acre. (I dwelling/10,000 square feet of lot area). The Greenport HALO zone was adopted in early 2008. See the following bulleted item for further discussion. • If appropriate infrastructure is available, including sewers, densities of up to 1/8 acre within clustered subdivisions are acceptable.. The subject property is not located in the adopted Greenport HALO zone. However, at the time of the writing of this plan, the subject property was located within this proposed HALO zone. The multi-family development is proposed to be connected to the municipal sewer system. The proposed density is approximately 7.4 units per acre, less than that recommended herein (8.0 units per acre). The proposed development (which would contain 64 units of workforce housing) would be clustered around an internal roadway, such that the design maximizes the distance from the wetlands. Therefore, the proposed development would comply with this recommendation. • 198 • Accessory apartments are also viewed as an opportunity to meet housing needs. The proposed development does not include the construction of accessory apartments, but does provide 64 workforce housing units. • Greenport West has a unique "sense of place" that should be preserved, protected and reinforced. The architecture of the proposed units will reflect architecture found in the Greenport area (see photographs in Appendix O and renderings of typical architecture in Appendix S). The aforementioned HALO zone is depicted on three maps, dated November 2004 and December 2004, and March 20, 2008 respectively, and are included herewith as Figure 15 , Figure 16, and Figure 17 of this DEIS. According to the map entitled HALO Map, at the time of the Hamlet Study, the subject property was situated within the Greenport West hamlet HALO zone. According to the second map entitled HALO Non-Buildable Lands Map, the subject property is not a protected land nor does it contain community facilities. However, according to the adopted HALO map for Greenport, in contradiction of the recommendation in the Hamlet Study, the subject property is not within the Greenport HALO zone. The Southold Hamlet Study also provides recommendations for hamlet-wide specific improvements. These improvements were identified under sixteen headings. Of these sixteen headings, the following were determined to be relevant to the proposed project: Streetscape, Building Design, Vehicular Circulation, Infrastructure, Maintenance, Housing, Open Space Preservation. An analysis of the proposed action with the relevant recommendations under these headings follows: • 199 Streetscape • Sidewalks (one side of the street) are encouraged to promote walking. As the subject property is not located within a downtown area, the proposed action involves the construction of sidewalks only within the proposed development, in order to minimize clearing along the road frontage. ® Off-street parking should be setback from the road to allow for a substantial landscaped buffer. Parking should be placed behind front yard setback line next to buildings. Off-street parking will be provided behind the front yard setback and proposed dwelling units toward the interior of the site. As such, the proposed off-street parking allows for a substantial landscaped buffer along the road frontage. Thus, the propose action would be consistent with this recommendation. • • Adequate parking should be provided in newly created residential and commercial areas. The Preliminary Alignment Plan in Appendix G depicts off-street parking located on-site. As such, adequate off-street parking would be provided to accommodate the newly created residential use. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be in keeping with this recommendation. • To promote the natural landscape, use natural/preserved buffers (75'-100) along the Hamlet's main roads (if they do not already exist). These buffers would be mandatory zoning setbacks, and would prevent any structures from be (sic) erected, or existing trees and/or vegetation from being removed. The exception would be to allow for a single curb cut and a driveway to traverse through the buffer zone. Non-compliance would result in a violation of the zoning code. i 200 As the proposed action involves the annexation of the subject property, the proposed • development has been designed to meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning district of Greenport, and not the Town's requirement. Given this, and the fact that the development has been designed to preserve the wetlands, the proposed dwelling units are located at a minimum of 30 feet from the front yard property boundary, in compliance with Greenport's R-2 zoning district. Thus, a natural landscape buffer of 75 feet to 100 feet would not be maintained. One of the attractive aspects of the Hamlet Center's streetscape are (sic) its street trees. Preserving these trees however, requires an on-going commitment. A street tree planting program is recommended that incorporates regular pruning and maintenance as well as the replacement of damaged or dead trees on a regular basis. As the subject property is not located within a downtown area, the proposed development does not involve the installation of street trees. As such a street tree planting program- would rogramwould not be required. However, the proposed development will include a landscape buffer along the road frontage, landscaping within the development and retention of existing wooded vegetation with the property boundaries. Suildin2 Design • The Hamlet supports a diversity of housing types and styles, and this is viewed as a strength. Restricting housing design "types" is unnecessary. The proposed Northwind Village community would provide a variety of housing sizes (from 850 square feet to 1,500 square feet) and will provide both workforce and market- rate dwelling units. The workforce units would be architecturally indistinguishable from the market-rate units. The style of homers would be in harmony with those in the surrounding community. • 201 • Landscape planning is a [sic] integral element of good overall building design, and is an important concern. Naturallhative plantings should be used for all new projects. The nature and scope of the development will necessitate substantial regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As such, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed avill be protected. This includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property. In addition, in areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. All disturbed areas that are not planned to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Parks, yards and other softscape areas will be landscaped with native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native materials and tree • species to re-establish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site, thereby complying with this recommendation. Vehicular Circulation o Roads in new developments should be integrated into the existing roadway network. Individual isolated cul-de-sacs should be avoided. The development would provide a single dual-access drive from North Road and an internal private driveway with a circular traffic pattern. An emergency access would also be provided to North Road. Thus, the proposed development would comply with this recommendation. • 202 Infrastructure • • Drainage and stormwater runoff should be handled by each site and not permitted to flow off the specific site onto public "right of ways, "[sic] or towards protected/wetlands type properties. Drainage and stormwater runoff engineering shall be emphasized in site development and design and shall conform to NYSDEC Phase II requirements. Possib y consider natural and permeable surfaces for stormwater. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. The two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. Furthermore, runoff is not anticipated to flow off-site onto public-rights-of-way or wetlands. Maintenance • Greenport West's scenic vistas are one of the hamlets most important attributes. These vistas must be maintained. Litter must be removed, trees pruned,fences mended, etc. The subject property is located along C.R. 48, which is the only area where views are publicly available. The area of this site has not been designated as a scenic vista. With the exception of the access and emergency access drives, the frontage of the property will be landscaped. Any litter currently encountered along the property frontage will be removed, and, upon development, the entire Northwind Village community will be properly maintained by a homeowners association. Housing • A new HALO zone is recommended that permits a variety of dwelling types as of right, including detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, townhouses, • garden apartments, multi family dwellings, and accessory apartments. 203 The subject property is zoned HD and, at the time of the Hamlet Plan's adoption, was shown as being located within the Greenport West HALO Zone. However, the adopted HALO Zone does not include the subject property. Therefore, the Town of Southold did not follow its own recommendation since it did not place the subject property within the Greenport HALO zone. The proposed development involves the construction of a 128- unit multi-family development, 64 of which would be workforce units. • The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning up to '/ acre (I dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area). To promote affordable housing, densities of up to 1/8 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available. As noted above, the subject site has not been included in the adopted Greenport HALO Zone, although recommendation for such inclusion was made in the Hamlet Study. However, the proposal was developed at the time the site was included with the proposed Greenport West HALO Zone. The proposed development involves the construction of 128-multi-family dwelling units of which 64 will be designated as workforce units. A density of up to one-eighth acre would allow for approximately 137 units to be constructed on the 17.19±-acre parcel. As such, the construction of 128 units, of which 64 would be affordable, would be consistent with this recommendation. • The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town. The proposed development will provide a mix of market-rate and workforce housing units. As such, the proposed development will contribute to the addition of affordable housing stock within Greenport, one of the hamlets included in the study. • One specific site has been identified for workforce housing in the Greenport West HALO zone as of this point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 • and Main Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). 204 • The aforementioned 4.7-acre property has :not been developed with any housing. The subject property is approximate 17.191 acres and, at the time of the Hamlet Plan's publication, was located within the Greenport West HALO zone, along the south side of C.R. 48. The proposal provides an alternative property along C.R_ 48 capable of accommodating workforce housing units. Open Space Preservation • The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries. Although not within the Greenport HALO Zone, even though this area was recommended for such designation in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study, the proposed multi-family residential development on the subject property would provide residential development • while promoting the preservation of open space, by clustering the units away from the wetlands and some of the forested area on the property. • Preservation of open spaces is a priority, as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Hamlet. The proposed development will preserve approximately 10.54 acres of land adjacent to Moore's Woods, including 3.93 acres of inland wetland. • The hamlet's sensitive wetland resources must be protected and preserved. The proposed development would preserve the entire 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands, including the area within 100-feet of any wetland which would remain undisturbed. As such, the development will protect wetland resources. • 205 Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) The 2006 CPPP, adopted by the Town Board on January 31, 2006, provides an update to the List of Eligible Parcels known as the January 31, 2006 List of Eligible Parcels. The list replaced the 2003 and March 2005 Updates. The 2006 CPPP indicates the text remains as originally adopted with the exception of the January 31, 2006 List of Eligible Parcels, etc. The subject parcel is shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels and classified under Classification Code A and B (open space, including agricultural lands and parks, nature preserves, recreation areas). The Town of Southold has not approached the landowner to discuss preservation of the subject parcel. It is the intention of the Landowner to develop the subject property as proposed. Housing Implementation Plan 2007 • An analysis of the proposed development with the relevant goals of the Implementation Plan, follows: • Promote a diversity of housing stock of rentals and home ownership to address the need for affordable housing throughout the Town of Southold. The proposed development would provide 64 workforce housing units as well as 64 market-rate available for homeownership. The workforce units will contain from one-to- three bedrooms, and range in size from 850 square feet to 1,350 square feet. Thus, the proposed project complies with this goal. • Identify potential locations for affordable housing sites within existing buildings and unimproved lots for new construction. • 206 • The subject propertyis a vacant, unimproved lot located along a County road, which contains both sewer and water infrastructure. Due to its location and its existing infrastructure, the subject property is an appropriate location for the creation of affordable housing units. ® Assess and monitor the need of affordable housing. As previously noted, the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment June 2005, identifies the need for affordable housing within the Town of Southold. In order to fulfill a portion of this need, the proposed development would provide 64 workforce housing units. ® Encourage the implementation of design standards for affordable housing that will foster energy efficiency. • Several sustainable design elements would be integrated into to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transportation (including public bus routes), and community interaction. Energy Star appliances would be specified for the proposed residential units. Also, the buildings would be sufficiently insulated, and energy-efficient windows would be specified. In addition, the proposed development includes Smart Growth aspects such as compact building sizes, a range of housing opportunities. The design of the development also preserves open space and natural resources. It is expected that the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the USGBC.17 As indicated in Section 4.4.1 of this DEIS, the proposed project meets many of the criteria established by the USGBC for LEER-Neighborhood Development certification. . "USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design("LEED")for Homes and LEED for Neighborhood Development, ("ND"). LEED-ND is currently only a pilot program that has specifically enrolled projects. 207 Ensure that a fair and transparent process determines the selection of qualified participants to avail affordable housing opportunities. As indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the Village of Greenport would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce unit in the development. Applications for the purchase of a unit by eligible individuals or famiiies would be selected by lottery. However, it is understood by the applicant that priority may be determined based on the following or similar criteria, at the discretion of the Village, and subject to prevailing regulations: 1. Live in the Greenport UFSD and work in the Town or the Village, and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village, or work as a uniformed police office in the Town of Southold Police Department; 2. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport and provide • volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 3. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport; 4. Live in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 5. Work in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; or 6. Have previously lived in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport. Furthermore, it is understood by the applicant that eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following or similar guidelines: 1. Meet income guidelines of less than. 80 percent or 120 percent of the HUD AMI • for the current year; 208 • 2. Able to secure a mortgage; 3. Agree to occupy the unit as a principal residence, 4. Be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent U.S. Resident; and 5. Agree to credit history and criminal background checks. • Foster successful and stable housing tenure through education to landlords, tenants, and first-time homebuyers. As noted above, the Village would determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase a workforce unit in the development and would inform them of opportunities and responsibilities of homeownership. • • Ensure that all affordable housing remains T>erpetually affordable. While the 64 workforce housing units would remain perpetually affordable, these units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership controls, collectively known as "affordability restrictions." As indicated in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, these restrictions would ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on priority and qualification requirements. • 209 Summary The comprehensive plans examined in this section have two major themes: (1) the preservation of open space/natural resources and the character of the area, and (2) the overwhelming need to provide housing that is affordable to existing North Fork residents so that they can remain in the area. These two goals appear to be at odds, but the careful siting and planning of appropriate development can address both these objectives. It is the applicant's opinion that the location and design of the proposed development, which provides 64 workforce units meets both of the goals that have been expressed in the comprehensive plans that have been reviewed. The site's location on a major road that already contains some higher density residential development and lodging, its direct access to infrastructure (including municipal water and sewer facilities), and its proximity to the downtown area and the cornmunity's clustered layout, which has been designed to keep development away from the wetlands and forest areas, can achieve the disparate goals expressed throughout the aforementioned comprehensive plans. • 4.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan — VillaQe of Greenport(1988) As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Greenport LWRP "serves the Village of Greenport both as a statement of overall planning and development policy" consistent with the objectives of the New York State Coastal Management Program. The existing land use pattern within the Village contains five general land use categories; marine commercial, retail commercial, general commercial, open space; and residential which, "have been established for sometime" and to ensure the compatibility of future development with the existing land use pattern, the proposed land use plan presented in the LWRP will continue to follow the existing land use pattern within the Village. Although the subject site is currently not located within the Village, should annexation occur, the property would be located within the Village's coastal zone. Analysis assuming this condition is provided herein. 210 Inventory and Analysis The inventory divides the Villages waterfront into three waterfront areas (Waterfront Areas 1, 2, and 3) as shown on Map 4 of the LWRP and identifies the land uses within each Waterfront Area. Although located inland from the three waterfront areas, north of Moore's Woods, the subject property is zoned HD. As previously indicated, annexation of the subject property and development as proposed would requires the property's zoning designation change from Southold's HD to R-2. As such, the proposed action would most closely follow the land use pattern in the Waterfront Area 3, which includes two high-density residential uses. With the exception of Moore's Woods, which divides the subject property from the R-2 Zoning District, implementation of the proposed action would continue to follow the zoning pattern within Greenport. In addition, the Greenport LWRP indicates that non-water dependent uses, such as retail shops and 'nigh-density residential uses, are competing for the limited waterfront property. The • Greenport LWRP states "there is little vacant land that is privately owned suitable for new commercial or residential development." The proposed action would utilize a privately-owned vacant property, not located along the waterfront, for residential development. As such, the proposed action would not cause competition between water-dependent uses and high-density residential uses. Section III of the LWRP outlines the forty-four waterfront revitalization program policies, which support the land use plan for the Village as presented in Section IV of the Greenport LWRP. A consistency analysis with the policies from Section :[II of the Greenport LWRP follows: Development Policies Policy 1- Restore, revitalize and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial and industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible uses. • 211 Policy IA- Revitalize Greenport's Waterfront Area by redeveloping deteriorated/underutilized • properties and buildings for appropriate commercial and recreational uses. As the proposed development is not located within a Waterfront Area, the above policies are not applicable to the proposed development. Fish and Wildlife Policies Policy 8 - Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which, bio-accumulate in the_food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. The proposed residential development is not located along the coast. Nevertheless it is not expected to produce hazardous waste or other pollutants. • Flooding and Erosion Policies Policy 11- Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. As the subject property is not located with a flood hazard area, the above criterion would not be applicable to the proposed development. However, a Preliminary SWPP has been developed (and a Final SWPP will be prepared) to address potential erosion concerns. In addition, a Stormwater Management System has been designed to handle and recharge stormwater runoff on-site. Furthermore, as the subject property is not located with a Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zones V4, V5 and V7) the criterion associated with development in such areas would not be applicable to the proposed development. • 212 Policy 12 - Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and bluffs. Primary dunes will be protected from all encroachments that could impair their natural protective capacity. The Greenport LWRP delineates the coastal area as coincident with the inland municipal boundary of the Village. As previously noted, since the subject property is not currently within the Village of Greenport, it is not within the Greenport coastal area. If the requested annexation were to occur, the property would be situated within the Greenport coastal area. The proposed development will preserve approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands, which would remain undisturbed along with the 100-foot adjacent area. In addition, the subject property is located inland from the waterfront and natural resources such as beaches, dunes, banter islands, and bluffs, and is separated from such by C.R. 48 and development to the north of this roadway. See the discussion under Policy 11 regarding erosion control and stormwater management. Overall, the proposed development would confonm to this policy regarding minimization of • damage to natural resources and property. Policy 14 - Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in Erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. In order to reduce losses from flooding and erosion all development and land use activity in the Village of Greenport shall: -- not pose a threat to the public's health safety, and welfare by having the potential to increase damage caused by flooding and/or erosion. -- not significantly alter coastal hazard areas or alter coastal hazard areas or alter beach areas, tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, water courses, and drainage swales found in the Village's waterfront areas so that their- ability to accommodate and channel storm water runoff and flood waters is decreased; • 213 --fill, grade or dredge, to any extent which may increase flood damage; or -- create flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or increase flood hazards in other areas. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. In addition, the two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. A Preliminary SWPPP indicating the use of erosion and sedimentation control measures is included in Appendix; G of this DEIS and discussion in Section 4.2. Furthermore, the proposed development will preserve the approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands. Based upon the proposed project's compliance with the Phase II requirements and the design of the stormwater system, which includes on-site recharge, flooding is not anticipated to occur both during and after constriction. Thus, the proposed development complies with this policy. • General Policy Policy 18- To safeguard the vital ecologic, social and environmental interest of the state and its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the state has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas. The proposed residential development involves the installation of an on-site drainage system to contain the runoff from two-inch rain event or ten-year storm. In addition, the development preserves the approximately 3.93 acres of on-site inland wetlands and adjacent area and additional forested land adjacent to Moore's Woods. In addition, by providing 128 residential units, 64 of which would be workforce units, the proposed development achieves the goal of protecting the social interest of the area by providing affordable housing for area residents. • 214 • Overall, the proposed project, by providing affordable housing, while protecting the site's wetlands and forested areas, complies with the goals of safeguarding the ecological, environmental and social interests of the area's citizens. Historic and Scenic Resources Policies Policy 23- Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of the State, its communities or the Nation. As indicated in Section 3.7.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered on the site. Furthermore, there are no adjacent structures, districts, areas or sites that have been identified as having cultural significance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on historic and scenic resources. Water and Air Resources Policies Policy 33- Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on-site. The site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. In addition, the two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase II requirements. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared and a Final SWPPP will be development in order to address stormwater runoff. No stormwater would run off into coastal waters and no combined sewers are proposed for this site, thereby complying with this policy. s 215 Policy 37- Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non point discharge of • excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters. The predominant soil groups on the site, are described as having only slight erosion potential. In addition, the slopes created during site grading would be stabilized with vegetation to further reduce erosion potential, and detailed SWPPP will be an integral part of the final development plans. Erosion and sediment control measures will :include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (using silt fence, hay bales, etc.) and other measures to prevent erosion and sediment migration onto adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control measures will conform to the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Based upon the characteristics of the existing soil and the proposed implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, the potential for eroded soils to occur is minimal. In addition, sanitary sewage effluent would not be discharged on-site. Sewage will be pumped to the sewer mains within C.R. 48. This sewage effluent will be conveyed to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant, where it will be treated before release into coastal waters, as permitted by the NYSDEC. Finally, since there would be no direct discharge of either stormwater runoff or sewage effluent to coastal water from the subject property, the proposed development would comply with this policy. Policy 38- The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. As previously discussed, stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be handled on- site. As such, the site has been designed to contain the runoff from a ten-year storm event, or two-inches, through the use of drywells placed throughout the developed portion of the site. The two-inch storage capacity would conform to the NYSDEC Phase 11 requirements. In addition, the proposed project includes the connection of the proposed development to the existing municipal water and sewer facilities. s 216 • Thus, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. As such, the proposed development would not result in pollutant loadings to groundwater associated with sanitary waste. Further, no irrigation is proposed as part of the action. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not require the permitting, regulation and monitoring;of irrigation wells. Moreover, best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation, such as minimizing the extent and time areas are exposed, utilizing sediment controls at drainage inlets, installing silt fence at the limit of disturbance prior to the start of construction, maintaining a stabilized construction entrance and seeding any bare or disturbed areas, would be implemented both during and construction and post development. Minimal use of fertilizers to maintain vegetation is expected. Therefore, based upon the design of the project, the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater supplies would be protected. Policy 39- The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes,particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater • and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources. Solid waste generated by the proposed development would be collected and disposed of by private carters to licensed facilities. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with applicable requirements. The proposed action would be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Furthermore, the disposal of hazardous wastes within this residential development is not anticipated. As such, no significant impacts on groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with this policy. • 217 Policy 43- Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of • significant amounts of the acid rain precursor: nitrates and sulfates. The proposed development involves the concoction to the municipal sewer system. As such, there would be no on-site discharge of sanitary waste. In addition, the development would result in the controlled application of turf fertilizers. Best management practices would be followed in the application of fertilizers and pesticides, which would be used only if determined necessary. As such, the proposed development would not result in the generation of significant amounts of nitrates and sulfates. Policy 44- Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The site contains approximately 3.93 acres of freshwater wetlands. The proposed development has been designed with the dwelling units located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. All of the wetlands, as well as a 100-foot-wide buffer around the wetlands, would be preserved. No disturbance would occur • seaward of the 100-foot-wide wetland boundary. In addition, the stormwater drainage system for the proposed development will have capacity sufficient to accommodate a two-inch precipitation event. The installation of a stormwater drainage system will prevent the transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Therefore, the freshwater wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property, and the benefits derived from such wetlands, would be protected based upon the design of the proposed development. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the Greenport LWRP. Local Waterfront Revitalization flan— Town of Southold As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, The subject property is located in a developed coast area. Section III of the Southold LWRP outlines three central policies, under the Developed Coast category, from which standards are derived. These policies implement the New York State Department of State coastal policies, and represent a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies. 218 • A consistency analysis of the proposed action with the policies of Southold's Developed Coast category follows: Developed Coast Policies: 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The proposed action includes the development of a vacant, residentially-zoned, privately-owned property. As indicated In Section 3.4 of this DEIS, the subject site is not located directly in a coastal area, it is separated from coastal waters by both development and C.R. 48. The proposed layout maintains 6.61 acres of the existing native vegetation and protects the 3.93 acres of wetlands on the site, as well as the 100-foot adjacent area. in total, 10.54 acres of land would remain undisturbed of which 7.54 acres are located adjacent to Moore's Woods. In addition, another, 2.51 • acres of vegetation would be planted. As such, native vegetation would be preserved and native species replanted. Thus, the proposed action would generally maintain the ecological character and preserve a significant amount of open space. Infrastructure for the proposed development is located proximate to the subject site. The SCWA has confirmed water mains in the surrounding roadways and the available to supply the projected volumes of water. Also, the Greenport Sewer District has sewer mains in C.R. 48 that are proposed to serve the site. Greenport has expressed its ability to collect and treat sewage effluent generated by this site. Thus, the proposed action makes efficient use of the existing infrastructure. As the subject property is residentially zoned, the proposed action would make beneficial use of the existing property by providing both market-rate and affordable workforce housing. As the site is not located directly on the coast, it would not • hinder development of water-dependent or water-enhanced uses. 219 • Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with the above policy. 2. Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. As indicated in the Southold LWRP, there are no properties listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places in Reach 6, in which the subject property is located. A more detailed discussion of Reach 6 is contained below. Furthermore, a site specific survey found no historic or prehistoric resources. As such, the proposed action would have no affect on historic resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with this criterion. 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. . The proposed development would be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the front yard property boundary and screened b:y landscaping. The proposed parking would be screened from view by the proposed residences. The proposed on-site vegetation is expected to include native species to preserve the natural wooded appearance, while enhancing the site's appearance with varied landscaping treatments. In addition, 10.54± acres of natural woodland vegetation and wetlands would be maintained, in order to retain existing scenic resources. The scenic quality of the subject property would change upon the residential development of the property whether under the existing HD Zoning within Southold or under the proposed R-2 zoning within Greenport. • 220 Given the location of the site on North Road, the proposed development of the site would impact the visual quality of the site. However, installation of landscaping, appropriate siting of structures and retention of much of the natural vegetation and wetlands on site will preserve some of the existing character, while providing much needed housing (especially workforce housing) in the area. Reach Analysis As indicated in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS, the Town of Southold LWRP has divided the lands within the Town into 10 distinct "Reaches." The subject property is located within Reach 6, whose coastal boundaries are from the Village of Greenport's western border at Fanning Point southward to Town Creek Pipes Cove, Southold Bay and Shelter Island Sound. The northern extent of Reach 6 runs along C. R. 48 with land to the north of this road located in Reach 3. The eastern boundary of Reach 6 runs from Fanning Point north along the Town's border with the Village of Greenport's to North Street where the boundary line shifts to the west along North Street to its junction with Moore's Lane. At Moore's Lane, the boundary shifts to the north to the Lane's junction with C.R. 48 whereupon it runs in a westerly direction to Youngs Avenue in Southold. The western boundary of Reach runs south along Youngs (Railroad) Avenue from its intersection with C.R. 48 south to S.R. 25, then east along S.R. 25 to Hobart Road, then south along Hobart Road out to Southold Bay. The Southold LWRP identifies the predominant land uses within Reach 6 as being medium density residential uses, followed by agricultural, resort residential, and vacant lands. Other uses include marine commercial uses, hamlet business resort, seasonal residential development and institutional uses. • 221 • In the section Agricultural Protection, the Reach 6 analysis identifies areas of existing agricultural land still in production and areas subject to development pressure. The Southold LWRP also indicates the land that had been cultivated or used for dairy or horse breeding farms within the Reach has reverted to fields, meadows and woods. According to the Southold LWRP, as some of this land is "on (or adjacent to) the waters of Hashomomuck Pond and Southold Bay, the potential for this land to be subdivided into residential communities is enormous." In addition, the Southold LWRP suggests that although this land may be needed to absorb additional residential growth, this agricultural land has significant potential to act as a visual and physical boundary that buffers the hamlet of Southold from the marina operations to the east as there is limited amounts of protected open space within Reach 6. The subject site is not used for agricultural purposes. As indicated in Section 4.5.4 of this DEIS, the SCWA has confirmed the availability of water, and Cameron Engineering has confirmed the available capacity of the municipal sewer infrastructure and the sewage treatment plant to accommodate the proposed development (see • Appendices J and M). According to the Southold LWRP, development trends show a shift of land from agricultural use to residential development. The Master Plan Update, cited within the LWRP, proposes the future pattern of land use encourage residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets. Further, the Master Plan Update proposed lower residential densities in the remainder of the Town, specifically in agricultural and coastal areas. The LWRP "seeks to advance these land use goals with particular emphasis on ensuring that local residents who work in the Town are not priced out of the housing market." • 222 As noted in Section 4.4.4, above, the Southold LWRP recognizes the competing goals of maintaining open space and rural character, while providing affordable housing for Town residents_ However, reducing residential densities cannot advance the goal of providing and maintaining affordable housing. Concentrating multi-family developments on a few parcels, while preserving the open space and natural resource characteristics of these parcels would assist in providing a compromise in meeting these disparate, but eTuaily important, goals. The proposed Northwind Village residential development strives to achieve these objectives. • 223 4.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES • 4.5.1 Public Schools The intended market of the proposed development is current and previous residents of the Town and the Village, particularly working individuals and families who have been forced to move away or live in inadequate conditions due to rising home prices and the insufficient supply and variety of housing. As noted, 50 percent of units in the proposed development would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project will be young individuals or families looking for their first home. It is anticipated that the limited size of the units would constrain potential household size and, thus, the number of school-age children generated. Furthermore, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living within the Greenport UFSD. As previously noted, the subject site lies within the Greenport UFSD. The proposed annexation would not change this status. The following school-aged children projections assume 100 . percent enrollment in the public school system, representing a worst-case scenario. • 224 • School-A,-ed Children Projections Given the composition of the unit types, sizes, intended market, and purchase restrictions, an estimate of the number of school-age children generated by the project can be developed. To estimate the potential impact of the proposed project on the Greenport UFSD, coefficients for the number of school-age children generated by housing of different prices, types, and sizes were determined using three sources. The first set of estimates was developed using a 2006 report of residential demographic multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University (the "Rutgers Study"). The multipliers created by the Rutgers Study are widely-accepted and utilized in school impact analyses. The second source is actual enrollment statistics from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ("NCES") for the Greenport UFSD. Custom multipliers were generated using actual enrollment, demographic, and housing statistics for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000. The third source for estimating school-age children generated by the proposed development are • multipliers utilized by the Town of Southold in its own calculations included in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("CIS/FGEIS"), dated August 2003. For buildings of five or more units, the Rutgers Study found that a one-bedroom unit selling between $164,500 and $269,500 generated 0.19 school-age children per unit. Similarly, the Rutgers Study found 0.19 school-age children per unit for each two-bedroom unit in buildings of five or more units selling for between $135,000 and $329,500 per unit. Three-bedroom units in buildings with five or more units produced 0.59 school-age children per unit. Finally, four- bedroom attached single-family homes generated 1.19 school-age children per unit.18 18 The Rutgers Study includes all prices ranges for three-bedroom units in buildings of five or more units and for • four-bedroom attached single-family homes in its school-age children multiplier estimates. 225 The NCES data for the Greenport UFSD for the year 2000 (latest available) indicates a total • enrollment of 620 students from 2,500 housing units within the District boundaries. Therefore, the overall number of school-age children generated per housing unit in the Greenport UFSD was 0.25. Disaggregating the data by number of bedrooms per housing unit, the NCES data indicate that a one-bedroom unit generated 0.11 school-age children, a two-bedroom unit generated 0.17 school-age children, a three-bedroom unit generated 0.27 school-age chiidren, and a four-bedroom unit generated 0.49 school-age children. In the Town of Southold CIS/FGEIS (August 2003), the Town utilized multipliers for school-age children generated per housing unit based on number of bedrooms and unit type (single-family, townhouse, or apartment). The number of school-age children generated per unit in townhouses is 0.033 for one-bedroom units, 0.168 for two-bedroom units, and 0.532 for three-bedroom units. For comparison, the number of school-age children generated by a four-bedroom single-family home is 1.328. The three sets of multipliers utilized for this analysis (The Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold CI_S/FGEIS) are summarized in Table 14, Table 15, and • Table 16 below: Table 14—Rutgers Study Demographic Multipliers School-Age No. of Sales Price No. of Units Children Bedrooms Range of Unit in Building Generated Per Unit. 1 $164,500 to 5+ 0.19 $269,500 2 $135,000 to 5+ 0.19 $329,500 3 All 5+ 0.59 4 All Attached Single-Family 1.19 Source: Burchell, Robert W. et al. 2006. Residential Demographic Multipliers Estimates of the Occupants of New Housing — New York. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center,for Urban Policy Research. • 226 • Table 15—NCES Demographic Multipliers No. of School-Age Children Bedrooms Generated' Per Unit 1 0.11 2 0.17 3 0.27 4 0.49 Source: U.S.Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics,Greenport School District-, Author's calculations. Table 16—Town of Southold Demographic Multipliers No. of Type of School-Age Children Bedrooms Unit Generated Per Unit 1 Townhouse 0.033 2 Townhouse 0.168 3 Townhouse 0.532 4 Single-Family 1.328 Source: Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement., August 2003. The estimated number of school-age children generated by the proposed development, based on the multipliers from the Rutgers Study, the NCES data, and the Town of Southold is 52, 26, and 42, respectively. Therefore, the average estimate of school-age children generated by the proposed project based on all the three sources is 40 students. All of these figures assume that 100 percent of the school children generated would attend public schools. i 227 It is important to compare the impact of the proposed project with what could be built on the site as-of-right under current zoning. The parcel is currently zoned Hamlet Density in the Town of Southold which allows a residential density of four units per acre. This density translates to an allowable as-of-right yield of 50 units, as will be discussed in Section 7.3 of this DEIS. It can be assumed that the lower density of the as-of-right project would facilitate the development of four-bedroom detached single-family homes. Using the above analysis techniques, the Hamlet Density as-of-right project would generate between 25 and 66 school-age children, based on the three sources of multipliers. A comparison of the estimated school-age children generated by the proposed project, the alternative 108-unit project (see discussion in Section 7.2 of this DEIS), and the 50-unit, as-of-right project is provided in Table 17 below: Table 17—Estimates of School-Aged Children Generated Rutgers NCES Town of Alternative Study Greenport. Southold Average UFSD ' CI/FGEIS Proposed Project 52 26 42 40 108-Unit 51 25 44 40 Alternative 50-Unit As-of- 60 25 66 50 Right Alternative The results presented in Table 17 indicate that the: proposed development will generate fewer school-age children than if the site were developed according to its current, as-of-right zoning. According to the Rutgers Study multipliers, the proposed development would produce 52 school- age children, while the as-of-right alternative would generate 60 school-age children. Using the NCES data multipliers, the proposed project would generate 26 school-aged children and the as- of-right alternative project would generate 25 school-aged children. Applying the standards utilized by the Town of Southold in its CIS/FGE,IS the proposed project would generate 42 school aged-children and the as-of-right alternative project would produce 66 school-aged children. • 228 • Capacity There has been some question as to the current functional capacity of the Greenport UFSD. Although the stated capacity is 1,100 students, current New York State Education Department ("NYSED") regulations may have reduced the functional capacity of the school. However, given the stated capacity and 2006-07 total enrollment figures, the school is currently under- utilized as defined by NYSED. Based on these figures, the school could accommodate an additional 439 students. To begin to gauge the impact of potential additional enrollment, Table 18 presents several figures for the actual capacity of the school and room for additional enrollment: Table 18— Greenport School Capacity vs. Enrollment Current Enrollment (06-07) 661 661 661 661 Capacity(functional) 1,100 990 880 770 i Stated Capacity Adjustment 100% 90% 80% 70% Potential Additional Students 439 329 , 219 109 . Source:NYSED EMSC Based upon Table 18, the figures suggest that even if the actual current functional capacity of the school were only 770 students, fully 30 percent less than the stated capacity of 1,100, the school would still be able to accommodate 109 new students. At the stated capacity, the school is able to accommodate 439 new students before reaching its capacity. In a conversation between the applicant and the Greenport Superintendent of Schools Dr. Charles Kozora on August 22, 2005, Dr. Kozora acknowledged that Greenport School has physical capacity for the proposed project. In fact, he noted that several secondary school classrooms are unused due to insufficient enrollment. • 229 • The analysis conducted above projects that between 26 and 52 school-age children may be generated by the proposed development. Using the highest value of this range and the 2006/07 student enrollment, the Greenport UFSD would have a total enrollment of only 713 students after the phased completion of the proposed project, which is only 64.8 percent of the stated capacity of the District. Therefore, the Greenport School District has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the highest possible dumber of school-aged children generated by the proposed proj ect. 4.5.2 Fire Protection The subject property is located within the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Cliff Harris on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the Fire Department. A follow-up letter was sent on July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Greenport Fire Department recording secretary responded for Chief Harris via e-mail to the applicant (see • Appendix P). The response verified the number of Department members, total number of calls responded to in 2007 and the receiving hospital for emergency care. The proposed annexation would not have an impact on fire protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service. Furthermore, the Fire District would receive the increased property taxes generated by Northwind Village, which would be slightly higher than under the as-of—right development (see Section 2.5 of this DEIS, which indicates that higher overall taxes would be generated by the proposed action as compared to the as-of-right subdivision) . • 230 To minimize the potential impacts to the Greenport Fire Department, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. All internal driveways would be designed for proper turning radii for all emergency service vehicles and an emergency access driveway will be constructed at the northeast corner of the subject property. All hallways and stairways would be of adequate width to accommodate emergency personnel. Additionally, as indicated earlier in this DEIS, in correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SC—WA confirmed water availability for domestic use and fire protection for the proposed action (see Appendix M). Overall, the proposed action (including annexation and development) is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. 4.5.3 Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Correspondence and project plans were forwarded to Chief Carlisle Cochran on February 17, 2008 to advise of the proposed action and to request information on the existing demands of the • Police Department. Additional correspondence was submitted on July 12, 2008 (see Appendix P). The Town of Southold Police Department has not provided information in response to the request. The proposed annexation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Similar to the; Fire District, the Police Department would receive increased property taxes to be generated b:y Northwind Village. Such taxes would be slightly higher than those produced by the as-of-right development (see Section 2.5 of this DEIS, which indicates that higher overall taxes would be generated by the proposed action as compared to the as-of-right subdivision) . • 231 In order to mitigate the potential demand for police services, the proposed development would comply with the New York State Building and Fire Codes. The design of the community is such that structures are located proximate to one another, which provides "de-facto" security for the proposed development. In addition, site lighting would be installed to adequately illuminate parking areas. As such, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. 4.5.4 Water Supply A water main traverses C.R. 48 in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed development would be served by connecting to the water main, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCWA. As noted in Section 4.2 of this DEIS, the proposed development is expected to generate a demand for approximately 34,050 gpd in potable water. No irrigation is proposed at this time. In correspondence dated March 4, 2008, the SCWA indicated its ability to serve the subject property, based upon a projected demand of 38,400 gpd. The proposed action would require more potable water (34,050 gpd) than the as-of-right • development (15,000 gpd). However, as 50 single-family homes could be developed as part of current zoning, they could have 50 individual irrigation systems. Thus, the amount of water used by these systems could not be easily controlled. 4.5.5 Sewage Disposal Village sewer mains are located within C.R. 48, adjacent to the subject property. Annexation of the property into the Village of Greenport would allow connection to the sewer lines. Connection allows the development to include a larger number of workforce units than would otherwise be feasible. Therefore, it is the intent of the applicant to extend the sewer lines into the property and to connect to the municipal sewer system. i 232 Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP dated November 6, 2006, • indicated that Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to handle the estimated sewage flow (see Appendix J). This was confirmed by Jack Naylor of the Greenport Department of Utilities. In a telephone conversation of July 17, 2008, Mr. Naylor indicated that only about one-half of the sewage treatment plant's capacity was currently used. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to serve the subject property. 4.5.6 Solid Waste It is estimated that the proposed development would generate approximately 15.3± tons of solid waste per month, based on 2.25 persons-per-household19 and 3.5-pounds ("lbs") per-capita-per- unit-per-day.20 There would be no change in the collection and disposal of solid waste due to the proposed annexation of the property from Southold into Greenport. Solid waste generated by the proposed • development would be collected and disposed of by private carters at licensed facilities. It is expected that as-of-right development would generate 6.0± tons of solid waste per month, which would also be collected and disposed of by private carters. The incremental difference in quantity of solid waste generate between the two scenarios is approximately 9.3 tons of solid waste per month. Recycling within the development would occur in accordance with Village requirements. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the state or locally adopted solid waste management plans. Thus, no significant impacts on the production and disposal of solid waste are anticipated. 19 U.S. Census Bureau,Census 2000 Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic • area: Greenport Village,New York 20 Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al. (John Wiley& Sons,Inc,2003) 233 • 4.5.7 Energy Suppliers In a letter dated April 28, 2008, John M. Merill, New Construction Representative of KeySpan Energy, has indicated that KeySpan will supply natural gas service to the proposed development provided that all scheduled main reinforcements for the North Fork area are completed prior to the start of construction of the proposed action and in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required(see Appendix P). Steven Aylward, Design Section Manager, Electric and Design Construction at LIPA, responded to correspondence on May 2, 2008, indicating that LIPA would provide electric service for the proposed project in accordance with its filed tariff and rate schedules in effect at the time the service is required (see Appendix P). Annexation of the subject property from the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport • would not change the status of the energy providers for the proposed project. Overall, implementation of the proposed action would require an increase in the use of natural gas and electricity. This incremental increase in natural gas and electricity is expected to have only a minimal impact on the supply of natural gas and electricity in the area. 4.5.8 Recreation The proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, thus it is expected that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on existing area recreational facilities. It is anticipated that development of residences under the HD zoning district in the Town of Southold would allow for the provision of private on-site recreational facilities, which would provide on- site recreational facilities. • 234 • In addition, the subject property is adjacent to 300-plus acres of designated open space known as Moore's Woods, which is accessible to the public for passive recreation activities. The property is also located near Arshamonaque Preserve and is close to downtown Greenport and, thus, Mitchell Park and the waterfront facilities. Development of the proposed residential units is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on area recreational resources. • 235 4.6 TRANSPORTATION As noted in Section 3.6, Dunn Engineering has prepared a TIS for the proposed development. The complete study is included as Appendix Q of this DEIS. The potential traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action are summarized herein. 4.6.1 Site Trip Generation Analysis Information on trip generation rates for residential condominiums is contained in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"). For the purposes of this investigation, the trips expected to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by utilizing ITE data for residential condominiums/townhouses (Land Use Code 230). Table 19 presents the results of this analysis. Table 19—Site-Generated Trips iWeekday Land TJse M,PeakHi�ur, P M,"Peak Hourat�rday Peak�o>ix 3 Fater "3"�xit;l_ fitter.. xif .Pntr Exit. Residential Condominiums/Townhouses Land Use Code 230 11 52 50 24 43 37 (128 Units) As can be seen by Table 19, the proposed townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips are expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village residential community. • 236 • 4.6.2 Directional Distribution Analysis and 'Traffic Assignment Analysis The directional distribution and traffic assignment analyses are included in Appendix Q of this DEIS. 4.6.3 Planned Roadway 'Improvements A review of the most recent five-year Transportation Improvement Program ("TIP") revealed that there are no projects planned by the SCDPW that would affect North Road (C.R_ 48) in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind Village project. 4.6.4 Other Planned Developments Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted with regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of this project. to determine the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in this report. Discussions held with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold revealed that they are not aware of any other developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed Northwind residential community. • 237 • 4.6.5 Intersection Capacity Analyses Unsi,-realized Intersections Unsignalized capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of vehicles to safely negotiate turning movements at the key locations noted below: North Road(C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane; North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street; and s North Road(C.R. 48) at Moores Lane. The unsignalized intersection capacity analyses were performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well as the Saturday midday peak hour. These intersection capacity analyses calculations were performed in accordance with the methodology set forth in the latest (2000) edition of the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM")using the most current version of the • Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). Utilizing this methodology, the unsignalized capacity analyses software (HCS+) analyzed the quantity, size and capacity of gaps in the traffic stream on North Road (C.R. 48). Methodology for capacity analyses of unsignalized intersections is contained in Appendix Q of this DEIS. Results Intersection capacity analyses were first conducted to examine the 2007 existing traffic conditions (2007 Existing Condition). This condition evaluates the traffic conditions at the site and adjacent study area intersections without the proposed condominium community development at present. Intersection capacity analyses were then calculated for the "2008 No-Build" condition. This examination projected the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village community. 238 The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the New York State • Department of Transportation's LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. The traffic from the proposed Northwind Village development was then added to the predetermined 2008 "no build" traffic volumes and the capacity analyses was perforrried for the 2008 Build Condition using the resulting 2008 Build traffic volume totals. Summaries of the results of the unsignalized capacity analyses are contained in Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22 below. • • 239 Table 20— Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Chapel Lane 2007 Existing Condition Mow Rate Movement or Shared" Average Control Cap4city Delay; Leve Service ,oeationlMo uetnent (hcPh) c�h sec.lyeh: ., . (P 1; ) ( ) ne 5AT,., A M ':P.M. ,SAT. , A M." P M.; SAT: A:M P.M..:, SAT. Westbound Left Turn Movement 23 19 27 1057 11.23 882 8.5 8.3 9.2 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 75 110 87 340 340 261 18.6 20.6 25.5 C C D 2008 No-Build Condition ow Rate, Movement e Co verag trot or A c h Shared Capacity. Delay ` Level of'Service LocahorUMovement (p p ) sec:/veh: ST. A,T. A M° P SAT A.M. 'P.M. A.M.' P.M. SAT: Westbound Left Turn Movement 23 19 28 1048 1115 871 8.5 8.3 9.3 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 76 113 89 332 333 253 19.0 21.3 26.8 C C D 2008 Build Condition Flow Rate Movement or Shared Average Control ` Capacity 2Dela .LeveI� f.Ser"vice Loc vement c h y a a � P )' (pcph}. (sec.Iveh.) A.M, `P.M SAT.; A:1VI. P.M. SAT. A M P.M.' SAT.` A:M P.M. SAT.'' Westbound Left Turn Movement 26 20 29 1042 1090 852 8.5 8.4 9.4 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 76 115 90 313 318 239 20.2 22.6 28.9 C C D 240 Table 21 — Summary of Unsi nalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street 2007 Existing Condition r Movement or,Shared Average-Control ; Flow,Rate Capacity . Delay Level of Service 1"oeAlori/Movem,ent (PcPh); (Pc'Ph) :(see./veh.),: E P.M: - SAT, A'.IVI . P.M. SAT. A.M.. P.1VT: SAT"'' ' A.M. ' ' P.M. SAT. Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 31 1170 1148 935 8.1 8.1 9.0 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 572 416 276 11.3 13.8 19.9 B B C 2008 No-Build Condition Flov�Rale Movement or shared., . - Average,C�ontrol Caj)acity Delay Level of Service Loeation/Movement' (PcPh) (p-ph) (sec./veh,) A M P.M. SAT. A.M P.M. SAT:' A:M: P.M. SAT: A.M. P.M. SAT: Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 32 1164 1140 925 8.1 8.2 9.0 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 565 409 268 11.4 14.0 20.4 B B C 2008 Build Condition PlowRate Movement or Shared Average:Control Opacity - Delay Level-of Service , catxonlMovn peph)' eiM (jaGph) {sec e �. P.M. SAT -A.M-. ` P:M: SAT. , A.WP.M. SAT: Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 32 1140 1129 911 8.2 8.2 9.1 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 546 393 257 1.1.6 14.4 21.1 B B C 241 • • j • Table 22 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Moores Lane 2007 Existing Condition Mgvemeat or Shared _ = Flow Rate Average,Control Delay Capacity '' Level of Service Laca.ion/Mov�mer►t (pcPh) (sec./veh.) �P.�Ph) � A.M. P. S T. A.1l , P.M.:'. . SAT.;, ."A..M., PM M T A.M. P!M. SA Combined Westbound Approach 49 26 59 1169 1194 945 8.2 8.1 9.1 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 81 73 84 484 467 270 13.9 14.1 24.2 B B C 2008 No-Build Condition Movemeint or"Shared Average Control _ j Flaw Rate Capacityy" ' Delay Level of Service Locatidn/Vtovemnt (PcPh) _ (pFpl1) (sec/veh) Vg P.M. SAT' A 1VL.. P M. SAT. A.M: P.Mi"' SAT A.M 1'1vI: SA Combined Westbound Approach 51 26 60 1161 1188 1 935 8.2 8.1 9.1 1 A I A I AJI Combined Northbound Approach 83 76 86 474 457 262 14.2 14.4 25.3 B B D 2008 Build Condition rMoVextient or'Shared . Averag e Control `ads ow Rate Location111 (�i%ement (pcph) Capacity = Delay; Level of Service " (pCPh) (sec/v' ) 'T. A.1VL P!M. SAT A M>" P 1�7._ SAT. APM SAT. . Combined Westbound Approach 51 26 60 1138 1174 920 8.3 8.1 9.2 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 84 78 87 457 437 251 14.6 15.0 26.8 B C D 242 • The results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses performed indicate that the traffic due to the proposed Northwind Village condominium community development will have no significant impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. All of the unsignalized intersections studied continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during all three peak time-periods studied and increases in delay due to the North Wind development are slight. Although the results indicate a decrease in LOS from B to C from the 2008 No-Build Condition to the 2008 Build Condition for the northbound combined left tunl/right turn lane at the North Road at Moores Lane intersection, the delay experienced by drivers in this land will only be increased by an average of 0.6 seconds per vehicle. The No-Build LOS B delay was very close to the LOS B/LOS C delay threshold of 15.0 seconds causing the minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. The operation of the proposed site driveway was found to be LOS B, C and C during the Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively. It is noted that all movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and traffic exiting • the site do not cause any delay to thru traffic on North Road. 4.6.6 Access The proposed development will have a single access drive constructed on North Road. This access drive will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking should be installed. It is further recommended that, given the speeds on North Road, a westbound left turn lane be constructed for entering site traffic. While a shoulder on the north side of the roadway exists on North Road it is narrow (five feet) and constnzcted of asphalt adjacent to through lanes constructed of concrete panels. The shoulder's narrow width and uneven surface causes difficulties for westbound through vehicles in passing vehicles stopped to make a left turn. Installation of a westbound left turn lane eliminates this condition and provides an added level of • safety. 243 In addition, an emergency access would be installed in the northeastern portion of the property, in order to enhance the safety of the development. 4.6.7 Grades and Sight Distances West of the sight there exists a horizontal curve on North Road with the road's alignment curving south as it heads west. To ensure no sight distance problems at the proposed site access point, field sight distance movements were performed. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 is 50 mph. The sight distance available from the site driveway ,vas measured according to the procedures set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") publication "A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004." This AASHTO publication is the recognized national standard for roadway geometries. The sight distance measurements indicate an available sight distance to the east of over 1,000 g g feet and an available sight distance to the west of approximately 685 feet. The factor limiting sight lines to the west is roadside vegetation on the south side of North Road. With some minor clearing of vegetation, sight distance to the west can be increased to approximately 800 feet. In comparing the field measurements to published standards there are two criteria of concern; Intersection Sight Distance ("ISD") and Stopping Sight Distance ("SSD"). Intersection sight distance criteria are intended to allow a stopped vehicle entering the roadway a sufficient view of the intersecting roadway to allow the driver adequate time to evaluate and decide when to enter the highway. Adequate ISD allows an entering vehicle to perform the entering maneuver without a major disruption to the traffic stream in that vehicles on the roadway already will not have to significantly adjust their speed as the vehicle from the side road enters. SSD is a more fundamental safety requirement as it represents the minimum distance that a driver on the main road must see in order to be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with an object or other • vehicle. 244 "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" states the following: If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions. However, in some cases, this may require a major-road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor-road vehicle. To enhance traffic operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distance are desirable along the major road. Information on recommended minimum sight distances is contained in "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," 2004 by AASHTO. The key ISD criterion in this case is related to the left-turn-out of the driveway. Table 23 —Site Distance Criteria Design Speed ;Stopping Sight.Distance Intersection Sight (MP °(SSD) (FT Distance(ISD (FT 50 425 ff 555 55 495 i 610 60 570 665 • 65 645 720 70 730 775 Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets",AASHTO 2004. As can be seen from Table 23, sight distance from the proposed site driveway to the west exceeds both the required SSD and desirable ISD :for design speeds over 60 mph. With minor clearing the desirable ISD for design speeds over 70 mph will be achieved. As the speed limit on North Road in this vicinity is 50 mph, design speeds approaching 70 mph will not be present. The design speed, or 85th percentile speed, although typically higher than the speed limit will not approach 70 mph. It is recommended that vegetation along the sough side of North Road in the vicinity of the horizontal curve be trimmed back to the right-of-way line. With this improvement sight distance from the site access will be maximized. As a result, no sight distance restrictions will exist on • North Road in the vicinity of the site. 245 • 4.6.8 Parking The Preliminary Alignment Plan prepared for Northwind Village indicates parking provided at a rate meeting Village of Greenport Code requirements as follows: I.5 spaces per unit x 128 units = i 92 spaces required The Preliminary Alignment Plan contains 192 spaces, meeting Village Code requirements. 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation Given the location and nature of the proposed Northwind Village residential community to the commercial districts of Greenport and Southold, it is likely that some portion of the residents will be employed at nearby businesses in both Greenport and Southold. Some residents may opt to carpool or choose alternative means of transportation (bicycle) to travel to work and back home. In this study, no credit was applied for use of an.y alternate means of transportation, and the traffic destined to and from the proposed Northwind Village was based on the use of passenger cars only. However, high potential for carpooling and/or alternative means of transportation by Northwind Village residents would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the site on the surrounding roadway network. As noted in Section 3.6, Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed Northwind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, since the closest point of the route is approximately 0.70 mile measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane, it is questionable whether many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Given the distance that the existing S-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that development of the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. • 246 However, the developer of Northwind Village is proposing to explore the establishment of a private shuttle service in conjunction with the homeowners association. This service could potentially provide transportation to downtown Greenport as well as to other local destinations. 4.6.10 Construction Traffic Impacts It is anticipated that the construction of Northwind Village would occur over three phases. Phase I would include the construction of all roads, utilities and site drainage, a portion of the lighting and landscaping. Forty-eight units will be constructed in Phase I. It is during this ten-month phase that the majority of the earthwork would occur and construction truck traffic would commence. Phase II includes the construction of an additional 40 units and is anticipated to last seven months. At the completion of Phase 11, the vast majority of heavy site work would be complete. Phase III would follow with the final 40 units and construction traffic would be expected to be at its lightest. A consideration in any construction operation is the removal of excess soil materials in grading the site. In this case, approximately 3,000-cubic yards of excess material would be removed, the majority of which would occur during Phase I. This translates to an approximate total of 150 truck trips (at an average of 20-cubic yards each) over a period of 24 months. As North Road in the vicinity of the site is a truck route and North Road has no restrictions in place, these trucks would use North Road and would not impact secondary roadways. Although the final disposition of the removed material is not known at this early stage, it would most likely be to the west. It is expected that other construction vehicles as well as workers' private vehicles would arrive daily with the majority from the west, based on the site's location. The logical route would be via North Road from the east or the west as it is less congested than Main Road. As noted above, this roadway does not have any restrictions which would impact construction vehicles. As the site fronts only on North Road, no construction vehicles are expected to utilize any of the secondary or residential roadways in the Village. 247 • All construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles would be parked on-site during construction activity. 4.6.11 Conclusions According to Dunn Engineering's analysis, the development of Northwind Village will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development will not significantly disrupt the traffic flow on the adjacent roadway network and will not create undue traffic congestion. Although the proposed development will add traffic; to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be at minimal_ The proposed development will provide safe traffic operations for the residents and guests of the Northwind Village. In summary_ 1. Although the site will generate additional traffic, this traffic can be adequately • handled by the existing highway network, the proposed access location, and the internal layout; 2. The access plan for the site has been designed to adequately provide for the estimated traffic flow from the adjacent roadways so as to assure the public safety and minimize traffic congestion; 3. The single dual-access point proposed on North Road will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking would be installed at the site exit; 4. A westbound left-turn-lane would be constructed on North Road for entering site traffic; • 248 • 5. It is recommended that vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access be cut back to the right-of-way lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate; 6. The proposed 128 unit residential townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips can be expected to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Northwind Village; 7. Discussion with representatives of' the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold indicated that no other developments are currently planned for the immediate area surrounding the site; 8. The latest Nassau—Suffolk Transportation Improvement Program does not list any • projects involving the reconstruction and improvement of roadways serving the proposed development prior to its expected completion; 9. Given the distance that the existing, S-92 bus route is to the subject site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand its bus service in the area of the subject site, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not have a significant effect on existing Suffolk Transit bus service; 10. Intersection capacity analyses revealed that the existing highway and street network will be able to handle the increase in traffic flow attributed to the proposed development without significant increases in delay; 11. The proposed parking for the Northwind Village meets Village Code requirements; i 249 12. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the police and the proximity of the firehouse, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are available to service the site. Furthermore, an emergency access has been provided at the northeast corner of the site; 13. With the proposed well-designed access plan, more than adequate sight distance and the addition of a proposed westbound left-turn-lane into the site, it is expected that the proposed Northwind Village development will not lead to an undue increase of the rate of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site; and 14. The study and analysis have concluded that development of the proposed Northwind Village residential community will have no significant adverse traffic impact on the roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the site. • 250 4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES • As no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. • 251 • 4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Final Scope for the proposed action in Appendix A, identifies several potential impacts associated with the proposed development which, when considered in the context of the community, local area, or region may have significant environmental impact. The following is a consistency analysis with each: • The impact of the potable water supply requirements of the proposed action on the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork. As indicated in Section 2.4, the proposed_ includes connection to the municipal water and sewer systems. As such, the proposed development would not require an on-site well to supply potable wager or an on-site sanitary disposal system. A letter of water availability from the SCWA, dated March 4, 2008, clearly indicates that this entity is able to and would supply water to the proposed development, without detriment to the water supply source. Moreover, correspondence f om • Stephen M. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the SCWA dated March 23, 2009 (see Appendix M), indicates that the water to be supplied to the proposed development will come from wells located on the North Fork. The SCWA indicates that the "water supplies are tested every five years in a comprehensive way with a thorough SEQRA analysis." Testing data from the SCWA (including the DGEIS and SEQRA Findings Statement) for the Five Year Water Supply Plan Update) are contained in Appendix M of this DEIS. The correspondence indicates that the NYSDEC issues well permits to the SCWA based on a capped maximum gallons per minute, and the SCWA is required to provide a complete analysis of any potential problems that might occur from pumping (see Appendix M). The peak amounts are used in computations to determine if a peak demand is approaching. The correspondence further indicates that wells are pumped "very lightly" and some only seasonally in order to reduce the potential for either salt water intrusion and/or infiltration of surface contaminants. The SCWA did not indicate that there would be any problems associated with such water supply. In • 252 addition, the Greenport sewage treatment plan has sufficient capacity to handle the sanitary waste generated. Furthermore, the proposed development would collect and recharge all stormwater on-site, thereby increasing stormwater flow to the groundwater/aquifer. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the aquifer or the public water supply system. • The impact of the wastewater generated by the proposed action, on either the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility or, if septic systems are installed, on the groundwater and groundwater-related surface water features in the project area such as Moore's Drain and its associated wetlands. As indicated in Section 2.4, the proposed action includes connection to the municipal sewer and treatment facility, which has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated effluent. As such, the proposed de-relopment would not require installation of an on-site sanitary system to accommodate sanitary waste. • Therefore, there would be no impacts from sanitary effluent generated by the proposed development on either groundwater or groundwater-related surface water features (i.e., Moore's Drain and associated wetlands). Moreover, implementation of the proposed action would not significantly impact the Greenport sewage treatment plant, as the plant has sufficient capacity to handle to the sewage effluent expected to be generated by the proposed development. • The possibility that the loss of about 17 acres of forested area resulting from the action may be an incremental reduction in the deep forest habitat provided by the approximately 300 acre Moore's Woods, habitat which is especially important to certain forest dwelling species. As indicated in Section 4.3 of this DEIS, no areas of mature secondary-growth forest or forested wetlands are proposed to be cleared for the proposed action, as these forests and forested wetlands are located within the boundary of the • 253 • NYSDEC-regulated wetland or within the 100-foot-wide buffer area, that will be preserved. Accordingly, while the proposed project will result in the loss of successional forest habitat (4.6±-acres), the magnitude of this impact is not expected to be significant, as no Federal- or State-p�utected species will be irr�pacted, no significant plant communities will cleared (i.e. oak-tulip-beech, secondary forests or forested wetlands), and the successional hardwood forests to be cleared account for less than two percent of the forested areas associated with Moore's Woods (300+ acres). See Section 5.3 for proposed mitigation associated with minor impact. • 254 5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES • 5.1 GEOLOGY,SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY The nature and scope of the development will necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads, parking areas and building areas. As the site is currently undeveloped, in order to minimize potential significant adverse impacts, care will be taken to ensure that the areas that are to remain undisturbed will be protected; this includes the wetland areas as well as the 100-foot-wide buffer between the wetlands and the developed portions of the property. In developed areas, slopes will not be less than one percent nor exceed five percent. In areas that will be landscaped, the grade will have a maximum slope of 1:3. In areas where existing vegetation can be preserved, construction fence will be erected to delineate the clearing limits and protect wooded areas to remain. . All disturbed areas that are not planned to be part of the buildings, roadways or other paved surfaces will be landscaped in an appropriate manner. Common green spaces and other softscape areas will be landscaped with low-maintenance, native plant materials. Buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site. A Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and upon implementation of the proposed action, a final SWPPP and NOI will be prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC to ensure stormwater is properly handled and impacts are mitigated. The significant features of the SWPPP are discussed in Section 5.2, below. • 255 5.2 WATER RESOURCES • In order to minimize the impact to water resources, a number of measures will be employed. The proposed development would be connected to both the public sewer and water systems. This will minimize the impact of potential sewage effluent impacting the subject property. As no potable water would be drawn from the property, there would be no localized draw-down on the property. In addition, stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged within the site in compliance with both local standards. and NYSDEC Phase II regulations. The recharge of stormwater on the site would assist in ensuring that the aquifer is replenished. As indicated above, prior to construction, a detailed SWPPP will be prepared and implemented to ensure that there will be no significant impacts to surrounding properties or roadways. Erosion_ and sedimentation control measures shown on the Preliminary SIXlPPP include vegetative slope stabilization, phased clearing, silt trapping (including the use of hay bales and • silt fencing), and installation of a stabilized construction entrance (see Section 4.2.4 and Appendix G for additional details). Finally, the proposed action would adhere, to the maximum extent practicable, to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, the NURP Study, and the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook as well as the relevant prevailing regulations regarding the protection of surface and groundwater resources. 5.3 ECOLOGY Based upon the proposed development, there would be a permanent loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6± acres of successional hardwood forests. These ecological communities currently provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including songbirds, small mammals, and herpetiles. The impact of the loss of habitat on wildlife would be mitigated through the preservation of 10.9± acres of natural habitats consisting of successional hardwood forests and red maple hardwood swamps. 256 Landscaping associated with the development is proposed to consist of native trees and shrubs, • which provide shelter and food for wildlife. Furthermore, the proposed development would, where possible,preserve mature trees within the 6.6-acre building area. In order to avoid a potential loss of box turtle habitat, the proposed development would include the creation of a box turtle nesting site to replace the site lost during construction. The box turtle nesting site construction and maintenance will follow guidelines for creation of box turtle nesting habitat put forth by the State of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 2009). The nesting site will be located on the western portion of the project site as shown in Appendix N. The creation of box turtle nesting will include removal of tall, herbaceous vegetation and organic soil layer from a 400-square-foot area to expose native, sandy soils. This area will be an open sunny location without nearby trees and shrubs which would shade the nesting area. A thin layer (approximately three inches) of clean, washed sand will be spread on the nesting area. Maintenance will include inspection of the nesting site every two years to ensure that the sandy soil remains exposed. herbaceous plants and shnzbs taller than 24 inches in height would be removed from the nesting area and the soils lightly raked to remove accumulated plant material. iMaintenance will be conducted in April prior to nesting of female box turtles to avoid potential disturbance to eggs. In order to minimize potential impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods, a 100-foot-wide buffer area has been established landward of the freshwater wetlands. In addition, a row of native conifer trees, such as Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) or white pine (Pinus strobus), will be planted along the perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. The dense foliage of these trees will serve to shade the new forest edge and will reduce potential perturbations to the microclimate of the forest and limit the spread of invasive plants into the woodlands. Finally, in order to minimize potential impacts to the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands and potential transport of sediments or other pollutants, the development will be connected to the municipal sewer services, which will prevent discharges of wastewater from septic systems to the watershed of the adjacent wetlands and will prevent the addition of water to the hydrological budget of these wetlands. • 257 In addition, the installation of a stormwater control system capable of collecting two inches of runoff from impervious road, roof, and walkway surfaces will minimize the potential transport of stormwater and pollutants (i.e., petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients, and sediments) to the wetlands. Moreover, the 100-foot-wide buffer area established landward of the freshwater wetlands will also serve to prevent transport of pollutants to the adjacent wetlands. 5.4 LAND USE,ZONING AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts, the following measures will be employed: • Appropriate landscaping and lighting will be provided throughout the development in order to enhance the aesthetics and be compatible with existing community character, and • As described in Section 2.4 of this DEIS, the proposed plan includes Smart Growth development aspects such as the clustering of units and the compact building sizes, which preserve open space and natural resources. 5.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES The potential impacts to the Greenport UFSD would be mitigated, as follows: • By limiting unit sizes and incorporating a variety of unit types, the overall number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project will be much lower than if all four-bedroom detached single-family homes were built on the site; • Construction of the proposed project: will be a phased process, occurring over approximately three years. This timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new students into the school system. • 258 The 26 to 52 students that could be generated by the proposed project will be introduced over three years, which will result in less than 9 to 17 new students per year. Divided equally among the thirteen grades, this represents less than 1.5 new students per grade per year; and m The workforce units will be sold based on a priority list to Southold and Greenport residents. It is likely that many of these residents have been living in substandard or overcrowded housing conditions and whose existing living accommodations, once vacated, will not be reoccupied. Therefore, many of the expected school children may already be enrolled in the School District and their former units would not be re-occupied by"new" school-aged children. The applicant will work with the Greenport Fire Department and the Southold Police Department in order to ensure that the design of the proposed development (including all interior roadways) meets the requirements of both departments. The two-story height limit would not increase the burden of the Fire Department, as two-story buildings already exist in its jurisdiction. In addition, the design of the development (with fi-ont porches, etc.) will allow neighbors to informally provide security for the community. Finally, the proposed development would have an emergency access, located as far as possible frorn the main access. This would ensure that if there is a problem either gaining access to or leaving the property through the main entrance, another access point (in a different location) would be available. 5.6 TRANSPORTATION The TIS prepared by Dunn Engineering examined the traffic-related implications of the proposed action. Methods of alleviating existing and projected traffic problems have been developed and presented in that study. Based on the traffic analyses performed by Dunn Engineering, the following actions would be implemented to enhance the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site and mitigate the effects of the additional site traffic: • 259 a Installation of a STOP sign and STOP bar pavement marking at the intersection of the • proposed access drive and North Road; Installation of a westbound left-turn-lane to be constructed for entering site traffic; ® Parking of all construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles on-site during construction activity; and Cut-back of vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access to the right-of-way lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate. 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES As no significant adverse impacts were identified, no mitigation is necessary. • 260 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS • 6.1 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS There will be several construction-related impacts associated with the installation of the infrastructure and with the residential development that cannot be completely mitigated. These impacts are associated with the site preparation and development, including clearing and grading, excavation of foundations and installation of utilities. It is anticipated that these impacts will cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project. Specific impacts are identified below. • Soils will be disturbed by grading, excavation and mounding activities during site development; • Despite the use of extensive and strategically-placed erosion and sediment control measures, minor occurrences of erosion may occur; • There is the potential for minor releases of air contaminants that will occur from construction equipment and emissions of fugitive dust during dry periods, although fugitive dust will, for the most part, be controlled through the use of wetting and covering exposed areas with tarpaulins or the equivalent; • Operation of construction equipment, trucks and construction worker vehicles may temporarily impact traffic in the area of the project site; • The wildlife currently inhabiting the site would leave during the construction period, but many are expected to return upon completion of the construction phase; and ' 1' - i, j • Increases in noise levels at the site boundaries may result from construction activities. • 261 6.2 LONG-TERM IMPACTS • Longi teen impacts associated with project implementation have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate most of these long-term adverse impacts. Those adverse long-term impacts which cannot be fully mitigated are set forth below, namely: • The proposed annexation would remove the subject property from the Town of Southold and place it within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport; • The proposed development would eliminate approximately two acres of successional old field and 4.6±-acres of successional hardwoods; • The proposed project requires the addition of impervious surfaces (buildings and roadways) to the site. The impermeable surfaces will generate runoff on the project site, which will be contained and recharged within the property boundaries, in accordance • with prevailing requirements; • Development will increase the amount of water usage and sewage generation, although water would be supplied by the municipal water system and sewage would be disposed of via connection to the municipal sewer system; • There will be an increase in the amount of solid waste generated at the site; • There would be an increased demand for community services, although it will be offset by taxes generated by the development; • Development of the site will preclude its use for other purposes; and • Additional vehicles will be added to the surrounding roadways. • 262 With the exception of the item in the first bullet and the exact acreages in the second bullet, these • impacts would occur whether as-of-right development were to occur in Southold or whether the proposed development were to occur in Greenport should annexation be approved. • • 263 • 7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS This section examines alternatives to the proposed action as set forth in the Final Scope, as follows: • SEQRA-mandated, No-action Alternative (Site Remains as it Currently Exists); • Alternative Site Design; • Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold, and • AIternative Sites. Alternative site design illustrating a 108-unit plan is shown in Appendix T. In addition, a conceptual plan depicting redevelopment under prevailing zoning (or "as-of-right" development) in the Town of Southold is included in Appendix T of this DEIS. Table 24 provides a compa,ison of the quantitative impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives discussed below. i • 264 • Table 24 — Comparison of Alternatives No-Action As-of-Right Proposed Action 50-Unit 1.08-Unit Alternative Alternative Alternative Acreage 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres 17.19 acres Land Use Multi-Family Attached Single- Multi-Family Residential Vacant Family Residential Residential Total Number of Units 128 0 50 108 Number of Workforce 64 0 5 50 Units Population" 318 0 192 288 School Children 22 40 0 50 40 Water Usage 23/Sewae 34,050 gpd 0 gpd 15,000 gpd 30,000 gpd Stormwater Volume 35,553 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 29,806 cubic feet 34,306 cubic feet Required Stormwater Volume 35,611 cubic feet 0 cubic feet 30,264 cubic feet 34,400 cubic feet Provided Solid Waste24 15.3 tons per month 0 tons per month 6.0 tons per month 12.9 tons per month Trafhc25 AM Peak 63 0 30(44)26 55 PM Peak 74 0 34(57) 64 Saturday Peak 80 I 0 57(55) 74 Area to Remain in Natural 6.60 acres 13.26 acres 6.61 acres 6.62 acres Vegetation Area to Remain Wetlands 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres 3.93 acres Area of Roads,Buildings 4.14 acres 0 acres 3.01 acres 3.90 acres and Pavement Landscaping 2.52 acres 0 acres 3.64 acres 2.75 acres 2'The projected population based on structure type as provided in the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. 22 The projected number of school children provides the averages of the 2006 Report of Residential Multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University,U.S.Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics for the Greenport School District,and the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and Final Generic Impact Statement dated August 2003 used to calculate the generation of school children. 23 The projected water usage does not include irrigation,as no irrigation is proposed at this time. 24 Solid Waste Generation was calculated using factors from Environmental Engineering by Salvato,et al.(John Wiley&Sons, Inc,2003) 25 Traffic Generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code 230:Residential Condominiums/Townhouses. 26 The numbers in the parentheses represent the trip generation based upon the single-family detached home(Land Use Code . 210)factor,rather than the factor for Townbouse/Condominium(Land Use Code 230)as shown outside the parentheses. See Section 7.3.6 for a more detailed discussion. 265 7.1 SIEQRA-MANDATED,NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE • The no-action alternative would leave the subject site as it currently exists. However, this alternative is not feasible as the 17.19±-acre site is privately-owned and zoned for residential development. Moreover, this alternative is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the applicant, and thus, is not a reasonable option for the applicant to pursue. Although this alternative is neither feasible nor reasonable, SEQRA mandates that this option be evaluated within the DEIS. Accordingly, the following sections describe the anticipated impacts, or lack thereof, associated with pursuit of the no-action alternative. It should be noted that the alternative consisting of no annexation and development under prevailing zoning in the Town of Southold, is discussed in Section 7.3, below. 7.1.1 Geology, Soils and 'Topography . Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require disturbance to the land. As such, the site would remain unchanged. Thus, there would be no significant adverse impact to geology, soils or topography. 7.1.2 Water Resources Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require site disturbance. Thus, there would be no impact to area drainage, surface water or to groundwater quantity or quality. In addition, there would be no water demand or sewage generation from the site. There would be no impact to the existing wetlands. i 266 7.4.3 Ecology Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require disturbance of the land. As such, the site would remain unchanged, and, thus, there would be no impact to ecological resources. 7.1.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies Implementation of the no-action alternative would not require the annexation of the subject property or change of zoning designation. In addition, the no-action alternative would not generate population or school-aged children. The no-action alternative would not achieve the goals of providing much needed workforce housing as expressed in many of the plans that were analyzed in Section 3.3.3 of this DEIS. In addition, no additional tax revenue would be generated by the subject property. 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities . The existing demands on community services and facilities would remain the same under the no- action alternative. 7.1.6 Transportation No additional traffic would be added to the roadway network with the implementation of the no- action alternative. However, the TIS calculated the intersection capacity for the "2008 No- Build" condition by projecting the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of two percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Northwind Village development (see Appendix Q). The two percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. 267 General growth, without the action, would continue to result in a decrease of the Saturday LOS • from C to D at the intersection North Road (C.R. 48) and Moore's Lane from the northbound approach. However, it is worthy to note, that the same decrease in the LOS would be experienced with the implementation of the proposed action. In other words, the proposed action would not contribute to further deterioration of the intersection capacity. 7.1.7 Cultural Resources No cultural resources were identified. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impact to such resources. 268 • 7.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGN The alternative development plan presented herein reflects the original site plan which, on or about July 11, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter "Town Plamling Board") approved for KACE LI, Lilac's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., permitting it to build a 108-unit condominium development on the subject.property(see Appendix B). Similar to the proposed action, implementation of the alternative site design would consist of the annexation of a 17.19±-acre property from the Town into the Village, rezoning of the subject property from the Town's Hamlet Density zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district, and the subsequent development of this property with a residential community consisting of 108 dwelling units, as illustrated on the Sketch Plan 108 Unit Alternative design in Appendix T. 7.2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography As with the proposed action, implementation of this alternative site design would necessitate • regrading of the site in order to provide for proper design of the roads,parking areas and building areas. The soils and topography of the parcel would be impacted as there would be clearance and regrading involved in the construction of the 108-dwelling units and associated internal driveway and parking areas throughout. Erosion and sedimentation controls including straw/hay bales, silt fencing and sediment traps would be employed. Overall, as with the proposed action, no significant adverse impacts to soils and topography would be expected upon implementation of this alternative, as mitigation measures would be employed. • 269 • 7.2.2 Water Resources Post-construction sanitary generation for this alternative development plan would be 30,000 gallons per day ("gpd"). Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would involve connection to the municipal sewer system and construction of an on-site pump station. Thus, this alternative would comply with Article 6 of the SCSC. Implementation of this alternative would also involve connection to the public water supply. Post-construction water use generation for this alternative development plan would be 30,000 gpd, excluding irrigation. This alternative would be subject to the Phase Il Stormwater Regulations. In accordance with same, a SWPPP would be prepared and same would include erosion and sedimentation controls as well as methods to accommodate stormwater during construction. Similar to the proposed action, the erosion and sedimentation controls would consist of both vegetative and structural controls to stabilize soils and reduce the potential impacts to soils during construction activities. Included would be the strategic placement of silt fences and storm drainage inlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, and installation of foundations, pavement and/or landscaping as soon as possible after soil disturbance which would effectively limit the extent of soil erosion. Additionally, the installation of drywells and regrading activities would control and direct the routes of water flow on-site to minimize the impacts associated with overland flow. Similar to the proposed action, drywells would be installed on-site to accommodate stormwater. Overall, no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be expected. • 270 • 7.2.3 Ecology Many of the potential impacts of the 108-unit alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed action, as both development options involve the loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6 acres of successional hardwood forests. Accordingly, the ecological impacts associated with the proposed action are almost identical to those associated with this alternative. Like the proposed action, this alternative would implement mitigation measures to minimize ecological impact. These measures would include landscaping with native trees and shrubs, provision of habitat for the box turtle should such habitat be disturbed by the development, perimeter planting of native coniferous trees, and protection of the existing wetlands and 100-foot adjacent area. 7.2.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies As indicated above, the development of this proposed alternative would be based upon the prior application and approval (see Appendix U), which consisted of 108 multi-family dwelling units. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would include the annexation of the subject property from the Town into Village and rezoning of the subject property from the Southold's HD zoning district into the Village's R-2 zoning district. The proposed action would include the construction of 108-multi-family dwelling units, 50 of which would be workforce units, which is 14 fewer than the proposed action. 271 Similar to the proposed action, this alternative has been designed with the dwelling units • generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland, given the configuration of the subject property with wetlands surrounding on three sides. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 12 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroom units of approximately 1,195 square feet, and 76 three-bedroom units of between 1,350 and 1,530 square eet in size. Similar to the proposed action, all of the one- and two-bedroom units and 18 of the three-bedroom units would be designated as workforce housing units. The remaining 58 three-bedroom units would be market- rate. Like the proposed action, access to the site would be from a single access drive along C.R. 48, and a proposed emergency access from North Road would be constricted at the northeastern corner of the site at the end of the parking area. Landscaping would be installed within the 30- foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. • As with the proposed action, although the annexation and the rezoning of the site would allow for greater density than is currently permitted in the Town of Southold, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher-density residential and residential- type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. Therefore, like the proposed action, the increase in density permitted by the annexation of the property into Greenport would be characteristic of the density patterns of the development that have already been established along C.R. 48 in this area. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. This alternative development would continue this pattern. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative development would remove a portion of the on- site vegetation along C.R. 48 and the interior of the site. As such, visibility of the subject site from C.R. 48 and properties to the north would increase. • 272 • However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly set back from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residential properties would obscure the view of the subject property. While changing the property from undeveloped woodland to a multi-family residential development would change the character of the subject property, this alternative would be in character with the existing development that has occurred along C.R. 48 and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on the site. As such, there would be no significant impact to zoning or community character by implementation of this alternative. 7.2.5 Community Services and Utilities As indicated in Section 3.5.2 of this DEIS, the subject property is located with the service area of the Greenport Fire Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on fire protection. The; site is and would continue to be served by the Greenport Fire District. There would be no change in the status of such service due to the proposed annexation. Thus, this proposed alternative is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. As previously indicated in Section 3.5.3 of this DEIS, the subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Similar to the proposed action, the annexation associated with this alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on police protection. The site is and would continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service due to the annexation. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. As indicated in Section 4.5.1 of this DEIS, the subject property is located in the Greenport UFSD. As previously noted, the school-aged children projections assume 100-percent enrollment in the public school system as a worst-case scenario. As shown in Table 24, this alternative • would generate approximately 40 additional students, the same amount as the proposed action. 273 Furthermore, as noted, many of the units are expected to be occupied by families already living • within the Greenport UFSD. Overall, this alternative would generate slightly lower property taxes than the proposed action. 7.2.6 Transportation Based on the traffic analysis prepared by Dunn Engineering, this alternative plan would be expected to generate 55 trips in the Weekday AM Peak Hour, 64 trips in the Weekday PM Peak Hour and 74 trips in the Saturday Peak Hour. As compared to the proposed action, traffic during the peak hours in the Weekday AM and PM would minimally decrease. During the Saturday Peak Hour, traffic would be expected to decrease by six trips. As such, similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant adverse traffic impacts. 7.2.7 Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no significant adverse impact on cultural resources. • 274 7.3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER PREVAILING ZONING IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD • This alternative involves the redevelopment of the subject property in accordance with the prevailing HD zoning within the Town of Southold. This alternative design would not require annexation of the subject property. This alternative would permit the development of 50 single- family attached residential units, an internal driveway, associated parking and an on-site sewage treatment plant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The 50-unit plan has a very similar layout to the 128-unit and 108-unit plans, based upon the required wetland setbacks. However, the overall footprint of the dwellings would be slightly smaller than in the other scenarios. 7.3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography As with the proposed action and the other alternatives analyzed, implementation of this alternative site design would necessitate regrading of the site in order to provide for proper idesign of the roads, parking areas and building areas. The soils and topography of the parcel would be impacted as there would be clearing and regrading involved in the construction of the 50 dwelling units and associated facilities throughout the site. Erosion and sedimentation controls including straw/hay bales, silt fencing and sediment traps would be employed. Overall, no significant adverse impact associated with soils and topography is expected upon implementation of this alternative. However, there would be more clearing and grading along North Road as compared to the proposed action to accommodate an on-site waste disposal system. 275 • 7.3.2 Water Resources Post-construction sanitary sewage generation for this alternative development plan would be approximately 15,000 gpd, based upon 300 gpd per unit. It should be noted that the inclusion of an on-site sewage treatment plant in this alternative is required to achieve the yield permitted under local zoning while maintaining compliance with Article 6 of the SCDHS Sanitary Code, absent the ability to connect to the municipal sewer system (see the discussion regarding annexation and sewer connection in Section 2.3 of this DEIS and Appendix T). The local zoning ordinance permits the construction of 50 single-family units on the 17.19-acre property. Independently, SCDHS Article 6 regulations limit on-site sewage discharge to 600 gpd per acre of property. In this case, the 17.19-acre property would support a sewage discharge of 10,314 gpd, if on-site systems are used. At the design of discharge rate of 300 gpd per unit, SCDHS criteria would limit the yield to 34 units. Provisions in the SCDHS Article 6 regulations allow for an increase in discharge if sewage treatment is provided. In this case, the on-site treatment plant would be constructed in lieu of the connection to the Greenport Sewer_District. In order to . mitigate any potential impacts from the discharge of sewage, this alternative would include the construction of a Modified Subsurface Sewage Disposal System to treat sanitary sewage prior to discharge. The system will be designed in accordance with SCDHS standards for such systems, and would consist of a technology with prior approval from SCDHS (e.g., the Cromaglass treatment system) designed to reduce nitrogen loading to a level at or below 10 mg/l. The discharge of the treated effluent would be accomplished through precast leaching pools designed in accordance with SCDHS hydraulic leaching rates. Monitoring wells are required to and would be installed to monitor discharge. If connection to the Greenport Sewer District from outside the district is permitted, the on-site sewage treatment plant would not be necessary, and thus, impacts to the environment from on- site sewage discharge would not occur. Post-construction water use generation for this alternative development plan would be approximately 15,000 gpd, excluding irrigation. Implementation of this alternative would, like the proposed action, include connection to the public water supply. 276 • Similar to the proposed action, a SWPPP would be prepared and the associated erosion and sedimentation controls would consist of both vegetative and structural controls to stabilize soils and reduce the potential impacts to soils during construction activities. Included would be the strategic placement of silt fences and storm drainage inlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, and installation of foundations, pavement and/or landscaping as soon as possible after soil disturbance which would effectively limit the Patent of soil erosion. Additionally, the installation of drywells and regrading activities would control and direct the routes of water flow on-site to minimize the impacts associated with overland flow. Similar to the proposed action, drywells would be installed on-site to accommodate stormwater. Overall, no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be expected from this alternative. 7.3.3 Ecology • Many of the impacts of the 50 unit alternative are similar to the impacts associated with the proposed action, as it involves the loss of approximately two acres of successional old fields and 4.6f acres of successional hardwood forests. While the wetland setbacks would remain as they do with the proposed action and other alternatives, it would be more difficult to control the ecological impacts associated with single- family development across the entire property. No common open space is proposed, thus, the clearing and maintenance of 50 individual lots would be harder to control than in the proposed action or the 108-unit alternative. In addition, the potential construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant may impact ecological resources due to the on-site discharge of treated sewage effluent. Specifically, the proposed on-site sewage treatment plant included in this alternative would result in the subsurface discharge of an estimated 15,000 gpd of effluent daily. The proposed sewage treatment plant would be located in the northeastern portion of the property and the effluent • would be discharged into the ground via eighteen 10-foot-diameter precast leaching rings. The 277 • leaching rings under this alternative would be located approximately 250 feet from the NYSDEC:-regulated freshwater wetlands located on the eastern side of the property. The system would be designed in accordance with all SCDHS standards for vertical separation to groundwater, nitrogen concentration (10 mg/L), and all other potential contaminants including phosphorus and coliform. The proposed discharge of 15,000 gpd of treated wastewater has the potential to alter the hydrology of the wetlands on the eastern side of the property. Potential changes to these wetlands could include an increase in the freshwater wetland area at the western margin of these wetlands, an increase in water depth, and/or an increase in the duration of water-saturated soil conditions within the wetlands and at the upland margin of the wetlands. Detailed hydrological modeling would be required to determine the magnitude of these potential changes. Compliance with SCDHS standards would serve to minimize the transport of ecologically- harmful nutrients and pathogens to the surface waters of Moore"s Drain. The proposed sewage • treatment plant would reduce nitrogen levels to a concentration at or below 10 mg/L. This nitrogen concentration would be less than the expected nitrogen concentration of a typical residential sanitary system of approximately 30 mg/L (208 Study, 1978) to 35 mg/L (Cape Cod, 1992). However, due to the high volume of effluent, the proposed sewage treatment plant may still result in the discharge of significant quantities of nitrogen proximate to (i.e., 130 feet), the surface waters of the Moore's Drain system. Similarly, despite acceptable concentrations of phosphorus or bacterial coliform in the effluent, the; high volume of wastewater may also result in significant discharges of these contaminants to Moore's Drain. Increases in nitrogen and/or phosphorus concentrations within freshwater wetlands can result in eutrophication, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface waters, and increased susceptibility to the colonization and spread of invasive plant species (Woo, 2002). Furthermore, nitrogen loading has been identified as a priority management issue for maintaining water quality in the Peconic Estuary (Peconic Estuary Program, 1991). In addition, Moore's Drain has exhibited elevated levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria following excessive (>6 • inches) rainfall events (Town of Southold, 2004). Therefore, use of a sewage treatment plan 278 • under this alternative has potential for significant adverse impacts to water quality and ecological health due to the high volume of proposed effluent under the Alternative Site Design, the close proximity to the freshwater wetlands, and the existing nutrient and coliform concentrations within Moore's Drain and the larger Peconic Estuary. 7.3.4 Land Use and-Zoning, Corn unity Cha.atter and Comprehensive Plans/Studies This alternative would include the construction of 50 single-family attached dwelling units and would not require the annexation of the subject property into the Village. Similar to the proposed action, the this alternative has been designed with the dwelling units generally located along the outside of the proposed driveway and parking areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. The proposed dwelling units would consist of 50 two-story, four-bedroom units of approximately 2,520-square feet each in size. Two dwelling units would-be grouped together and each would-have a footprint of 1,260 square feet, for a total footprint of 2,520 square feet. As compared to the proposed action, only five- units would be designated as workforce housing units. Access to the site would be from a single access drive along C.R. 48. Landscaping would be installed within the 35-foot setback created between C.R. 48 and the proposed units. As previously indicated, the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains higher density residential and residential-type development. Within one-half mile of the property there are several motels, a life-care facility and a new condominium development. As noted in Section 3.4, the character of the area consists of pockets of development situated between undeveloped wooded areas. This alternative development would continue this pattern, but a lower density than the proposed action. However, as previously indicated, the configuration of the 50-unit plan is very similar to the proposed action due to the physical constraints of the site (i.e., the wetlands and their associated setback requirements). • 279 • Similar to the proposed action, this alternative development would remove a portion of the on- site vegetation along C.R. 48 and the interior of the site. The 35-foot setback proposed in this alternative is only slightly wider than that of the proposed action. As such, visibility of the subject site, from C.R. 48 and properties to the north, would increase. However, as previously noted, the existing residences to the north, for the most part, are significantly setback from the roadway and existing vegetation on these residenLial properties :would obscure the view of the subject property. As such, there would be no significant impact to zoning or community character by implementation of this alternative. 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities As indicated in Section 3.5.2 of this DEIS, the subject property is located with the service boundary of the Greenport Fire Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have an impact on fire protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Greenport--'ire District. There would 've no change in the status of such service_ Thus, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the Greenport Fire Department. As previously noted, the subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold Police Department. Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would not have an impact on police protection. The site is and will continue to be served by the Southold Police Department. There would be no change in the status of such service. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to police services are anticipated. The school-aged children projections in Table 24 assume 100-percent enrollment in the public school system as a worst-case scenario. As indicated by Table 24 above, approximately 10 percent of the proposed project would be restricted by income eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future residents of the proposed project would be young individuals or families looking for their first home purchase. Unlike the proposed action and the Alternative Site Design, it is anticipated that the larger size of the units in this alternative would isallow for a potential increase in household size and, thus, the number of school-age children 280 • generated. This alternative would generate approximately 50 additional students, slightly higher than the proposed action and the Alternative Site Design (108-unit plan) (see Table 24). In addition, as demonstrated in Section 2.5 of this DEIS, the amount of overall property tax generated by this alternative would be less than that of the proposed action and less for the Town of Southold, in particular(see Section 2.4 for the tax. analysis). 7.3.6 Transportation According to Dunn Engineering, the ITE "Trip Generation" report contains information on trip generation rates for both Townhouse/Condominium (Land Use Code 230) and Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210). While construction of the 50-unit alternative may involve semi-detached units which technically do not fit the definition of Single-Family Detached Housing, their size indicates that they may follow that trip generation pattern. Given this, and the possibility of actual detached construction, the trip generation for the 50-unit alternative was perfo.���ed'both ways (Land Use-Code 230 and Land Use Code 210). • Using ITE trip generation data, the traffic volumes generated by the 50-unit alternative were estimated under both Land Use Code 230 (Residential Townhouse/Condominium) and Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing). As shown in Table 24, this analysis indicates that, in all cases, the 50-unit alternative would be expected to generate lower levels of traffic than the proposed development. While these differences may be significant on a percentage basis, they are not large in terms of absolute numbers as even the proposed development can be expected to generate only modest levels of traffic. It is notable that on a per-unit basis single-family homes generate more vehicle trips than condominiums. This effectively reduces, to some extent, the differences in trip generation between the proposed condominiums and 50-unit alternative. Overall, there would be no significant impact on area traffic conditions or safety on the adjacent roadway network. As such, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant adverse • traffic impacts. 281 • 7.3.7 Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.6 of this DEIS, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were encountered, no additional work was recommended. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no significant adverse impact:on cultural resources. 282 • 7.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES According to §617.9(b)(v) of the SEQR regulations., the DEIS should include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Furthermore, "site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor." As, there are no other sites owned by the project sponsor that would accommodate the proposed development, discussion of alternative sites is not warranted. • 283 • 8.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed development of the site would require a commitment of natural and manmade resources as well as time. Overall, the currently undeveloped site would now be committed to residential development. More specifically, approximately 4.14 acres of the property would be developed and would be covered by impervious surfaces including the residential buildings, associated parking areas, sidewalks and interior roadway. Another 2.51 acres would be developed with landscape materials. Though 6.6± acres of forest/successional field vegetation would be preserved, the loss of existing vegetation may cause the displacement of certain wildlife individuals. Certain additional resources related to the construction aspects of the development will be committed. These resources include, but are not limited to, concrete, asphalt, lumber, paint and topsoil. Mechanical equipment resources will be committed to assist personnel in the construction at the property. The operation of coristrurction equipment will require electricity, • water resources and fossil fuels. Furthermore, the construction phase of the proposed project will require the commitment of manpower resources as well as time. • 284 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS • Growth-inducing aspects are generally described as the long-term secondary effects of the proposed action. The site is already zoned for residential development and the additional units anticipated with the annexation is not expected to create a significant increase in secondary effects. Although the addition of 128 multi-family residential units will create some additional demand for commercial or institutional resources, such demand is not expected to be significant The same entities that would serve the site if it were to remain in Southold would serve the site if annexed to the Village of Greenport. There is already a well-developed infrastructure of shopping,personal service and institutional resources within the overall community. With regard to traffic growth, minimal mitigation measures are required. Thus, the action is not anticipated to create the need for any changes to the roadway infrastructure in the vicinity of the • site. Since new roadway infrastructure will not be required, growth inducement is not expected to result. The proposed action includes the connection of the proposed residences to the municipal sewer system, which is located within the roadway adjacent to the subject property. Many of the surrounding uses are currently connected to the sewer system, and as such, the proposed project's connection will not change the availability to other sites. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant growth-inducing impacts. i 285 • 10.0 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The proposed action involves the development of 128 residences, and thus, upon their occupancy, there would be an increased demand for electricity and natural gas. Consultations were undertaken with the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") and National Grid/KeySpan for the availability of electricity and natural gas, respectively. Roth LIPA and National Grid/KeySpan have confirmed the availability of services for the proposed development (see correspondence in Appendix P). Existing and projected supplies of electricity and natural gas are available to supply the project. It is not expected that the project would require electricity providers to construct new generating facilities to serve this site. Moreover, the applicant is examining potential energy conservation methods, and will work with the Village at the appropriate time to incorporate same. These potential methods may include the following: • capitalizing on the resources presented by LIPA including, but not limited to, LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative, New York State Green Building Tax Credits, and energy- efficient design guidelines, such as those promoted by the United States Green Building Council; • incorporating high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, improved insulation, energy-efficiency windows, etc.; and 0 including the use of Energy Star appliances and following other Energy Star guidelines to assist in reducing energy requirements. Based upon the foregoing, it is not expected that the project will result in adverse impacts to the use and conservation of energy. • 286 • 11.0 REFERENCES Burns R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2 Hardwoods. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Washington, DC. Cape Cod Commission. 1992. Nitrogen Loading. Technical Bulletin 91-001. Cape Cod Commission-Water Resources Office. Barnstable, MA. 25 pgs. Claussen, DL, PM Daniel, S Jiang, and NA Adams. Hibernation in the Eastern Box Turtle, Terrapene c. carolina. Journal of Herpetology. 25(3): 334-341. Coleman, JL, DM Bird, and EA Jacobs. 2002. Habitat use and productivity of sharp-shinned hawks nesting in a urban area. Wilson Bulletin. 114(4):467-473. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Eastern Box Turtle Fact Sheet. Bureau of Natural Resources- Wildlife Division. 2 pgs. Connors P.F. 1971. The Mammals of Long Island, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin#416. Albany,NY. 78pp. Corwin, K. 2008. Flight patterns. New York State Conservationist. December 2008: 16-2.1. Cramer, ASLA T. and Weiner K. 1990. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study. Southold, NY. Donaldson, BM and AC Echtemacht. Aquatic habitat use relative to home range and seasonal movement of Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina: Emydidae) in Eastern Tennessee. Journal of Herpetology. 39(2):278-284. Dunn, EH and DL Tessaglia. 1994. Predation of birds at feeders in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology. 65(1): 8-16. Edinger G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M.. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Ernst, CH, JE Lovich, and RW Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, USA. Flitz, BA and SJ Mullin. 2006. Nest-site selection in the Eastern box turtle, Terrapene carolina carolina, in Illinois. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 5(2): 309-312. Hall, RJ, PFP Henry, and CM Bunck. 1999. Fifty-year trends in a box turtle population in Maryland. Biological Conservation. 88: 165-172. 287 • Lamont E.E. and J.M. Fitzgerald. 2001. Noteworthy plants reported from the Torrey Range. Journal of Torrey Botanical Society. 128(4): 409-414. Leonard M.D. 1926. A list of the insects of New York with a lost of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoirs 101, 1121 pp. LITP 2000. 2002. New York Department of Transportation: North Fork Travel Needs Assessment. Southold,NY. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB).1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. Vols. I&II(208 Study). Hauppauge,New York. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Pinnate Water-Milfoil Information Sheet. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 2 pp. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Eastern Box Turtle Fact Sheet. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 3 pgs. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Advisory guidelines for creating turtle nesting habitat. Division of Fisheries-and Wildlife. Westborough, MA. 4 pgs. • Mawdsley J.R. 2007. Ecology, distribution, and conservation biology of the tiger beetle, Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinea). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 109(1): 17-28. McGowan, KJ and K Corwin. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Breeding Bird Atlas Project. Albany, New York. Mitchell R.S. and J.K. Dean. 1978. Polygonacea(Buckwheat Family) of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin#431. Albany,NY. 80 pp. Mohlenbrock R.H. 1998. The Illustrated Flora of Illinois: Sedges (Carex). Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL. 448 pp. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007. NYNHP Conservation Guide- Red Maple- Sweetgum Swamp. Albany,NY. 9 pp. Nazdrowicz, NH, JL Bowman, and RR Roth. 2005. Population ecology of the eastern box turtle in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(3):745-753. New York State Department of State- Division of Coastal Resources. 2005. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form: Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. 7 pgs. 288 • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007b. NYNH.P Conservation Guide- Swamp Cottonwood. Albany,NY. 7 pp. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2007c. NYNHP Conservation Guide- Northern Cricket Frog. Albany, NY. 9 pp. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 2000. New York State Ornithological Association and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,NY North Fork Audubon Society. 2004. Observed birds for Inlet Pond County Park 2000- 2004. Greenport, NY. Peconic Estuary Program. 1991. Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 866 pages. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Reschke C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham,NY. Roth, TC and SL Lima. 2003. Hunting behavior and diet of Cooper's hawks: an urban view of the mall bird-in-winter paradigm. Condor 105(3): 474-483. Roth, TC, SL Lima, and WE Vetter. 2006. Determinants of predation risk in small wintering • birds: the hawk's perspective. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology. 60 (2):195-204. Roth, TC, WE Vetter, and SL Lima. 2008. Spatial ecology of wintering Accipiter hawks: home range, habitat use, and the influence of bird feeders. Condor. 110(2): 260-268. Trexel, DR, RN Rosenfield, J Bielefeldt, EA Jacobs., 1999. Comparative nest site selection in sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. 11 1(1) 7-14. Town of Southold. 2004. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 1993.A Statistical Profile of Southold Town: 1990 and A Description and Evaluation of Southold's Affordable Housing Policies and Programs 1980-1992. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2002. The Eighty-Plus Preservation Action Plan: Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission For a Rural Southold. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 1998. Community Preservation Project Plan 1998-2001. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2006. Community Preservation Project Plan January 2006 Update. Southold, • NY. 289 • Town of Southold. 1997. Economic Development Plan: 1997. Southold,NY. Town of Southold. 2000. Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 2001. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan. Southold, NY Town of Southold. 1994. Stewardship Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 2004. Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Southold, NY. Town of Southold. 2000. Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy. Southold,NY. Village of Greenport. 1988. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Greenport,NY Viverette, CB, S Struve, L Goodrich, and KL Bildstein. 1996. Decreases in migrating sharp- shirmed-ha:;lcs-(A?ccipiter striatus) at traditional raptor-migration watch sites in eastern North America. Auk. 113: 32-40. Williams, EC and WS Parker. 1987. A long-term study of a box turtle (Terrapene carolina) population at Allee Memorial Woods, Indiana, with emphasis on survivorship. Herpetologica. 43: 328-335. Woo I. 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by Typha x glauca? Wetlands. 22(3): 509-521. J:\27734.00\DOCUMENTIDEIS-Revised August 2009\DE1S-Northwind Village Revised August 2009.doc • 290 1 Appendix A EnginevritW,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,PC Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SCfl11 H 1000-40-3-1)In the Town orsouthold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of n Residential Project Known as Northwind Village- Final illageFinal Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statemont Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM# 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village June 29,2007 Introduction This document is a Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed annexation of a 17.2-acre parcel by the Village of Greenport and subsequent construction of a mixed-income affordable workforce housing development. The Draft Scope will provide an outline for use by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), as Lead Agency, in determining the content and format of the DEIS. To ensure that the DEIS addresses all significant issues, this Draft Scope is offered to the Lead Agency for review and comment. Description of Proposed Action • The KACE LI, LLC property is located on the south side of Suffolk County, Route 48 (North Road), approximately 1,600-feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY, also known as Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-40-3-1. The lot is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD), which allows for four residential units per acre, or a potential yield of 68 units. The lot is currently vacant. The proposed project involves the annexation of a 17.2-acre parcel from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport to create a 128-unit mixed-income affordable housing development, consisting of one-, two-, and three-bedroom homeownership units. The proposed project will create 64 affordable units (50%of the total units) as defined by Suffolk County, which will be subject to price, sale, resale, and ownership controls — collectively known as "affordability" restrictions. These restrictions will ensure that the units are sold to qualified households, based on a number of priority and qualification requirements. The site is located within and served by the following planning and service districts: • Greenport Fire Department • Southold Police Department • Greenport School District + Suffolk County Water Authority + Private waste carter(under contract with Village of Greenport) • Greenport Sewer District • 1 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SCIN#1000-40-3-1)in the Town of Southold and(tie Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village • The existing and proposed on-site lot coverage's are provided in Table 1 (below). Table 1. Existing and proposed lot coverage calculations. Description Existing Proposed Coverage Coverage Buildings -- 1.8 acres Paved Surfaces -- 1.7 acres Lawn/LandscapingLawn/Landscaping 4.0 acres Wetlands 3.9 acres 1 3.9 acres Forest 13.3 acres 5.8 acres Field - -- TOTAL., 17.2 acres 17.2 acres Format and Content of DEIS Cover Sheet The cover sheet of the DEPS will include the following information: • Statement identifying the document as a Draft Environmental Impact Statement • Name and location of project • IP Address for online version of document • Lead Agency name, address,contact person and telephone number • Project Sponsor name, address,contact person and telephone number • Primary Preparet name, address,contacts person and telephone number. If multiple • authors/preparers,refer to separate sheet listing the names and contact information for all individuals and organizations involved in the preparation of the document. • Date Submitted • Date of Acceptance (to be inserted later) • Last date by which comments must be submitted to the lead agency Table of Contents The Table of Contents will provide all chapters,headings,page numbers, list of appendices, list of figures,list of tables, and will list any additional volumes. Summary The summary will include the following information: • Brief description of the proposed action • Permits and approvals required • Impacts of the proposed project(significant,beneficial,and adverse impacts) • Mitigation measures proposed • Alternative(s) 2 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Lond(SCThr 1{1000-40-3-1)in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village • Description of Proposed Action 1.1. Proiect Purpose,Need, and Benefits I.I.I. Site History—Discussion of the history of the site and evolution of the proposed action. 1.1.2. Purpose--Discussion of the need for the project and for affordable housing and the project in terms of Village of Greenport goals for the site and vicinity. The annexation of the property is necessary 1) to make the creation of 64 affordable homes feasible without government subsidy or taxpayer contribution and 2) to allow for connection to the Village of Greenport sewer system, critical to the production of affordable housing and a greater range of housing options. 1.1.3. Objectives of Project Sponsor—Discussion of the applicant's goals with the proposed project,including the provision of affordable housing. 1.1.4. Benefits of the Project—List and discussion of benefits to be realized with implementation of the proposed project, including the creation of affordable housing and increased tax revenue to both the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. 1.2. Location 1.2.1. Description of site location including access and surrounding road network, adjacent properties,tax parcel(s),and existing site conditions. 1.3. Proiect Design and Layout • 13.1. Describe Annexation -Explain legal process (generically) pursuant to New York State Town Law. Summarize litigation over subject action to date, IE how did we get here? 1.3.2. Proposed Zone Change—Discussion of the proposed annexation of the parcel into the Village of Greenport, the proposed zoning and potential for development with proposed zoning. 1.3.3. Overall Site Layout—Description of site and layout of proposed structures, utilities, public services, access point(s), and internal traffic flow; description of proposed structures, including potential dimensions, square footage, layout; and lot coverage table. 1.3.4. Access and Road System—Description of vehicle access point, internal roadway layout, circulation of traffic, emergency access and any roads proposed with the project. Preparation of maps to illustrate road network. 1:3.5. Parking & Traffic Control Facilities—Discussion of parking facilities proposed with the project, including tables and maps to demonstrate location of parking areas and capacity required. Description of proposed traffic control, including signals and signage. 1.3.6. Traffic Levels—Discussion of existing traffic levels and Ievels expected with implementation of the project, construction traffic generated by the project, and capacity of road network. Information to be taken from existing traffic analyses and supplemented, if necessary, by additional analysis prepared by a licensed engineer. Relevant conclusions/recommendations to be presented in this section. Full traffic study report to be included as an appendix to DEIS. • 3 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SC741 S 1000-40-3-1)in(lie Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Norlhwind Village • 1.3.7 Grading and Drainage—Description of site grading, including areas to be cleared and disturbed, volume of soil cut/filled and trucked to site, and maximum depths of cut/fill. Description of site drainage and proposed drainage system, providing capacity and function information as necessary. Include Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)---Brief synopsis of SWPPP prepared as required under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities Disturbing One or More Acre of Land. SWPPP will be included as an appendix to the DEIS.Note that it is possible that DEC Freshwater Wetlands program requirements may necessitate stormwater control measures which are more stringent than those contained in the SWPPP. 1.3.8 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply—Discuss water use and wastewater generation information for the proposed project based on Suffolk County design flow standards. Provide information on proposed connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility and proposed water supply and distribution system. 1.3.9 Site Landscaping and Buffer Areas—List and description of planting specifications for buffer areas and proposed landscaping, including information on irrigation,fertilization;and other maintenance requirements. 1.4. Construction Schedule and Operation 1.4.1. Description of anticipated construction, including construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area,water and sewer system connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation,truck routes, etc. • 1.5. Permits and Approvals Required 1.5.1. List of all required permits and approvals and all involved agencies. 2.0 Natural Environmental Resources 2.1. Topography 2.1.1. Existing Conditions—Discussion based on the site survey and regional U.S.G.S. maps,description of current topographic character of site.. 2.2. Sails 2-2.1. Existing Conditions—Description of soils found on site based on the Suffolk County Soil Survey and on site test borings, including the characteristics and on- site distribution of each soil type. 2.3. Geology 2.3.1. Existing Conditions—Description of subsurface geologic conditions, including test-boring information. 2.4. Water Resources 2.4.1. Surface Waters—Site is located in the adjacent area of a regulated freshwater wetland associated with Moores Drain/Pipes Creek, a system which discharges into Peconic Bay, part of a federally designated National Estuary. Description of surface waters found on or adjacent to site. 2.4.2. Groundwater—Discussion of groundwater hydrology, including depth to water table. 2.4.3. Water Usage—Discussion of existing water usage on site. 4 Proposed Anncxnlion by the Village of Crecnport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SCTAI U 1000-40-3-1)in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a RcsidenIinI Project Known as Norlhwind Village • 2.4..4. Sanitary Flow—Discussion of the existing Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility, capacity of the facility to accommodate project, and the procedure for obtaining permission to connect project. 2.5. Ecology 2.5.1, Terrestrial Habitats—Description and list of terrestrial vegetation found on the site and habitat requirements for existing vegetation. Discussion of vegetation to be removed and vegetation to be preserved with proposed project. 2.5.2. Wetlands--Description of the freshwater wetlands found on site and the adjacent Moore's Drain/Pipes Creek freshwater and marine ecosystem, including a list-of wetland vegetation present. 2.5.3. Wildlife---Botanical, avian, and herpetological surveys of the project will be provided. Description and Iist of wildlife observed or expected on site, and discussion of habitat requirements, foraging, nesting, and/or breeding of wildlife on site. Field study proposals must be prepared and submitted to the lead agency for approval for the identification of plants, reptiles /amphibians and birds on the KACE LI, LLC property. Each study must be conducted by a qualified field biologist, ornithologist, herpetologist or botanist, with the work plan approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation before field work begins. A Permit to Collect or Possess (Scientific Collector Permit) must be obtained from the Department's Endangered Species Unit in order to handle amphibians or reptiles. The field studies must be undertaken during the spring, summer and autumn of 2007 for the following plant species: Maryland Milkwort, Cat-tail Sedge, Green Parrot's-Feather, Swamp Cottonwood, Cranefly Orchid, Swamp • Smartweed, Opelousa Smartweed. Any other rare plant or plant community identified should also be described. Bird species to be surveyed for include: the Grasshopper Sparrow, Chimney Swift, American Redstart, Ovenbird, Eastern Meadowlark, Wood Thrush, Red Headed Woodpecker, warblers, the Barn Owl, Great Horned Owl and the Osprey. The endangered Northern Cricket Frog and any other species of herpetofauna should be surveyed for. 2.5.4, Threatened or Endangered Species— Surveys should be conducted to determine presence of any listed species in the Natural Heritage database or NYS Breeding Bird Atlas. Description and list of any species listed as threatened or endangered by NY State or the Federal government under the Endangered Species Act. Discussion of habitat requirements for any listed species identified. 3.0 Human Environmental Resources 3A. Land Use and Zoning 3.1.1. Existing Conditions—Description of existing Hamlet Density (four (4) units per acre) zoning of site and potential development associated with existing zoning. Discuss existing zoning in the vicinity of the project, potential development associated with area zoning,and local land use plans and recommendations. • 5 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(scrhi#1000-40.3-I)in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of o Residential Project Known as Northwind Village • 3.2. Community Character 3.2.1. Existing Conditions—Description of the existing community conditions, using photographs and maps to illustrate the visual character of the site and surrounding area from all directions. Discussion of existing patterns of development in the surrounding area.. 3.3. Community Services 3.3.1. Public Schools—Description of Greenport Public School District. 3.3.2. Fire Protection—Discussion of the Greenport Fire Department. .3.33. Police Protection—Discussion of the Southold Police Department. 3.3.4. Water Supply—Discussion of water service in the project vicinity. 3..3.5. Sewage Disposal—Discussion of sewage treatment in the project vicinity. .3.3.6. Solid Waste Removal—Identification of how solid waste is collected in the vicinity of the site. 3.3.7. Energy Suppliers---List of energy suppliers and description of energy requirements of the proposed development. 3.3.8. Recreation— Identification of existing public recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site. 3.4. Transportation 3.4.1. Road Network—Description of the existing road network. Preparation of maps to illustrate road network. 3.4.2. Traffic Control—Description of existing traffic control, including signals and signage. .3.4.3. Access to Site--Description of the existing access to the site. 3.4.4. Traffic Levels—Discussion of existing traffic levels and levels expected with implementation of the project, construction traffic generated by the project, and capacity of road network. Information to be taken from existing traffic analyses and supplemented, if necessary, by additional analysis prepared by a licensed engineer. Relevant observations/conclusions to be presented in this section. Full traffic study report to be provided as an appendix to the DEIS. 3.4.5. Public Transportation—List and description of public transportation available in the vicinity of the site. 3.5. Cultural Resources—Project sponsor will have a Phase IA / IB Cultural Resources Assessment done for the property by an accredited archaeologist. The pertinent results and conclusions of this assessment will be. reported in this section of the DEIS. The full report will be provided as an appendix to the DEIS. 4.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts 4.1. Description of Proposed Action 4.1.1. Drainage---Discussion of ability of on site drainage to recharge stormwater on site, and the potential for alteration of drainage patterns with implementation of the project. 4.1.2. Duration of Construction--Discussion of impacts of construction activities, including erosion and sediment control and construction traffic. • 6 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17..2 Acres of Land(SCTl11 N 1000-40-3-1)in the Town of Soulhold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village • 4.2 Geology, Soils and Ta o ray —Discussion of the impacts of project n � n v P p J construction on the geology, soils, and topography will be grouped together. Discussion of changes of the site topography due to re-grading and potential impacts of grading activities, details of first floor elevation requirements per FEMA regulations, and quantity of cut/fill based on grading plan. Discussion of the soils with respect to the proposed development, and impacts of proposed development on soils. Include discussion of-the effects of muck, silt, loam and other poorly drained soils on the construction,maintenance and occupation of buildings.Include a discussion of the impacts of fill placement on the existing geologic, soil and topographical conditions. This section must also contain an analysis of how the existing soil conditions on the site will effect the function and efficacy of septic systems, in the event that the development cannot connect to the sewer district. Discussion of impacts of proposed project on subsurface geology. 4.3 Water Resources 4.3.1 Surface Waters - Discussion of construction activities with respect to surface waters, freshwater wetlands and adjacent areas. How will fill placement, runoff and drainage affect surface waters and wetlands? 4.3.2 Groundwater — Discussion of any effects of the proposed project on groundwater hydrology and the water table. Impacts of high groundwater and dewatering on the construction of buildings and the operation of drainage structures. Include analysis /discussion of the effects of high groundwater on • the operation of septic systems in the event that the project cannot be connected to the sewer district and the impact of septic systems on groundwater and surface water quality. An analysis of the potential for the pumpage required to supply potable water to the proposed development to result in the movement of contamination plumes or the fresh water/salt water interface and negatively affect existing private and public wells in the area. 4.3.3 Water Usage—Proposed water usage with project implementation (including calculations), and capacity of Suffolk County Water Authority to accommodate project, 4.3.4 Sanitary Flow—Discussion of ability of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility to accommodate sewage effluent generated by the proposed action. What will be the sdnitary flow impacts if connection to the sewer district is not authorized? 4.4 Ecology 4.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation--Discussion of the potential impacts of clearing and removal of vegetation associated with the proposed development. Include a description of any impacts the action will have on any of the plants or plant communities identified in the botanical survey. • 7 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SCTh1 H 1000-40-3-1)in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Norihwind Village • 4.4,2 Wetlands—Discussion of the direct and indirect � an impacts, if of the P Y� proposed project on regulated freshwater wetlands found on and adjacent to the site,including impacts to subsurface soils of perched wetlands and impacts to the Moore's Drain/Pipe's Creek wetland area. This section must include a discussion of the elimination of much of the adjacent area on the site as a buffer for the wetland. 4.4.3 Wildlife—Discussion of impacts, if any, to wildlife from vegetation removal, habitat fragmentation, construction of residential community, and stormwater runoff. Include a description of any impacts the action will have on any of the bird, reptile and amphibian species surveyed for as required by 2.53. This section must also analyze the impacts to wildlife from the long term occupation of the site by humans and their pets(cats and dogs), 4.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species—Discussion of impacts, if any, of the proposed project on species listed as threatened, endangered, or a species of concern by NY State or the federal government under the Endangered Species Act. 4.5 Land Use and Zoning—Discussion of the annexation of the property into the Village of Greenport and the associated change of zone for construction of the proposed project, 4.6 Community Character—Discussion of impacts, if any, construction of the residential community will have on the character of the neighborhood, including visual impacts. Visual impacts to be assessed pursuant to procedure contained in DEC visual impact guidance document. Discussion of the proposed community character, using maps and • photos illustrate the visual resources following implementation of the proposed project. 4.7 Community Services 4.7.1 Public Schools—Discussion of impacts to the Greenport Public School District and the district's ability to accommodate the proposed project. 4.71 Fire Protection--Discussion of the ability of the Greenport Fire Department to provide fire protection for the proposed development and the rest of the fire district. 4.7.3 Police—Discussion of the ability of Southold Police to provide protection for the proposed development and the rest of its service area, 4.7.4 Water Usage—Discussion of the ability of the Suffolk County Water Authority to provide service to the proposed development and the rest of its service area. 4.7.5 Sewage Disposal—Discussion of the ability of the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility to provide service to the proposed development and the remainder of the sewer district. 4.7.6 Solid Waste—Discussion of the ability of the Village solid waste carter to provide service to the proposed development and the rest of the community. 4.7:7 Energy—Discussion of the ability of energy providers to provide adequate services to the proposed development and the remainder of their service areas. 4.7.8 Recreation — Identify the increase in demand expected from the action and discuss the ability of existing recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site to accommodate the increased demand. • 8 Proposed Annexnlion by the village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land(SCI At P 1000-40-3.1)in the Torn of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of n Residential Project Known as Norlhwind Village • 4.8 Transportation 4.8.1 Road Network—Discussion of the ability of the existing road network to handle increased load due to construction activities associated with the proposed residential development. 4.8.2 Traffic Levels—Discussion of the impacts of proposed development on vehicle trip generation and the ability of existing road network to accommodate proposed project. 4.8.3 Public Transportation-Discussion of the impacts of proposed development on existing public transportation resources, including the potential to increase the demand for public transportation. 4.9 Cultural Resources - Discussion of the impacts, if any, of the proposed project on cultural resources as identified by the Phase IA/IB Cultural Resources Assessment. 4.10 Cumulative Impacts-Identification and discussion of impacts that can be considered cumulative in nature. A cumulative impact is an environmental impact resulting from the action which, when evaluated by itself, IE, in the context of the proposed action only,does not seem important, but when considered in the context of the community, local area or region may indeed be significant. Such impacts possibly associated with the subject action include: - The impact of-the potable water supply requirements of the proposed action on the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork. • - The impact of the wastewater generated by the proposed action, on either the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility or, if septic systems are installed, on the groundwater and groundwater-related surface water features in the project area such as Moores Drain and its associated wetlands. - The possibility that the loss of about 17 acres of forested area resulting from the action may be an incremental reduction in the deep forest habitat provided by the approximately 300 acre Moores Woods, habitat which is especially important to certain forest dwelling species. 5 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 5.1 List and discussion of adverse impacts to the project area that cannot be avoided with mitigation,if any. 6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 6.1 Synopsis of the natural and human resources that will be committed and/or consumed by implementation of the project. 9 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17,2 Acres of Land(SC701#1000-40-3-1)in the town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village • 7 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS 7.1 Brief summary of any aspects of the project that may contribute to future growth of the area. 8 IMPACTS ON THE USE& CONSERVATION OF ENERGY 9 IMPACTS ON THE PRODUCTION& DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND ACTION'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE OR LOCALLY ADOPTED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 ANALYSIS OF THE ACTION'S CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREIIENSIVE PLANNING EFFORTS/STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - Town Master Plan Update(1985) - Town Affordable Housing Policies&Program(1993) - SouthoId Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994) - Economic Development PIan,Town of Southold (1-997) - Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) - Southold Township:2000 Planning Initiatives - County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study Town Water Supply Management&Watershed Protection Strategy(2000) - Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan(200 1) - North Fork Travel Needs Assessment(2002) - Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold,Final Report(July 2002) - Town of'Southold Hamlet Study(2005) - Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) 11 ANALYSIS OF THE ACTION'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE POLICIES OF THE APPROVED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE VILLAGE OF GREE NPORT This analysis of the action's consistency with the approved LWRPs of both municipalities is necessary because the outcome of proposed annexation is not known. It inay be approved,in which case the development project would be located in the Village of Greenport and subject to the policies of the Village's LWRP. If the annexation is not approved, the development project would be located in the Town of'Southold,and would therefore have to demonstrate consistency with the policies of the Town of Southold's approved LWRP. • 10 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximalely 171 Acres of Land(SCT-hl H 1000-40-3-1)in the Town orSoutbuld and the Subsequent development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as North wind Village • 12 MITIGATION MEASURES Aspects of the proposed action's design or measures intended to reduce the adverse impacts identified in Section 4. 13 ALTERNATIVES 13.1 No Action Alternative. 13.2 Alternate Site Design—Description of an alternate site layout inclusive of annexation into the Village of Greenport and connection to the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility. 13.3 Development of the Site as Currently Zoned in Hamlet Density(HD) District— Description of development of the site within the Town of Southold(i.e. not annexed into the Village of Greenport. 13.4 Alternative Sites–Is there any land in the Greenport/Southold area currently owned by, or under option to KACE LI, LLC on which the proposed development could be constructed without the identified environmental impacts? The SEQRA process and DEIS prepared in conformance with this scope are intended to provide comprehensive and important information in the decision-making process for use by all involved agencies in their review for permit and/or approval of the project. The document will be concise, thorough, well-documented, accurate, and consistent, and will be prepared by qualified professionals with expertise in their respective fields. Technical information may be summarized in the body of the document arid provided via an appendix to the DEIS. • Appendices to the DEIS will include all pertinent information and correspondence, such as traffic analysis,cultural resources assessment,regulations,maps,plans, etc. • ll New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One AM • Building 40- SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (631)444-0365 • FAX: (631)444-0360 Website: www,dec state ny.us Denise M.Sheehan Commissioner October 2,2006 KACL-. LI, LLC PO Box 67 755 Main Rd Greenport,N.Y. 11944 Re: 1-4738-03637/00001 Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17 2 Acres of Land(SC'TM# 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of'Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village Dear Applicant: The Department of Environmental Conservation,as the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR) lead agency, has determined that the referenced action may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental impact statement(EIS)must be prepared. The Positive Declaration and supporting documentation for the action are enclosed. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617,8(a),we have determined that scoping will be conducted for this action. Accordingly,as prescribed in section 617,8(6), it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to prepare and submit a draft scope f'or the EIS that contains the items identified in paragraphs 617.8(f)(1) tluough(5) to the lead agency. We will circulate the draft scope fbr comment to all involved agencies and make it available to any other agencies, groups or individuals that have expressed an interest in the action. A final scope will be issued by this Department no later than 60 days after our receipt of your draft scope. Please contact me at (631) 444-0403 if you have any questions or need to discuss this determination. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.. Sincerely, L>� Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst 1 Enclosures cc: file State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Detennination of Significance DEC Application Number: 91-4738-03637/00001 Date: October 2, 2006 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act)of the Environmental Conservation Law. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as Lead Agency,has determined,based on the information and analysis below and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action described below may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that: a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)will be prepared. • Prior to the preparation of'a DEIS, public scoping will be conducted. A draft scoping document will be circulated for public comment. Name of Action: KACE LX,LLC Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM# 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Nortbwind Village SEQRA Class: Type I Action - Description of Action: Annexation by the Village of Greenport of an approximately 17.2 acre parcel now located in the Town of Southold adjacent to the northwest border of the Village. This will be followed by the construction of'a residential development to include dwelling units, connection to the Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility and/or septic systems, access roadway and driveways with drainage, common areas and landscaping. The action includes two alternate build out scenarios of'68 dwelling units or 128 dwelling units. Location: The site is located on the south side of'Suffolk County Route 48 (North Road), approximately 1600 feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County.. SCTM4 100-40-3-1 Page 1 of 3 • • Contact Person: Sheri Aicher, Environmental Analyst I Address: NYSDEC Region 1 Division of Environmental Permits, SUNY Bldg#40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Telephone Number: (631)444-0403 SEQRA POSITIVE DECLARATION DEC I.D. # 1-4738-03637/00001 Reasons Supporting This Determination: (See 6NYCRR Part 617.7 for requirements of'this determination) 1. The action requires construction in an area of high groundwater underlain with clay, glacial till and possibly other soils which present engineering challenges in regard to site drainage and soil compaction/ compressibility. 2. Construction will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage, 3. The action will affect a body of water designated as protected pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law Articles 15,24 & 25. 4, The proposed action will require a discharge permit or permits. 5. Liquid effluent may be conveyed off'the site to a facility which may not have adequate capacity.. 6.. The proposed action will allow residential uses in an area that may not have adequate water services. 7. The proposed action may affect threatened or endangered species. 8_ The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species. 9. the action may impact a site of'prehistoric or historic importance. 10. The proposed development will create a demand for additional community services such as schools, police and fire protection. 11.. The action involves the removal of'the subject 17.2 acre site from the Town of Southold for annexation by the Village of'Greeriport. Page 2 of 3 • • Attachment: Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 A copy of this Notice Sent to: KACE Li,LLC The Town of Southold The Village of Greenpoit NYS Dept. Transportation Suffolk County Dept. Public Works Suffolk County Planning Commission Peconic Estuary Program North Fork Environmental Council ENB • Page 3 of 3 • Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Action: KACE LI,LLC Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM# 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village. Date: October 2,2006 DEC Application Number: 1-4738-03637 /00001 Potential Large Impacts Identified in Part 2 IA. Impact on Land -The action requires construction in an area of high groundwater underlain with clay, glacial till and possibly other soils which present engineering challenges in regard to site drainage and soil compaction/compressibility. The subject parcel is located in close proximity to the terminal moraine, with its unconsolidated mixture of glacial till, clays and other material. The Soil Survey of Suffolk.County Maps indicate large areas of muck, silty loam and other poorly drained soils on and adjacent to the subject parcel itself Residential development at this location will require the construction of buildings to contain single family and multiple family dwelling units; recreational facilities such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, community center; internal roadways; parking and landscaping.. The construction of concrete foundations, footings and other basic support structures for new buildings is more complicated in areas of fine grained, wet,compressible soil.The compressible nature of the soil often makes it difficult to maintain a level construction site for a building and can contribute to uneven settling after the construction is finished. The high water table is likely to necessitate the dewatering of excavations made to pour concrete foundations or footings. Wet soils often shorten the useful life of concrete foundation walls.In addition, the high groundwater table makes it difficult to design sufficient drainage facilities to recharge the volume of stormwater runoff generated by building roofs,internal roadways, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces.The importation of fill; a common measure used to raise the grade of building sites and improve drainage in high groundwater areas, is likely to present additional problems at the subject site because of its proximity to freshwater wetlands and the tendency of the placement of large quantities of fill to change runoff and drainage patterns. It may be possible,to reduce this impact by undertaking a detailed soils investigation for the subject site, including borings. The information gained about the extent and distribution of tIre various soil types present can be used with other essential information such as the location of wetland boundaries and applicable zoning requirements to situate proposed structures where the soil characteristics are the most favorable. Designing proposed buildings without basements(slab foundations) may also reduce some of the identified impacts. • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 2 Based on the available information, the impacts identified for construction in an area of unsuitable soils are very likely to occur. When considered with the other constraints to which construction on this parcel is subject, such as freshwater wetlands and local zoning requirements, it is virtually certain that some or all of the proposed development will be proposed on marginal or unsuitable soils. The impact's duration will extend throughout the life of the project. The difficulties associated with the construction will,of'course, last for the duration of the construction. However, other identified difficulties, such as differential settling of soil,poor curing and short useful life of concrete, and stormwater drainage problems will be long term. The development of a residential community on a poorly drained site with marginal soils would result in the identified impacts for as long as the buildings and other improvements stand. Because it is very unlikely that, if constructed, the development would be dismantled and removed, the impact should be considered irreversible.. • Some aspects of the impact can be controlled through the careful development of a site plan which acknowledges the constraints of the property and the selection of building and structure designs suited to the soil conditions.. However, it is not clear based on the information available to date,whether the incorporation of these parameters would result in a development the project sponsor would consider viable. This consequences of this impact would probably not be considered regional..The area of impact and most of the concerns would be in the Village of Greenport/Town of Southold area.. It is unclear at this time whether the identified impact would diverge from local needs and goals. Expressions of objection or concern received to date on this action are not associated with this impact. 1B. Impact on Land- Construction will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Part 1 of this EAF indicates that the construction associated with the proposed action will last for approximately 36 months. This work includes the removal of the existing vegetation from some portion of the 17.2 acre parcel and the construction of 64 single family residential units, 40 two family units and 24 condominium units, along with interior roadways parking, recreational facilities,drainage and landscaping. A development project which takes more than one construction season (usually the spring, summer and fall) to complete subjects the natural environment and community to construction related impacts for an extended period of time. • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 3 Land stripped of vegetative cover and topsoil is left exposed for several years, making it much more vulnerable to erosion during storuns. Topsoil stockpiled on site for long periods is more subject to water and wind erosion as well as a reduction in the quality and viability of its organic fraction., Exposed, unevenly graded soils, which are ubiquitous at construction sites, tend to collect and pool runoff, creating large areas of mud.This effect is exacerbated when the underlying natural soils are poorly drained to begin with. The close proximity of the construction site to wetlands makes it more likely that eroded sediments, polluted runoff or chemicals will end up in the wetland as time goes on and erosion control measures such as silt fences deteriorate or are damaged.The movement of•vehicles associated with the construction project into and out of the site tracks mud and water onto the adjacent public roadway,creating anything from a nuisance to a hazardous condition for motorists, depending on the weather conditions.The presence of the construction site entrance on Route 48, which is a two lane roadway, may also cause traffic delays during some peak use periods. It is possible to reduce and mitigate the erosion, pollution and nuisance/safety effects identified above through the incorporation of proper erosion/sediment control, chemical pollution control and site housekdeping/management measures, as well as good construction site layout and • scheduling. However, the reality of development on Long Island almost always dictates the use of a general contractor arranging for separate subcontractors for almost all phases of development, from site clearing and grading through concrete work to all of the other building trades and landscaping. This necessitates a very large number of different people, vehicles and equipment entering the site,working and leaving, all at different times. General contractors may have a difficult enough time coordinating the comings, goings and activities of these disparate groups at a site without environmental constraints.. Over a period of several years, it may be very difficult to maintain the kind of control necessary to meaningfully reduce impacts from the construction. Given the location and configuration of the freshwater wetlands,upland and road frontage on the site, it is highly likely that the identified impacts will occur. These impacts will be experienced for as long as the construction project lasts. It is possible to mitigate,but not totally reverse erosion/sedimentation impacts to wetlands once they occur. Sedimentation impacts to upland buffer areas can be reversed, as can damage to public roadways and the tracking of mud or debris onto public roads. It is possible to prevent many erosion/sedimentation impacts to wetlands before they occur but this requires tightly- controlled conditions to be imposed and continuous and strict private management of construction operations by both the General Contractor and the Developer for the duration of the project. • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development ofNorthwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 4 It is possible to control the identified impacts,but the practicalities of conrrnercial construction and the limited abilities of regulatory agencies to provide oversight make it very difficult to do so effectively. The consequences of these impacts are expected to be felt locally more than regionally. The identified impacts would not be consistent with the policies,plans or goals of either involved 0. localagency. Expressions of concern or objection received to date have raised the issue of the action's direct impact on fresliwater wetlands, so the identified impact is related. 3. Impact on Water-The action will affect a body of water designated as protected pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law Articles 15,24 &25. The action will involve construction and related disturbance in the adjacent area of a regulated freshwater wetland which is associated with Moores Drain/Pipes Creek and Cove, a large freshwater and marine system which discharges to Peconic Bay,part of a Federally-designated National Estuary. The construction activities may also disturb subsurface soil layers of low permeability which may support perched wetlands.Direct disturbance of the freshwater wetlands associated with Moores Drain (DEC Freshwater Wetland System Std-1) from filling, excavation, removal of vegetation or chemical pollution will negatively effect the ability of the system to function naturally. Ecological functions such as flood and storrnwater control, wildlife habitat, ecosystem cleansing, aquatic food production and fisheries nursery habitat could be impaired by such activities.Because Moores Drain and its associated wetlands are part of the Pipes Creek/Cove system, impairment of the primary productivity, ecosystem cleansing and fisheries nursery habitat functions could also adversely affect the tidal portion of the system and Peconic Bay. Destruction or significant reduction of the natural vegetation and topography in the non- wetland(upland) area landward of the wetland boundary(known as the adjacent area)reduces the ability of the adjacent area to act as a buffer for the wetland against such insults as stormwater runoff, chemical pollution and the activity of human beings and their pets. The close proximity of humans and their dogs and cats to wetlands with little or no buffer areas discourages the use of the wetland by species less tolerant of disturbance such as wood ducks and certain species of wading birds. If the wetlands located on and adjacent to the KACE site are perched, meaning that the area is underlain with low permeability soil layers which prevent the downward movement of water through them, disturbance or removal of these low permeability soil layers could result in a significant change in the hydrogeologic conditions in the area. Removal or disturbance of low permeability soil layers underlying a perched wetland system or waterbody can result in the draining of some or even all of the surface water into the newly exposed high permeability soil below, • • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 5 This can cause rapid changes to the size, depth, shape and other characteristics of the formerly perched system and eliminate the conditions which allowed the wetland area to develop and maintain itself, These impacts can be reduced, or mitigated by the development of'a project design and construction plan/sequencing which avoids disturbance of the wetlands and avoids or minimizes encroachment into the adjacent area_The use of appropriate sediment/erosion and runoff control measures during construction will also help, 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 and resulting in some reduction of the wetland buffering value of the adjacent area is high. Additional, detailed information about the soil composition, distribution and stratigraphy on the site is necessary to determine whether the disturbance of low permeability layers in the adjacent area will have a deleterious effect on the wetland area. The duration of the impact associated with the reduction of the adjacent area will depend on the nature of the reduction. If a portion of the adjacent area is used for the construction of a structure, the impact will be virtually permanent and irreversible. If the portion of adjacent area is used temporarily and restored, the impact will be impermanent and reversible. 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, The consequences of a minor encroachment into the adjacent area of the freshwater wetland will probably not be felt at the regional level. However, if the action results in major damage to the wetland, from either direct disturbance at the surface or changes to the underlying impermeable soil layers, the impact of reduced wetland size and/or functions could be manifested throughout the system to Pipes Cove/Peconic Bay. Such an 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. The identified impacts would not be consistent with the policies, plans or goals of either involved local agency. Expressions of concern or objection received to date have raised the issue of the action's direct impact on freshwater wetlands, so the identified impact is related. • • KACE LI, LLC.Proposed Annexation/Development of North-wind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 6 5A. Impact on Water -The proposed action will require a discharge permit. The construction project will require coverage under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities Disturbing One or More Acres of Land. In addition, if the proposed development is not allowed to connect to the Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility(WWTF), the installation of individual septic systems or some type of communal septic systems will be required, which also require discharge permits. The impact could be reduced by ensuring that the project design on which the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is based and the design of any required septic systems meet or exceed all of the minimum design criteria contained in applicable regulations and guidance documents. I2nplementation of and compliance with the approved plan is a state and federal requirement. Although a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP)will be required to be designed and implemented, it is highly likely-that adverse impacts due to stormwater will occur if the approved SPPP is not strictly adhered to consistently throughout the duration of the project_ It is unclear at this time whether there will be septic systems installed as part of the proposed action. The requirement for septic systems will probably be determined by the outcome of the proposal to annex the subject parcel into the Village of Greenport. If the parcel becomes part of the Village, it appears that wastewater from the proposed development would be eligible for treatment at the Village of Greenport's wastewater treatment facility, provided that sufficient treatment capacity exists to accommodate the expected flows. Connection to the WWTF would eliminate the need for on-site septic systems. If the parcel remains part of the Town of Southold, it is not clear whether the development would be able to connect to the Village WWTF. If connection to the WWTF is not authorized,the development will have to include on-site septic systems. The impact of the construction of facilities requiring discharge permits, particularly septic systems, has the potential to be important in this case. A septic system functions to chemically and biologically treat wastewater before releasing it into the soil, where microorganisms further break down and absorb nutrients and other pollutants. Septic systems require certain soil conditions, such as acceptable permeability, grain size and depth in order to function properly.. Soils containing large proportions of clay or other impermeable material are often unsuitable for the proper functioning of a septic system and must be removed and replaced with suitable material. If septic systems are required for the proposed development and the soil at the subject site is determined to be unsuitable, large volumes of soil may have to be removed from the site and replaced,necessitating a large scale excavation, trucking and fill operation. It will be very i • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 7 difficult to prevent such an operation from adversely impacting freshwater wetlands, adjacent areas, ioral roads and the community. 5B. Impact on Water-Liquid effluent may be conveyed off the site to a facility which may not have adequate capacity. Part 1 of this EAF indicates that wastewater from the proposed development will be conveyed to the Village of Greenport's existing wastewater treatment facility. However,there is no indication that the WWTF has the spare treatment capacity available to accommodate the flows expected from the proposed development. Under the current Town of Southold zoning, the project sponsor indicates that the maximum allowable number of'dwelling units is 68. Under Village of Greenport zoning, the claimed maximum is 128. It is unclear whether the existing WWTF infrastructure has the capacity to accept the volume of wastewater generated by a development of this size. If the WWTF is unable to accept wastewater from the proposed development, the sponsors will be forced to include on-site septic systems,which present a design challenge given the soil conditions and the location and configuration of the uplands and wetland on the parcel. This could necessitate the removal and replacement of unsuitable soil, if feasible,to ensure the proper functioning of leaching fields, an operation which would significantly complicate the construction of the project and almost certainly impact the freshwater wetland, its adjacent area, local roads and the community. The nitrogen loading limits in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)regulations for septic systems could force a reduction in the number of allowable dwelling units. If the Greenport WWTF proves to be at or close to capacity and cannot accept the volume of wastewater generated by the proposed development, reduction of the scope of the proposal to a level which complies with the requirements of all involved agencies, including those of SCDHS, would reduce the impact. Alternatively, incorporation of some type of advanced wastewater treatment system in the design of the development may also reduce this impact. The issue of wastewater treatment for this development, including its subsidiary aspects such as the availability of treatment capacity at the Greenport WWTF, possible development scope and design changes involved with the requirement to install on-site septic systems, and the physical impacts which may occur from the construction of on-site septics, is one of the most important potential impacts identified for this action. Some level of impact is certain to derive from this issue because the development cannot be inhabited without some form of approved wastewater treatment. Some level of impact is likely to last for as long as the development is inhabited and producing wastewater. Additional, more acute impacts will probably be experienced during the construction phase. It is unclear at this time whether the impact will be reversible or controllable • in a meaningful way. If the proposed action were to adversely affect the Village WWTF, or result KALE LI, UC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 8 in significant hydrogeologic changes to a perched wetland system, the consequences of these impacts should be considered regional in scope. Such impacts would also be inconsistent with the goals and needs of the Village and the Town.Statements of concern about this action have identified wastewater treatment as an important issue. 5C.Impact on Water-The proposed action will allow residential uses in an area that may not have adequate water services. Part I of this EAF indicates that the proposed action will use potable water at the rate of 18,000 gallons per day. It does not indicate whether this volume of usage equates with the 68 unit or the 128 unit build out scenario, or from what source the potable water supply will be obtained.This information is essential because the North Fork,particularly in the vicinity of Greenport,has experienced some significant public water supply problems over the last approximately 20 years. Water purveyors have had difficulty producing a sufficient quantity of water meeting state drinking water standards from supply wells located or,theNorth Fork. Salt water intrusion and contamination with agricultural chemicals have been the main problems. Clarification of the volume of public water necessary for the two identified build out scenarios,the proposed source of the water supply and demonstration/documentation that this volume of supply can be provided without exacerbating the existing local potable water quantity and quality situation needs to be provided. It is possible to reduce or mitigate this impact in at least two ways. The first entails reducing the size or scope(number of units)of the proposed development to reduce the overall demand for potable water. The second involves obtaining a supply of water from a source which does not place additional demand stress on north fork public supply wells,such as Suffolk County Water Authority supplies piped to the north fork from central Long Island. The issue of potable water supply for this development, including the potential effects on local potable water supply and aquifers,and the movement of groundwater contaminated with human- source chemicals or naturally occurring chlorides from salt water intrusion, is one of the most important potential impacts identified for this action. If the proposed development obtains its supply from local public supply wells, the additional pumpage may be enough to change existing hydraulic equilibrium conditions in the aquifer.,This could increase chloride concentrations at the supply well and influence the movement or spread of contaminated groundwater,which would affect numerous users in the project area and should be considered of regional significance. It is difficult to estimate the probability of this impact occurring or its duration with the information provided to date.The impact would be at least theoretically reversible if the pumpage level inducing it was reduced.Technology exists to remove chemical contaminants from drinking water as well as blend supply streams to dilute the concentration of chlorides to acceptable levels; however, these measures may not be practicable or cost effective in this situation. This • KACE Li, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development ofNorthwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 9 impact would be inconsistent with local needs and goals. Known expressions of concern about this project have raised this issue. 8.Impact on PIants and Animals -The proposed action may affect threatened or endangered species. The Natural Heritage database indicates that several species of plants found in wetlands/marshy areas have been identified in the project area and vicinity.In addition,the site is adjacent to known amphibian habitat and may contain additional amphibian habitat of significance. Botanical and herpetological surveys of the project site and surrounding area are necessary. The Natural Heritage database contains records of plant species such as Maryland Milkwort, Cat-tail Sedge, Green Parrot's-feather, Swamp Cottonwood, Cranefly Orchid, Swamp Smartweed, and Opelousa Smartweed occurring in the vicinity of the project area. In regard to wildlife, the database also has a record of the Northern Cricket Frog, an Endangered species, from the project area. In addition, the freshwater wetland system on and adjacent to the site appears to possess characteristics which have been associated with amphibian breeding habitat in other systems in the region. The two Breeding Bird Atlas tracts which cover the area of the proposed project indicate that the Osprey, a Threatened species, and the Grasshopper Sparrow, a species of Special Concern„ are present in the area of the site. Before a determination can be made about the possibility of impact reduction or mitigation, it must first be determined whether any of the identified species or other species of concern are present on the proposed project site,.Further,if species of concern are identified on the site, their location on-site needs to be compared with the portions of the site which will be disturbed by the action,This is the reason on-site biological survey work is essential to explore this impact. If species of concern are identified,but limited in distribution to the freshwater wetlands or other portions of the site which will not be disturbed, the impact will probably be minimal and not worthyof mitigation_ If species of concern are identified in the portion of the site proposed for construction or other disturbance, it may be possible to reduce impacts by redesigning the site plan or reducing the project scope to avoid impact to the species. Without detailed information about the presence of plant or animal species, or natural communities of concern on and near the site it is difficult to assess the importance of this impact. If a rare plant species is identified in an area which will be protected such as the wetland portion of the site or a buffer area, the action will not pose a significant threat to the individual plants and have little or no impact. However, if a rare plant species or community is found in the central upland portion of the property, an area which must certainly be disturbed to construct the project, there may be little or no way to rework the project design to avoid disturbance. Such a situation would probably result in impacts which would have to be regarded as important. Another plausible,potentially difficult scenario involves stormwater drainage for the development,Given • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 10 the soil conditions, the project designers may be unable to design a stormwater drainage system which recharges all stormwater on site. If the system includes an overflow to the wetland, and the biological survey identifies the wetland as important amphibian breeding habitat, the action will have a large impact on the ability of the wetland to support amphibian breeding. Most vernal or other temporary pools favored by amphibians for reproduction are fonned by precipitation and have no inflow or outflow to circulate the water.Stormwater runoff, even if it is treated and contains very low concentrations of contaminants, will degrade the water quality in these pools to the point that they are unusable by salamanders, frogs and toads for reproduction. If a rare, threatened or special concern species is found to use the subject wetlands area, this impact would be regionally important. 9.Impact on Plants and Animals -The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species. The proposed action requires the removal of more than ten acres of mature forest or other locally important vegetation. The action requires the clearing of at least ten acres of natural vegetation from the 17.2 acre site. The site is contiguous with, and can be considered part of an approximately 300 acre wooded area known as Moores Woods.Moores Woods contains much of'DEC regulated freshwater wetland system SO-I,which is associated with a stream named Moores Drain,and is the largest remaining undeveloped area in the Greenport vicinity. As such, in addition to supporting several less common species, this wooded area provides habitat for most of the common forest dwelling species native to Long Island. In addition, since relatively large tracts of contiguous forest are rare in this area,Moores Woods may also provide suitable habitat for some song bird species which require larger areas of forest uninterrupted by the presence of human activity, such as the wood thrush, red headed woodpecker and several species of warblers. Significant avian species including the Barn Owl, Great Horned Owl, Chimney Swift,American Redstart and Ovenbird have also been observed in the Breeding Bird Atlas blocks for the area along with the important grassland species, Eastern Meadowlark_ The removal of ten acres of the habitat from the project site is therefore an incremental loss which could affect the species diversity and carrying capacity of the area, including an adverse effect on the amount of forest interior available for certain avian species. Development of the site may also result in human activity closer to the center of the wooded area, thereby fragmenting it and discouraging its use by species less tolerant of humans. As with the discussion of threatened/endangered species above, it is essential to gain an understanding of the plant and animal species which exist in the project area, and knowledge of how the action will affect these resources before it will be possible to determine whether impacts • KACE LI, LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page I I can be reduced or mitigated_ Similarly, the importance of any impact this action may have on the Moores Woods habitat is difficult to predict with the information currently available.Based on such variables as the location and configuration of the upland and wetland portions of the site, the presence of plant or animal species of concern and the details/configuration of the actual development proposal, it is conceivable that the action could result in a regionally important impact. 12. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources -The action may impact a site of prehistoric or historic importance. The action involves the physical disturbance of a site which is located within one mile of at least one known archaeological site. The project site is relatively large and undisturbed. Given these characteristics and the location, there is a significant potential for the existence of cultural resources on the site, The site must be investigated for the presence of cultural resources.If cultural resources are identified, the Iocation and extent of the resources must be delineated and the effects of the proposed action assessed. Methods to avoid or mitigate any disturbance must be developed. Cultural resources is another potential impact area in which it is impossible to determine whether the impacts of the action can be reduced or mitigated with the information available to date. It must first be determined whether cultural resources exist on the site and whether the proposed action will disturb them. If the action will impact cultural resources, it may be possible to redesign the problematic aspects of the project to avoid or minimize the impact, The nature of any cultural resources at the site must be known before the importance of any impacts can be reliably assessed. If a few relatively minor artifacts are found in the area to be disturbed, they can be scientifically documented and removed from the site.This level of impact on cultural resources would be considered minor and not particularly important. If the cultural resource investigation were to uncover the remains of a prehistoric settlement or human remains on the site, the action's impact on cultural resources would have to be considered regionally important. 19A. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood -The proposed development will create a demand for additional community services such as schools, police and fire protection. The action has the potential to create anywhere from 68 to 128 new housing units in either the Village of Greenport or the Town of Southold,with the associated requirements for community provided services such as schools,police protection, fire protection and ambulance services. For KACE LI,LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 12 a municipality of the size of the Village of Greenport, this action represents a sudden and very large increase in population and the demand for services. Bile the Town of Southold is a larger municipality,both geographically and population-wise, the proposed action still represents a significant increase in population and service demand. This impact could be reduced by scaling down the scope of the proposed development so that the number of new housing units constructed is reduced. The impact:might be mitigated by constructing the development in phases, with sufficient time between phases to allow the service providers to adjust to the increased demand gradually rather than all at once. If the subject site becomes part of the Village of Greenport and the 128 unit development is constructed, this impact has the potential to be quite important.A sudden large increase in population with demand for services in a relatively small municipality could strain the resources of local service providers. Most municipalities break even or lose money when the cost of providing services to residential properties is compared with tax revenue collected from these properties, so it is unlikely that the new taxes collected from the proposed development would be sufficient to cover the costs incurred by the municipality providing the services. Also,the rather quick addition of up to 128 new households may not be.anticipated in the future planning documents of service providers in the Village of Greenport.This impact would probably be medium term and reversible only if the development was abandoned or a comparable number of Village residents left the area. If a smaller development is constructed, the impact would be reduced and perhaps not as important in the North Fork region. 19B. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood-The action involves the removal of the subject 17.2 acre site from the Town of Southold for annexation by the Village of Greenport. If successful, the annexation will reduce the acreage of land in the Town of Southold and increase the acreage of the Village of Greenport. Changing the municipality in which the subject site is located also changes the municipal zoning,building and other land use regulations to which the development is subject. The Village of Greenport's regulations appear to allow more housing units at higher density than the Town of Southold code. The 128 dwelling unit estimate appearing in this EAF is based on the project sponsor's interpretation of the Village code..The lower, 68 unit estimate is based on the sponsor's interpretation of the Town's code. There may also be other significant differences in the applicable codes or regulations of the two municipalities which have a bearing on the action. An example would be code requirements for the development of units identified as"moderate income workforce housing"by the project sponsor. The applicable Town and Village code provisions addressing the designation, initial • KACE LI,LLC Proposed Annexation/Development of Northwind Village Full EAF Part 3 Page 13 pricing, resale pricing, tax assessment and other important aspects of designated moderate income housing may be quite different and need to be elucidated. Which set of municipal regulations are eventually applied to this action will largely determine both the actual level of growth experienced and the perceived level of growth felt by the community. The same is true for the actual and perceived degree of change to community or neighborhood character.. As with many of the potential impacts discussed in this EAS, it is difficult to determine whether there are ways to reduce or mitigate the subject impact with the level of project information now available. Much more specific information is needed about the proposed development plan or plans and the applicable Town and Village code provisions. At a very elementary level, it would appear that the smaller scope project would result in less actual and perceived growth, and less actual/perceived change in community character. The issues deriving from which municipality's regulations the action will be subject to are some of the most important impacts expected from this action,particularly at the Town and Village level.These impacts are certain to occur if the development project is built,will persist for the life of the project, and should be considered irreversible. At least one of the proposed scenarios for the development appears to be inconsistent with the plans, goals and regulations of one of the involved municipalities, which makes this impact regionally significant. Known objections to the action are related to this impact. Two additional impacts were identified for the action in Part 2 of this EAF. Based on the available information, they were estimated to be small to moderate impacts: 6. Impact on Water-The action will alter drainage or flow patterns, or surface water runoff. The action will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces where none exist.The placement of fill, if required,has the potential to change drainage patterns in the project area. IS. Impact on Transportation - The action may have an effect on existing transportation systems, The subject parcel has frontage on Suffolk County Route 48, a two lane road which is an important east- west route in the area and the designated truck bypass for downtown Greenport.. Due to its proposed high developmental density, the action may have an impact on local traffic movement and flow, especially during peak hours. ■ Appendix B Erai>tneerfu ,Surveyl,-g and Landscape Arcbftecturr,PC: f- pg. (4) 7/11/83 n Simicich - Mr. Philip O 'Frias , Attorney for Mr. and Mrs . Dolomite was p ent as the Board reviewed Inspector Davis ' report =308 regard_ ing access the lots within this subdivision. Mr. O 'Frias stated the cost for t recommended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners a requested that another contractor submit diffe,_ AX ent road specifications the area that would reduce the estimated cost from $4 , 000 to $1 , 500 . Q� ction was raised as to who has the responsibility of cost for such im vements ; the present landowner o., the developer. It was agreed by the Bo members that the Town Attorney advise the Board who is responsible . The Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis ' report #308 . i; Su van Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was made i' prior he meeting. The Board noted there was ample parking (public) '' in the rear the building and recommended that the applicants con- tact the Southo Town Board for permission for a "walk through" ` access from this par g area. Mr. Preston and Mr . Sullivan. stated they would propose to ed brick walkway. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, s nded by Mr. Latham, it was • RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning B d refer the site alar, of Sullivan/Preston to the Building Department - certification. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Ylorsf.i ¢" 1 Northwind Villaqe - Mr. Kontokosta was present as the Board revie�;,ec certification from the Building Inspector' s Office . It was noted j that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of thO _ units encompass the garages . Mr. Kontokosta stated this would be t done when plans are submitted to the Building Inspector' s Office . Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistance z ' from :Inspector John Davis . Mr. Raynor advised Mr . Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to review the pro- posed site plan. On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen , it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site "Northwind Village" dated May 11 , 1982 , and cer itie y ne uu11::- j ing-1-iispec or une 17 , 1983 . �4 Vote of the Board: Ayes : Raynor, Latham, Mullen , Orlowski I i Appendix �. *Engineeilng,:SurixjIng and l:eme1scapeArchitccture,PC. • 61Z20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently,there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the-environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis, in addition„ many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. Thefull EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data,it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large,then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE —Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate),and any other supporting information,and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. 0 B.. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) • website Date Page 1 of 21 • PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form,Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is.expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Northwind Village Location of Action(include Street Address,Municipality and County) 62600 North Road,Greenport,Suffolk County,New York Name of Applicant/Sponsor KACE LI LLC Address PO Box 67,755 Main Road City/PO Greenport State NY Zip Code 11944 Business Telephone 631-477-0600 Name of Owner(if different) Satne as above • Address City/PO_ State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: KACE Ll,LLC,("KACE")owner of the subject 17-acre hainlet-density-zoned property located on County Road 48 in Greenport(the "Subject Parcel"),by petition riled on July 14,2005 with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport,proposes to annex the Subject Parcel into the Village of Greenport. Aer the annexation is complete,KACE expects to propose to the Village of Greenport that KACE plans to build at least 128 mixed-income residences on 17 acres,64 of which(50%)shall be moderate income workforce housing with no taxpayer contributions or government subsidies. Page 2 of 21 • Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 Present Land Use:❑Urban ❑Industrial Commercial ❑Residential(suburban) ❑Rural(non-farm) I Forest n Agriculture �✓ Other Vacant Land 2. Total acreage of project area: 17.2 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland(Non-agricultural) 14.5 acres 14.5 acres (E,�t,d) acres acres Agricultural(Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland(Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) 2.7 acres 2.7 acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated(Rock, earth or fill) _ acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces / acres acres • Other(Indicate type) `_ —acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s)on project site? a. Soil drainage: ❑✓ Well drained 100%, a0 site ❑Moderately well drained % of site. —k' 0 Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres(see 1 NYCRR 370). 4.. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑ Yes M No a. What is depth to bedrock 735+/- (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: [DO-10% 100% M10-15%—% n 15% or greater_% 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Yes FRI No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? F�Yes ME No 8, What is the depth of the water table? 10-30(in feet) L �- 9. Is site located over a primary, principal,or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes FlNo • 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ❑Yes No Page 3 of 21 • 1 1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? FlYes ENINo According to: Based on preliminary visual inspection.Documentation subject to review of'Natural Resource Inventory. Identify each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site?(Le-, cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? ❑Yes 1_3 No Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? 11 Yes a No If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? E]Yes QNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Moore's Woods,including freshwater wetlands-See attached Schedule. b. Size(in acres): Page 4 of 21 • 17. is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes ❑No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Yes ❑No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? RYes FIR No 18.. Is the site located inan agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 3047 EYes F]No 19. Is the site located in or substantial contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 FlYes UNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? D Yes MNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project(fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor. 17.2 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 5 acres initially; 5 acres ultimately.. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 12.2 acres. d Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indcate percent of expansion proposed. N/A % • f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0; proposed 128 g� Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour. 101 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 0 0 0 0 Ultimately G4 40 0 24 L Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: 25 height; 40 width; 40 length.. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 745 ft. 2. How much natural material(i.e. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed 0Yes R No n N/A a, If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? 11Yes O No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? n Yes M No • 4. How many acres of vegetation(trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? +/-14.5 acres. Page 5 of 21 • 5 Will any mature forest(over 100 years old)or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? FlYes IF]No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 36 months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition) c, Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 0 Yes ❑ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes Fn—] No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?M Yes Fu�No If yes, explain: • 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes o No a. If yes, indicate type of waste(sewage, industrial, etc)and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? D Yes E]No Type Greenport Sewer System 14.. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes Q No If yes, explain: 15, Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? M Yes I 7" No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Q Yes ❑No a. If yes,what is the amount per month? TBD tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Q Yes ❑No c. If yes, give name Southold Landfill : location North Road,Cutchogue,New d.. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes IF] No • Page 6 of 21 • e_ If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OYes FNo a_ If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? nYes MW No 19, Will project routinely produce odors(more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes a No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? F]Yes o No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? R Yes F No If yes, indicate type(s) Electricity and Natural Gas • 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23, Total anticipated water usage per d I R,000 allons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Fe rat funding? n Yes FM] No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 . 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date Southold Town-Consent 7/14/05 City, Town, Village Board a Yes ❑No to Annexation:Greenport 7/14/05 Village-Consent to Annex. Post-Annexation City, Town, Village Planning Board ❑Yes ❑ No Village Planning Board N/A City, Town Zoning Board ❑Yes ❑ No City, County Health Department ❑Yes ❑ No Other Local Agencies ❑Yes ❑ No Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ❑ No Post-Annexation Suffolk County PlanninP N/A Department State Agencies ❑Yes ❑ No Federal Agencies ❑Yes ❑No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? F-1 Yes Evil No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑Zoning amendment ❑ Zoning variance ❑ New/revision of master plan ❑Subdivision ❑ Site plan ❑Special use permit ❑Resource management plan a Other • Page 8 of 21 • 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? HD-Hamlet Density 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? r 8 Units 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? After Annexation by Greenport- 128 Units 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? FlYes o No Southold Town Hamlet Study 2005;Southold FGEIS 2004;Southold Town Master Plan Update 1985 7. What are the predominant land use(s)and zoning classifications within a�/4 mite radius of proposed action? • RR-Resort Residential HD-Hamlet Density R-40 Residential (Parkland)-Owned by the Village of Greenport B. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoiningisurrounding land uses with a'/4 mile? Yes No g. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 • 1 0. Will proposed action require any authorization(s)for the formation of sewer or water districts? 1:1 Yes F] No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services(recreation, education, police, fire protection? Is--]Yes ❑No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No Property currently served by Greenport School District,Greenport Fire District,and Southold Town Police Department 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? 2�N,' e No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. [:]Yes( See attached TRAFFIC SCHEDULE D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. if there are or may be any adverse impacts • associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them, E. Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name KACE LI,LLC Date 8/23/2005 Signature By. r Title Member If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. • Page 10 of 21 • WETLANDS/ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEDULE To Environmental Assessment Form of KA.CE LI, LLC (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) AUGUST 23, 2005 Wetlands Freshwater wetlands are lands and submerged lands, commonly called marshes, swamps, sloughs, bogs,and flats, supporting aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation. These ecological areas are valuable resources, necessary for flood control,surface and ground water protection,wildlife habitat,open space, and water resources.I There are approximately 2.7+/- acres of freshwater wetlands on the proposed project site • as identified by Charles Bowman,President of Land Use Ecological Services Inc., in July 2005. Mr.Bowman was a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY'S DEC) employee for eight years and has over 20 years of experience in environmental resource management. These wetlands are regulated by the NYS DEC whether the property is under the jurisdiction of Southold or the Village of Greenport and will be protected in accordance with NYS DEC and Greenport Village regulations both during and after construction. Preservation The preservation of pristine lands and open spaces is a focal issue in the Town of Southold.. By meeting the recommendations of Smart Growth and Southold Town 1 NYS DEC Article 24,Environmental Conservation Law Implementing Regulations—6NYCRR Part 663, • Part 664,and Part 665.. • Planning initiatives, this property, which has 1)been zoned high-density residential for over 25 years, 2) is located near the hamlet of Greenport, 3) is within the HALO zone,4) has existing infrastructure in place, and 5) is surrounded by high-density uses, is an ideal location for this type of residential development and will allow more pristine open lands to be preserved,rather than be consumed by suburban sprawl. Air pollution and Fuel Consumption By creating housing opportunities close to residents' places of work, there will be a reduction in average commuting distances. This reduction results in reduced air pollution and fuel use. In addition, by providing housing near local employment centers, there may be greater potential for the use of alternative and public transportation methods, including walking, bicycling, and carpooling_ As part of our proposed project, we will recommend • that the Suffolk County S-92 bus line be re-routed to accommodate the project. In addition, several "green" design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. The following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:2 o Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; a Save existing mature trees on site; • 2 Affordable Green Guidelines,American Institute of Architects.. • ® Where possible,provide useable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; • Use patios, front yards,porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; • Provide for alternative transportation, e.g., bike paths and storage, pedestrian links, car shares; • Provide accessible routes of travel and avoid use of stairs wherever the terrain permits; • Prioritize pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; a Provide-a well-insulated building that minimizes heat gain and loss; « Specify energy-efficient windows; • 9 Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use; m Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner or tenant for use; • Specify Energy Star appliances throughout_ • TRAFFIC IMPACT SCHEDULE To Environmental Assessment Form of KACE LI, LLC (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) AUGUST 23,2005 Existing Conditions The site of the proposed annexation is located at 62600 North Road in the Town of Southold, on the south side of the North Road (aka County Road 48), approximately one- quarter mile east of Chapel Lane and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as# 1000-40-3-1). The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density, which allows four residential units per acre. The site is contiguous to Village of Greenport property on three sides. The property is currently vacant. On or about July, 14 2005, KACE LI, LLC filed a petition with the Town of'Southold and the Village of Greenport to annex the site into the Village of Greenport. County Road 48, also known as the North Road and Middle Road, falls under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. As part of an ongoing analysis of traffic conditions on the East End of Long Island,the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as well as the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has conducted a number of data collection studies. Most recently,the NYSDOT completed traffic counts along many of the Town of Southold • • major roadways, including County Road 48, in 2002..The Coverage and Special Count Hourly Report for the stretch of County Road 48 in front of the subject property is attached in EXHIBIT I. /Two recent studies have been conducted to comprehensively examine transportation /,,jssues on the East End of Long Island. First, the Long Island Transportation Plan for the ear 2000(LITP 2000),prepared in conjunction with NYSDOT, was designed to address current and future transportation issues and alternatives for Long Island. Data specific to the North Fork was collected as part of the overall transportation plan.. Second, the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS)project is an ongoing effort by aa- joint group five towns and nine incorporated villages of the East End to develop strategies for preserving the region's unique character. The Inventory and Analysis • document,completed in 2002 and revised in 2004, P resents a detailed overview of the existing conditions relating to transportation issues.. The SEEDS inventory, however,did not include any new data collection relevant to traffic or transportation analysis. Proposed Action Post annexation, the proposed project calls for the development of a 128-unit mixed- income residential development with 64 of the units being affordable to the residents of the Southold and the Village of'Greenport. The unit types will include detached single- family, semi-detached two-family, and multifamily condominiums. In order to create projections of the volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed action, an analysis was undertaken using the publication"Trip Generation"developed by the • • Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE). This reference is widely used by traffic engineers and is considered to be the standard methodology for estimating traffic that may result from a proposed development project. The calculations for the 128-unit mixed-income residential project are presented below in Table III.A(1) for the average daily trip (ADT) generation for the proposed development. Unit Type Entering Trips Exiting Tris Total Single-Family 303 303 606 Detached (64) Semi-detached 118 118 236 Two-Family (40) Multifamily 69 69 138 Condominium (24) Total (128) 1490 1490 1 980 Table III.A(I):Average Daily Trip(ADT)generation for the Project Source: Trip Generation,5`h Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers It is important to identify how the traffic levels of the proposed development compare to the traffic generated by what could be built on the site as-of right_ The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density(HD)in the Town of Southold,which allows for four residential units per acre. This equates to approximately 68 units that could be built as-of-right. However, there are approximately 2.7 acres of freshwater wetlands on the site. According to Southold zoning regulations, these wetlands would reduce the buildable area to 14.5 acres, which would allow for 58 units to be built. FIGURE IILA(2) shows a comparison between the current average vehicle trips on County Road 48 and the number of total trips on County Road 48 after the proposed project and after a HD as-of-right zoning project. • • Daily Average Traffic Volumes,Summer,County Road 48 Source:LITP2000 and Institute of Transportation Engineers 18000 17000 ' 3- rtc r '*". 16000 15000 U, laoao V r 1300D CD 12000 11000Fes.' t Pn m tv � , t 10000 ' . Current With As-of-Right HD Project With Proposed Project FIGURE III.A(2):Daily Average Traffic Volumes,County Road 48,current,after as-of-right HD project, and after Project. Source:Long Island Transportation Plan 2000,New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and • New York State Department of Transportation;and Trip Generation, S`h Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers It can be seen from the above table that the difference between what is allowed as-pf- right under current zoning on the site and the proposed project is minimal. The increase in vehicle trips on County 48 due to the proposed project is only 1.3%greater than the increase due to an as-of-right project under HD zoning. Mitigation As with any development, some increase in vehicular trie existing w 1Lorcw.However, traffic generated by the proposal will be minimized in several ways, primarily due to the design and allocation of unit types, the intended market of the units, and specific recommendations to be proposed by the project sponsor. • First, the relatively small size of the residential units (700— 1,600 square feet)and lots will limit the household size and number of vehicles associated with the project. A study by the Federal Highway Administration in 1985 produced adjustment factors for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These adjustment factors decrease average daily trip generation figures by more than 30% for detached single-family dwellings when comparing a household of one or two persons to a household of three or more. According to the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), one and two person households average 1.6 vehicles per household while households with three or more persons average 2.2 vehicles per household, an increase of 37.5%. a Second,the mix of housing types of the Project will minimize traffic generation compared to all detached single-family residences. According to the EIA (2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey), 70%of single-family homes in the United States own more than two vehicles_ Comparatively, only 34%of households in two- to four-unit structures own two or,more vehicles. As the number of units per structure increases to greater than five, only 22% of households own two or more vehicles. Third, the intended market for the Project are working individuals and families who and live and/or work in the Town of Southold. In 2000, over 40%of those who worked in the Town of Southold commuted from outside the Town. As • • residents of the proposed project will be relocating within the Town or moving closer to their place of work, it can be expected that the number of vehicle trips generated by workers commuting into the Town or Village from further will west will be reduced_ According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development 3, workers who are forced to live far away from their jobs commute long distances by car,which clogs roads and highways, contributes to air pollution, increases fuel use, increases the number of automobile accidents, adds additional costs for workers, and results in a significant loss of productivity. By providing housing options within the Town for the workforce of the Town of Southold, many will have an alternative to moving outside of the Town and having to commute to work. • Fourth, given the expected market for the Project, it is anticipated that many opportunities for carpooling and bicycle use will be created within the proposed development, further minimizing reliance on vehicle trips by residents of the proposed project. • Finally, as part of the proposed project, KACE will recommend that Suffolk County re-route its S-92 bus line to accommodate the Project. Since it is expected that a majority of the homeowners of the proposed project will work in the Town of Southold, the potential for residents to commute by bus to and from work and other activities is quite high. 3 "Why Not in Our Community?"Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing,US_Department of Housing • and Urban Development,2003. ".J Appendix D H Engincering,Sart. y>ng and LandscapeArchiterturc,P SOUT'yo • ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK Jt P.O- Box 1179 REGISTRAR.OF VITAL STATISTICS us Southold,New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER �O Fax (631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICERTele hone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER l�00UM, southoldtown northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ORDER AND DETERMINATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 709 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON November 16, 2005: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby determines that the petition for annexation filed on July 14, 2005 by applicant KALE LI, L.LC complies with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17; and it is further RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, based on the considerations set forth below, that it is not in the over-all public interest to approve such petition for annexation; and it is therefore • RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold DENIES the petition for annexation submitted by KACE LI.LLC based on the following: 1. The territory proposed to be annexed is a vacant seventeen acre parcel of property (SCTM#1000-40-3-1) located on Rte 48 in Greenport, Town of Southold. The applicant seeks to annex the property from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport to avail itself of the Village sewer system, water system, electric system and high density zoning laws. However, the property, if developed as part of the Town, is eligible for - Suffolk County Water Authority service and electric service through LIPA. The property is eligible for connection to the Village sewer system by virtue of a written agreement/stipulation of settlement between the Village and the applicant.Further, the property is currently zoned Hamlet Density(HD)which allows four units to the acre. It is well-settled that"annexation may not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality."Board of Trustees,Village of Spring Valley v. Town of Ramapo 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, at 714 (2d Dept_ 1999). Ill this case, the services are all available without annexation. No evidence has been presented by the applicant that the land cannot be developed as currently zoned. It thus appears that applicant seeks annexation merely to avoid the Town's limitations on density and to avail itself of the greater density allowance permitted by the Village. • • 2- Municipal annexations are discretionary decisions ofthe governing body that require SEQRA review. (See "SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Governement" attached hereto as Exhibit"A"..) This Town Board, on August 16, 2005, determined that the proposed annexation is an Unlisted action, and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as Lead Agency. (See copy of resolution#508 of 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit "B".)The Village of Greenport challenged that determination. The Lead Agency question has been submitted to the Commissioner of the DEC pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(b)(5) for resolution. The Commissioner, in turn, submitted the matter to the Region One(local) DEC office for input because there are several acres of freshwater wetlands on the property. The Region One office replied on October 28, 2005 to the Commissioner's office indicating that insufficient specific information has been provided by the applicant to allow them to provide meaningfiil comments. Specifically, they noted the lack of a plan,rendering or drawing of the proposed project and the lack of a survey with the freshwater wetland boundary depicted thereon. (See letter from John Pavacic,Regional Permit Administrator, DEC, to Betty Ann Hughes, Chief, SEQRA and Training,DEC dated October 28, 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit"C".) Importantly, they also noted flaws in the SEQRA process to date, including the fact that the SEQRA process should have been commenced prior to the public hearing on August 23, 2005. (In fact, the applicant did not submit the EAF until the public hearing on August 23, 2005). The Region One office indicated that they may wish to assume Lead Agency status, and that the project may result in a significant impact to the environment and an environmental impact statement would need to be prepared_ The Town Board would be agreeable to the DEC assuming Lead Agency status in the SEQRA review. The Town Board concurs that, • based on the information available to date, the project may result in a significant environmental impact requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement.. At any rate, the Town Board is unable to approve the annexation at this juncture because the SEQRA review has not been completed. (It should be noted that the municipality has only ninety days from the close of the hearing to adopt findings, or the municipality will be deemed to have approved the annexation. There appears to be a conflict between the time frame dictated in Article 17 of General Municipal Law and the time in which it takes to perform a SEQRA review on the annexation.The proposed development of the parcel must be considered in conjunction with the annexation petition under SEQRA {see Exhibit"A" at D.3.1 and a"hard look" at a project of this magnitude would be very difficult, if not impossible, under the required time limits.) 3. The applicant claims that a significant benefit of the annexation would be an "as-of-right" connection to the Village sewer system. This is no benefit to the Village residents.There is already an agreement in place to allow the applicant to hook in for a charge. The Village has previously charged significant hook-up fees for properties outside the Village boundaries. The applicant has proposed to construct 128 dwelling units on the property, which, as pointed out at the public hearing(see hearing transcript attached hereto as Exhibit"D")would provide a significant income to the Village if the applicant is required to pay a hook-up fee. Here, if annexation were approved,the applicant would not have to pay a hook-up fee. Sewer rents as income to the Village would be charged in either event, and are not a factor. • 4. There is no apparent public benefit to the Village. The overwhelming sentiment at the joint public hearing was against the annexation, Although the applicant has stated that half of the units would be classified as "affordable", there is no proposal for keeping them affordable in perpetuity. Many at the public hearing expressed a need for affordable housing in the Village,but few saw this proposal as a real solution. Comments at the public hearing included"quick-fix", "no benefit to the residents of Greenport" and "appalling See Exhibit"D". 5- The Town of Southold has enacted legislation that mandates twenty-five percent(25%) of all homes constructed in a subdivision or as part of a residential site plan be classified as "affordable" or"work force" housing. It is required that these homes be covenanted and the future sales price be restricted such that they will remain affordable in perpetuity. The homes must be sold to qualified buyers selected from a lottery of the Town's housing registry. There is NO requirement in the Village laws that the future sales price be restricted, thereby mandating perpetual affordability. The applicant has indicated that the units will initially be sold at the prices mandated by the Southold affordable housing program, and will remain affordable because they will be small. The Town Board finds that the real estate market on the East End of Long Island has shown otherwise. A "small"unit in a desirable community is likely to be priced far above what the average working family in Southold Town can afford- The proposed "quick-fix" to the affordable housing crisis has no long-term benefit to the public..The Town created three affordable housing districts in the Town in the past,without perpetual affordability controls, and these homes are currently half-million dollar homes that are unaffordable to the average • family.. Once again, the applicant is seeking to escape the laws of Southold Town by annexing the property to Greenport,where he will not be required to mandate perpetual affordability on the resale.. As set forth above, annexation to avoid the laws of a municipality is improper and a misuse of the annexation process. 6. An annexation should not be piecemeal,benefiting one property owner alone Rather,it should follow sound planning principles. See Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 56 A.D. 2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47. The Town of Southold has long engaged in comprehensive planning for development and land use decisions throughout the Town. The Town recently completed a hamlet study planning process whereby stakeholders - selected from each hamlet prepared recommendations for the vision and future of their hamlets. Although this parcel is located within the HALO, or hamlet locus area surrounding the hamlet center, this proposed high-density development is against "smart- growth" planning principles. The development is located on a heavily traveled roadway, and is not within walking distance of the Village center, post office, or stores. This property is surrounded on three sides by Village property. The surrounding Village property is parkland, zoned PD (Parkland)by the Village. The property to the north of the parcel is zoned by the Town as R-80, which is two acre residential zoning. Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Village, it is approximately 4,500 feet (close to a mile) from the nearest developed portion of the Village, and even farther from the business center. The Village changed the surrounding land from residential zoning to PD in 1987 in response to directives from the Department of Environmental 1 a C; C Conservation. (See portion of"Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town" report to the Town Board dated February 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit"E"which recommended rezoning of the parcel to a less intensive residential district. The Town Board rezoned the subject parcel,which was overturned by the court following a challenge by Kace LI, LLC on the basis that the rezoning required a supermajority of the Town Board because the owner had filed a protest petition, and such supermajority was not achieved.) An updated report on the zoning of this parcel prepared by the Town i Planner,in 2002 reiterates the recommendation that high density development o-f-this parcel is contrary to the comprehensive planning and smart growth planning principles. utilized in the Town of Southold. It is estimated that as many as nine of the seventeen acres are freshwater wetlands, and not buildable. To achieve a density of 128 units, the wetlands would have to be included in the yield,which is an approach that is clearly not in the over-all public interest.To put 128 dwelling units on the remaining land runs afoul of the sound planning principles the Town has implemented over the past 20 years. The density controls in place in the Town are designed to impose a minimal impact on the environment and the community. 7. The remaining area in the direct vicinity of the subject property receives no benefit from the annexation, and in fact, is likely to be negatively impacted. Despite the fact that the Town has not had the opportunity to evaluate the traffic impact, such high density development in that location is more likely than not going to have a significant impact on the existing residential properties in the area. 8. The annexation is not in the over-all public interest of the school district..Dr. Charles Kozora, Superintendant of Greenport Public Schools, appeared at the public hearing and spoke of the effect of the proposal on the school district. Dr..Kozora projected that, after income from the development is deducted, there would be a net increase of$1.16 million on the school budget. This increase would result in a 14% school tax increase at the completion of the project. (See Exhibit"D" at p.66) 9. The annexation is inconsistent with the policies contained in the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and as such the Town may not approve of the annexation pursuant to Chapter 95 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The Town Board hereby adopts the recommendation of the LWRP Consistency Coordinator dated November 16, 2005 in this regard. 10. The Town Board finds that the proposal for annexation submitted by the applicant KALE LI,LLC is not in the over-all public interest.. In fact, the sentiment at the public hearing that the proposal does not benefit anybody but the developer appears true. The proposal does not benefit the Town, the Village, or the school district. 11. There are no agreements as referred to in Section 707 or 708 of General Municipal Law between the municipalities, and if there is property or indebtedness it shall be payable in the manner set forth in those sections. I • TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN 0 S HOLD DATED: November 16, 2005 7 e Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor Absent L ui s, t tice i UjohnM omanelli o 1 erson Thomas H. Wickham, Councilpeksoii (SEAL) Absent. Willi . Edward , Councilperson Daniel C. Ross, Councilperson • Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk • Appendix E ' J A Engineering,SumeTing and Landsc apeArc hiierturv,P.C. • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Petition of the VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, AFFIDAVIT OF Petitioner, PATRICIA FINNEGAN IN OPPOSITION TO For a Judgment Pursuant to Section 712 and VERIFIED PETITION Article 17 of the General Municipal Law and Article 78 and Section 3001 of The Civil Practice Docket No. 2005-11702 Law and Rules, - against - THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, et al. Respondents. CT iSTATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) I, Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., being duly sworn, depose and say: 1: I am the Town Attorney for the Town of Southold and have _ personal knowledge of the proceedings relating to this matter and the facts that are alleged in this Affidavit. I submit this Affidavit on behalf of the Town of Southold, the identified members allegedly constituting the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the Solid Waste District of the Town of Southold, and the East-West Fire Protection District, in opposition to the Verified Petition submitted by the petitioner Village of Greenport, and 1 • joined by intervenor-petitioner KACE L.I, LLC (collectively "petitioners"), in this action. 2. As revealed in the proceedings below and in the various submissions of the Village of Greenport and KACE LI, LLC, this action is a thinly-veiled attempt at a municipal "land grab", committed by a municipality seeking to raise its property tax revenues, while at the same time granting a windfall to an allied private developer. The municipality and developer have cloaked this profit-seeking acquisition as an altruistic creation of affordable housing, but nothing could be further from the truth_ The petitioners are attempting to evade the zoning laws of the Town of Southold and are not acting in the overall public interest. 3. As discussed below, it is respectfully submitted that respondent The Town of Southold has fully complied with the requirements of Article 17 of the New York General Municipal Law, in adopting its Decision and Order dated November 16, 2005 ("Decision and Order"). A copy of that Decision and Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit "P. In the Decision and Order, respondent concluded that the proposed annexation was not in the overall public interest, but instead was designed to benefit one property owner and to increase the tax revenues of the Village of Greenport, to the detriment of the environmentally-sensitive territory, the surrounding area, 2 • the Town of'Southold and the public at large (within both the Village and Town). THE PETITION MUST BE REMANDED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SEQRA 4. As a threshold matter, petitioner's Verified Petition seeking the approval of their underlying Petition for Annexation should be denied and the entire matter remanded for the parties and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to complete the mandatory process of exhaustive environmental review required by Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Specifically, petitioners have refused to provide the materials requested by • the DEC in order to conduct its initial analysis. .5. Petitioners' claim for any other type of relief is wholly without merit and disingenuous, inasmuch as petitioners have expressly recognized that the Petition for Annexation may not be approved or otherwise validated: _ without compliance with the Environmental Conservation Law. In fact, petitioner KACE LI, LLC has stated in their most recent correspondence with the DEC that "the most likely outcome[of the instant Verified Petition]is that the case be remanded for SEQR review." (emphasis added) • 3 • 6. It is undisputed that municipal annexations are discretionary decisions of a governing body that require SEQRA review. See C' Council of the City of Watervliet v. Town of Colonie, 3 N.Y-3d 508 (2004). 7. As such, upon receipt of the Petition for Annexation, the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport each declared their intention to assume lead agency status for the environmental review of'that proposed action. 8. Because the municipalities were unable to agree upon the appropriate lead agency, they submitted that issue to the Acting Cominissioner of the New York State Department of Enviroiunental Conservation (DEC) for a determination of that issue_ Following a series of Scorrespondence involving the parties and the DEC, on October 17, 2005, Betty Ann Hughes, Chief, SEQR Training of the DEC wrote to the parties, requesting further information regarding the project, and noting that "[b)oth the Town and the Village noted the existence of wetlands on the property, but neither explicitly recognized that they are part of a regulated freshwater wetland (SO-1) which is mapped and administered by the DEC through its Region One Office in Stony Brook. Regulated wetlands appear to occupy at least half of the KACE property, and, therefore, any residential development of the size proposed would almost certainly require a freshwater wetlands permit. Although the annexation is the only portion for which applications • 4 • now exist, DEC is clearly a potentially involved agency when considering the project as a whole." (emphasis added) A copy of this letter dated October 17, 2005 is annexed hereto as Exhibit "T'. 9. Following further correspondence, John Pavacic, Regional Permit Administrator for Region One of the Division of Environmental Permits of the DEC, wrote to Ms. Hughes, and noted that "none of the information received to date provides sufficient information to enable the Department to determine the extent of its jurisdiction in regard to this matter. None of the materials forwarded to the Regional Office include a representation of the location of the wetland boundary on the property or a • specific plan, rendering, or drawing of the proposed development. This information is essential for the Department to determine whether or not it is in involved agency." A copy of this letter dated October 28, 2005 is annexed hereto as Exhibit "T'. 10. On November 14, 2005, Ms. Hughes of the DEC wrote all of the interested parties, stating that "unfortunately, even with Greenport's recent letter, the record is not complete enough to allow this dispute to be submitted to the Acting Commissioner for resolution. As noted in its October 2005 letter, R.l DEC was able to identify potential jurisdiction and potential adverse impacts of enough concern that it might have interest as 5 • serving as lead agency. However, because the sketch maps and descriptions of the proposed residential development provided to R.l DEC were not sufficiently detailed to allow it to conclusively determine whether it would even have jurisdiction over the eventual development project, let alone definitively identify the potential adverse impact, R.1 DEC could not complete its response as regard to key first criterion in determining lead agency, whether impacts are primarily local versus regional or statewide." Accordingly, in order even to properly determine the lead agency resolution, Ms. Hughes requested "sufficiently detailed development plans," including "at least a preliminary sketch map of the conceptual development proposal as well as an EAF Part 1 that thoroughly addresses both the proposed residential development and the annexation" in order properly to reach a resolution of the lead agency issue. A copy of the November 14, 2005 letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "4". 11. However, despite the clear and definitive request of the DEC for further information regarding the proposed development envisioned by the Petition for Annexation, petitioner KALE LI, LLC, declined to provide such information, stating its belief that the request was "premature". KACE LI, LLC stated its position in a letter to Ms. Hughes of the DEC dated December 15, 2005. In that same letter KACE LI, LLC disputed the • 6 • wetlands computation of the DEC. A copy of the December 15, 2005 letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "5". 12. Astoundingly, despite KACE LI, LLC's refusal to comply with the DEC's requests for further information in order to resolve the lead agency dispute, KACE LI, LLC blamed and has continued to attempt to blame the Town of'Southold for failing to complete the SEQRA review process, including in the instant Verified Petition. 13. However, in that same letter, KACE LI, LL.0 ultimately conceded that the "most likely outcome [of the current Verified Petition before the Appellate Division] is that the case be remanded to complete the SEAR review." 14. The parties await a determination from the DEC regarding the lead agency dispute, and the Town of Southold remains committed to conducting an exhaustive environmental review of the proposed annexation upon that determination. However, as noted by the DEC, in order to do so, there must be a review of the preliminary details of the proposed development, which KACE L.I, LLC for some unknown reason has consistently refused to provide to DEC and the Town. 15. In its Decision and Order, the Town of Southold recognized that it was in a "Catch-22" situation with regard to SEQRA. The strict time • 7 • provisions of Article 17 provide no leeway for the Town to fail to make its findings regarding a Petition for Annexation. If the Town were to fail to make any such findings, it would have been deemed to have approved the annexation. Clearly, the Town had no authority to approve the annexation without a proper SEQRA review, not to mention the multitudinous other factors that led the Town to deny the Petition for Annexation in its Decision and Order, which we set forth below. PETITIONER IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO ESCAPE THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'S LAWFULLY ENACTED LAND USE REGULATIONS 16. The subject property is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD). Under the Hamlet Density Zoning District within the Town of Southold, a parcel of property may yield a maximum of four units to the acre provided that community water and sewer are available and provided. Moreover, any development of the subject property would be subject either to Chapter A- 106, Subdivision of Land, or 100-259.1, Standards for Residential Site Plans, of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. Each of these regulations would require not only a SEQRA review, but an analysis of an existing resource and site analysis plan (ERSAP), in determining the allowable density of dwelling units to be permitted on the subject property. Copies of the relevant Town regulations are annexed hereto as Exhibit "65 . • 8 • 17. Among a host of other factors, the ERSAP review process would exclude from potential development the environmentally sensitive features of the site, including but not limited to freshwater wetlands. 18. As a result, due to the acknowledged existence of the presence of substantial wetlands on the subject property, regardless of the dispute of the extent of such wetlands, it is quite possible that the allowable yield of this property under the Town of Southold land use regulations, would be less than four units per acre, or 68 units. Without a preliminary plan, which petitioners have refused to provide to DEC and the Town, this calculation cannot be estimated. 19, Petitioner is transparent in its rationale for attempting to escape these constitutionally-enacted and well-reasoned land use regulations of the Town of Southold. Simply put, it wishes to enjoy the much more dense and development-friendly regulations of the Village of Greenport. Both the Village of Greenport and KACE LI, LLC have made it plain that, no matter the environmental condition of the subject property, they plan on realizing the development of 128 units placed on the subject property. It is well settled, however, that "annexation may not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effects of that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an • 9 • adjoining municipality." Board of Trustees, Village of Spring Valley v_. Town of'Ramapo, 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, at 714 (2d Dep't 1999). 20. This rationale was incorporated into the Decision and Order (at Tl), and standing alone serves as a sufficient basis for the denial of the proposed annexation as conflicting directly with the overall public interest. THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION PROVIDES NO GUARANTEE OF PERPETUAL AFFORDABILITY, AS PROVIDED BY THE TOWN'S MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 21. While petitioners have attempted to "sell" their proposed development as providing affordable housing, in reality the proposal makes no guarantee that the housing will remain affordable in perpetuity. In contrast, the Town of Southold development regulations provide for the perpetual affordability of a minimum 25 percent of all such development, with the flexibility to provide for more. 22. Petitioner KACE LI, LLC's Memorandum in Support of Annexation, submitted at the public hearing held on August 23, 2005, purports to establish that fifty percent of the 128 units sought to be created on the subject property will be affordable (at p. 19). However, as revealed in that document, this is a mere illusory promise. Upon information and belief, • 10 • there exists no law in the Village of Greenport requiring such affordability or requiring that any affordable units remain as such in perpetuity. 23. Petitioner KACE LI, LLC's Memorandum further "promises" that the so-called "affordable" units will be sold at certain price levels, and leaves wholly to the Village of Greenport the discretion, but not requirement, that the "affordable" units be purchased by Town or Village income-qualifying residents (at 21). 24. Moreover, the Memorandum reveals that there is no provision for requiring, either by law, covenant or restriction, that the units remain affordable or be restricted in resale price in any meaningful or enforceable • way (at 22-27). 25. In stark contrast, the Town of Southold Subdivision of Land and Residential Site Plan regulations, which are currently applicable to the development of the subject property, have mandatory provisions that require that a minimum 25 percent of all homes constructed in the development be affordable (or otherwise provided for by payment into the Town's housing fund), and that all such property be covenanted and restricted to remain affordable in perpetuity. These regulations incorporate the mandatory requirements of the Town of Southold Affordable Housing District (AHD), which place significant safeguards on the selection of appropriate buyers or • lI • tenants from an established Town registry list. Moreover, to the extent petitioners sincerely wish to create as much as 50 percent or more of the development as affordable units in a meaningfid way, these regulations can ensure that this goal can be accomplished. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "7" are the AHD regulations of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. (See Decision and Order, at ¶5). 26. Accordingly, the purported entire basis for this "land grab", the provision of affordable housing, is a sham, and the Town correctly determined that the proposed annexation is not in the overall public interest. THE ANNEXATION AMOUNTS TO AN IMPROPER AND "PIECEMEAL" • LAND GRAB 'WITHOUT PROPER PLANNING 27. An annexation should not be piecemeal, benefiting one property owner alone. Rather, it should follow sound planning principles. See Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47 (2d Dep't 1977). (See Decision and Order, at T6.) 28. Petitioners have submitted no details of the proposed development of the subject property, despite the urgings of the DEC and the Town. Even worse yet, petitioners have revealed no planning studies that might support, or refute, the dubious wisdom of their annexation proposal. • 12 • 29. It is clear from this sheer lack of sound planning that petitioners seek improperly to engage in "piecemeal annexation, benefiting one property owner alone," or KACE LI, LLC. Because "annexation should not follow the fortuitous boundary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself," as the subject petition does with respect to KACE LI, LLC, the petition is improper. Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 393 N.Y.S.2d at 48. 30. Moreover, the Village of Greenport has revealed in its Verified Petition that an overriding objective in seeking the subject annexation is the increase of its territory and tax revenues (at T50). This selfish perspective • damages both the territory, in the unplanned development of an environmentally sensitive property, the Town of Southold, by escaping the well-planned and constitutionally-enacted zoning regulations, and the surrounding territory. 31. "Annexation cannot be considered as being in the overall public interest where the only benefit to be derived is expansion room for the municipality seeking annexation while the annexed area and the area out of which it is to be carved, will be adversely affected." City Council of City of MechanicvilIe v. Town Board of Town of Huntington, 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, at 311 (1971). • 13 • 32. As to the area out of which it is proposed to be carved, at the public hearing on the proposed annexation, counsel appeared to voice the strenuous objection of thirteen property owners in the immediately- surrounding area. A copy of the transcript of proceedings is annexed hereto as Exhibit "S". 33. Counsel also submitted a substantial Memorandum and Appendix in opposition to the proposed annexation, which is annexed in its entirety as Exhibit "9". 34. In addition to factual and legal argument, the objectors' Memorandum and Appendix contained a documentary history of the subject parcel, including planning documents of the Town of Southold that conclude that "intense development of the [subject parcel] does not seem to meet" the Town's comprehensive planning goals (at Memorandum and Appendix Exh. 36). 35. The Decision and Order recounted the conflict between the proposal and the Town's planning initiatives in detail (at �6); The Town of Southold has long engaged in comprehensive planning for development and land use decisions throughout the Town. The Town recently completed a hamlet study planning process whereby stakeholders selected from each hamlet prepared recommendations for the vision and future of their hamlets. Although this parcel is located within the HALO, or hamlet locus area surrounding the hamlet center, this proposed high-density development is against "smart- . 14 • growth" planning principles. The development is located on a heavily traveled roadway, and is not within walking distance of the Village center, post office, or stores. This property is surrounded on three sides by the Village property. The surrounding Village property is parkland, zoned PD (Parkland) by the Village. The property to the north of the parcel is zoned by the Town as R-80, which is two acre residential zoning. Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Village, it is approximately 4,500 feet (close to a mile) from the nearest developed portion of the Village, and even farther from the business center. The Village changed the surrounding land from residential zoning to PD in 1987 in response to directives from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (See portion of"Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town" report to the Town Board dated February 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "5" which recommended rezoning of the parcel to a less intensive residential disnct. The Town Board rezoned the subject parcel, which was overturned by the Court following a challenge by • KACE LI, LLC on the basis that the rezoning required a supermajority of the Town Board because the owner had filed a protest petition, and such supermajority was not achieved.) An updated report on the zoning of this parcel prepared by the Town Planner in 2002 reiterates the recommendation that high density development of this parcel is contrary to the comprehensive planning and smart growth planning principles utilized in the Town of Southold. It is estimated that as many as nine of the seventeen acres are freshwater wetlands, and not buildable. To achieve a density of 128 units, the wetlands would have to be included in the yield, which is an approach that is clearly not in the over-all public interest. To put 128 dwelling units on the remaining land runs afoul of the sound planning principles the Town has implemented over the past 20 years. The density controls in place in the Town are designed to impose a minimal impact on the environment and the community. • 15 • 36. The proposed annexation would amount to a de facto rezoning of the subject parcel. This de facto rezoning is contrary to decades of the Town's comprehensive planning, and constitutes illegal "spot zoning". See West Branch Conservation Association v. Town of Ramapo, 284 A.D.2d 401, 726 N.Y.S.2d 137 (2d Dep't 2003)- 37. In addition to the surrounding neighbors, at the public hearing the Superintendent of Greenport School District, Dr. Charles Kozora, objected to the adverse effects the proposed annexation and development would have on the school district. Dr. Kozora projected that, after income from the development were deducted, it would have a net increase of$1.16 • million on the district's budget in his estimation, and that increase would result in a 14% increase in school taxes (Tr. at 66). 38. Moreover, objection was heard throughout the hearing from the general public regarding the apparent lack of benefit to the public regarding the annexation. THE TOWN'S LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM CONSISTENCY LAW PRECLUDES THE APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION 39. Chapter 95 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold precludes the Town Board from approving any action without first finding that it is consistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront • 16 • Revitalization Program (LWRP), which was approved pursuant to Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act of the State of New York (Article 42 of the Executive Law). The New York Law was enacted pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC §§1451 et sed.). A copy of Chapter 95 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold is annexed hereto as Exhibit "10". 40. Based upon the recommendation of the Town's LWRP Consistency Coordinator, in the Decision and Order the Town Board determined that the Petition for Annexation was inconsistent with the policy goals of the Town's LWRP. Among the inconsistencies are the failure of • the proposal to "[f]oster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development." As a result, pursuant to federal, state and local law, which grants the Town home rule jurisdiction over its coastal areas, which includes the proposed territory to be annexed, the Town was forbidden from approving the Petition for Annexation. 17 THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS NOT IN THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST 41. For a variety of other reasons, the Petition for Annexation was properly denied as not being in the public interest pursuant to the requirements of the General Municipal Law. 42. Moreover, the petitioners have claimed that a significant benefit of the annexation would be an "as-of-right" connection to the Village sewer system. This is of no benefit to the Village residents. Upon information and belief, an agreement already exists between the petitioners to permit the applicant to hook in for a charge. The Village has previously charged significant hook-up fees for properties outside the Village boundaries. The • applicant has proposed to construct 128 dwelling, units on the property, which, as pointed out at the public hearing (see hearing transcript attached hereto as Exhibit "8") would provide a significant income to the Village if the applicant is required to pay a hook-up fee. Here, if annexation were approved, the applicant would not have to pay a hook-up fee, depriving the Village of revenues. Upon information and belief, sewer rents as income to the Village would be charged in either event, and are not a factor. It strains credulity to suggest that, failing annexation, the Village of Greenport could not find a way to permit KACE LI, LLC to connect to the Village sewer system if it chose to do so. 18 • 43.. Upon information and belief, the property, if developed as part of the Town, is eligible for Suffolk County Water Authority service and electric service through LIPA. In this case, the necessary municipal services are all available without annexation. No evidence has been presented by the petitioners that the land cannot be developed as currently zoned. It thus appears that applicant seeks annexation merely to avoid the Town's limitations on density and to avail itself of the greater density allowance permitted by the Village. 44. The proposed territory would suffer detriment as a result of annexation in the form of higher density, unplanned development, increased traffic congestion, and the lack of appropriate consideration of environmentally-sensitive wetlands. Because the Village of Greenport Code does not properly consider these factors, as does the Town Code of the Town of Southold, annexation is inappropriate. See Town of Lansing v. Village of Lansing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29, at 31 (3`d Dep't 1981). 45, The Petition for Annexation seeks to permit unplanned and high density development on land encumbered by wetlands, without assurance of affordability, to the detriment of the territory, the local school district and the Town of Southold. The Petition for Annexation is not in the overall public interest. Common Council of the City of Middletown v. Town Board • 19 r` • of the Town of'Wallkill, 143 A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17, at 19 (2d Dep't 1988). 46. The proposed annexation provides no benefit except to a private developer, and the Village of Greenport has provided no planning studies to suggest that high density development of the territory is in the overall public interest. Because no specific plans or planning studies have been submitted supporting the proposed annexation and high density development project, petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that annexation is in the public interest. City of Port Jervis v. Town of Deer Park, 169 A.D.2d 764, 565 N.Y.S.2d 131, at 132 (2d Dep't -1991). 47. For the foregoing reasons, the Town of Southold acted appropriately in denying the proposal for annexation in its Decision and Order. The Verified Petition should be dismissed. 48. In the alternative, once an environmental review is completed pursuant to SEQRA, the Appellate Division should conduct a de novo review of the Verified Petition in accordance with the requirements of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, so that respondents may • 20 • demonstrate the compelling facts that mandate a denial of the proposed annexation due to its necessary adverse effect on the public interest. Dated: Southold, New York February 9, 2006 P RICIA A. FINN N, ESQ. Sworn to before me this 9th day of ebruary, 2006. 4 No Public V LORI H.MONTEFUSCO Notary Pu"iC,State of New York No.02 06109802 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires May 24,2 • 21 • Appendix F • • oEnginoeriyW,Sun tTlmg and LandsrupeAmbilectVrm,PC. • SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT * REPLY AFFIDAVIT In the Matter of the Petition of the OF HONORABLE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, DAVID E. KAPELL Petitioner-s, For a Judgment Pursuant to Section 712 And APPELLATE DIVISION Article 17 of the General Municipal Law and DOCKET NO. Article 78 and Section 3001 of The Civil 2005/11702 Practice Laws and Rules, -against- THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, JOSHUA HORTON AS THE SUPERVISOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, LOUISA EVANS, JOHN M. ROMANELLI, THOMAS H. WICKHAM, WILLIAM P. EDWARDS, AND DANIEL C. ROSS, CONSTITUTING THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, GREENPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT, • GREENPORT LIBRARY, EAST WEST FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, THE SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE DISTRICT, SUFFOLK COUNTY, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Respondents, * STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss . . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) David E. Kapell, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1 . I am the Mayor of the Village of Greenport ("Village") , New York. I am also a licensed real estate broker continuously active in the Greenport and North Fork real estate markets since 1981 . 1 • 2 . Prior to being elected mayor in 1994, and beginning in 1979, I have served at times and respectively as Greenport Community Development Supervisor/Code Enforcement Officer, Village Trustee and Planning Board Chairman. I am also presently a member of Suffolk County Steve Levy' s Workforce Housing Commission, appointed to consider the housing crisis in the regional context . I have extensive personal knowledge of the proceedings and underlying facts relating to this matter and the facts that are alleged in this affidavit . 3 . I submit this affidavit on behalf of the Village of Greenport and the Village Board of Trustees in support of the Petition for the Court' s approval of the proposed KACE LI, LLC • (KACE) annexation and in response to the affidavit previously filed with the court by Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq. Town Attorney for the Town of Southold ("Town") . 4 . During my twenty-seven years working for the village, I have been directly involved in the Greenport Community Development Department program to meet the housing needs of village residents, for whom median family income in 2000 was $36, 333 . 1 5 . In her affidavit, Ms . Finnegan would have the court believe that the village is perpetrating a "land grab" and a "sham" under which the Village tax base would be enhanced while • ' 2000 Decennial Census 2 • a developer makes a "windfall" profit by creating 64 units of affordable housing. 6. While it may be true that if the proposed annexation is approved by the court and the property is developed, the property owner will benefit and the Village tax base will grow, it is also true that the tax base of the Town will grow, because it collects a tax on all properties in the Town, including those in the Village, which should not be held against either the Village or the property owner. Is this not, after all, the American Way? 7 . That this fundamentally democratic concept escapes Ms . Finnegan is manifest in her failure to grasp the essential • strategy of the proposal : leverage the good zoning and utility infrastructure of the village to harness free-market forces to promote the desirable development of affordable housing, and then use minimal market intervention, along with good design, to insure the long-term affordability of the housing produced. 8 . Ms . Finnegan asserts that the town has superior capacity to consider an affordable housing project, and determine the degree of public interest to be served by the KACE project. 9. Ms . Finnegan' s condescending, hypocritical and bitter assertions are unsupported by the record and belied by the • 3 • Town' s historically abysmal performance in the production of affordable housing for its constituents . THE TOWN HAS CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10 . The Town has produced no new affordable housing whatsoever in over 8 years and has a statistically meaningless record of performance historically. 11 . I am informed that the sole housing program benefiting Town residents outside the Village is administered by the North Fork Housing Alliance in the form of US Dept. of HUD Existing Section-8 Rent vouchers for 120 families, in addition to some home improvement loans and grants . • 12 . The Section 8 program subsidizes a statistically insignificant 0 . 90 of the Town' s total housing stock. 13 . In a transparently cynical effort to create the appearance of performance, the Town recently enacted so-called "inclusionary" zoning. This is allegedly achieved by revising the Town' s subdivision regulations to consider major subdivisions in one of two categories, Standard Subdivisions or Conservation Subdivisions . 14 . The difference between them is profound as it relates to affordable housing and offers a stark and unflattering window on the true intentions of the Town: to promote the development of McMansions for second home owners who pay high taxes and • 4 don' t put children in local schools, not the affordable housing needed to serve local families struggling to raise children on North Fork incomes . The following is an explanation of this analysis : a . Standard Subdivision - Treats subdivisions as in the past, but requires that 250 of new lots be set aside and sold at drastically reduced prices to buyers meeting certain income standards set by the Town, or in lieu thereof requiring developers to make payments into a housing fund to be held by the town.z Historically, review of a Standard Subdivision in the Town is a notoriously long process, often taking years, adding significantly to the cost of development, and making it idifficult if not impossible to forecast market conditions in some unknown time in the future, a forecast on which developers assess their financial risk. Add to this the onerous financial imposition of a 25% set-aside and what results are major disincentives to elect the Standard Subdivision procedure . So- called "inclusionary" zoning offers no density bonus to the developer to offset what is effectively a confiscation of property rights for redistribution to others the Town professes to prefer. b. Conservation Subdivision - Requires the developer 2 As of this writing,I believe the fund to be virtually empty. 5 • to give up the right to develop 700 or more of the land in exchange for reduced filing fees and expedited review and approval . These are two very significant incentives, as discussed in Par. a. above, that belie the Town' s true intent: to promote development at a density so low that it effectively excludes all but the wealthy from homeownership in the Town. 15. This so-called "inclusionary" zoning is really nothing more than a new brand of exclusionary zoning (emphasis supplied) and a Trojan Horse for McMansions, under the mantra of affordable housing. This is a cruel and cynical means to achieve a perverse and discriminatory social end, which is the Town' s true goal . • 16. The information which I have obtained from sources within the Town indicates that there has been little or no interest in the Standard Subdivision process since the "inclusionary" zoning set-aside was enacted over a year ago and no new housing has been approved or built pursuant to its adoption. 17 . The Town can offer nothing more than federal rent subsidies for a statistically insignificant 0 . 90 of the Town' s total housing stock as evidence of its commitment, capacity and intent to produce affordable housing, and to justify its allegation of superior capacity to that of the Village to produce affordable housing. 6 • THE VILLAGE HAS AN EXTENSIVE RECORD OF HOUSING PERFORMANCE OVER A 27-YEAR PERIOD 18 . The Village has taken major strides to address the need for affordable housing over a 27-year period and has done so with millions of dollars in federal funding from the United States Dept . of Housing and Urban Development through its Community Development Block Grant Program for Small Cities, combined with strong in-house capacity for performance, and consistent political support from the Village Board of Trustees and the community at-large as expressed in repeated Village elections over the 27-year process at issue. 19. The Village obtained its first Small Cities grant in 1981 and has applied successfully for funding in most of the ensuing years . 20 . These funds have been used for activities ranging from demolition and clearance of slums and blight; to home improvement loans and grants; new construction for rental and homeownership; and public infrastructure and storm-water abatement improvements in blighted neighborhoods. 21 . The Village, as an example of its commitment to affordable housing, is now completing its latest grant of $400, 000 to fund the creation of affordable accessory apartments in single-family homes and commercial structures in the Village. • 7 22 . These apartments are being created by private property owners pursuant to a zoning change enacted by the Village Board of Trustees in July 2002 that permits virtually any home in Greenport to be converted to a two-family as-of-right. It also permits apartments over stores in the business district. 23 . This action was taken by the Village Board in response to rising housing prices and a finding that the rental housing stock was being diminished by a market trend under which many single-family homes that had been previously converted to two- family use were being sold to buyers intent on restoring them to their original one-family configuration. In 2000, the village had a total housing stock of 1, 075 units .3 24 . The following is a partial list of the accomplishments of the Greenport Community Development Program since its inception in 1979: a . Recognizing the need for a public role in the provision of safe and affordable housing for its residents, in the 1970' s the Village successfully sought special legislation from the New York State Legislature for the establishment of the Greenport Housing Authority, an agency of village government authorized to carry out programs to assist low and moderate income families with safe, decent and 3 2000 US Decennial Census 8 affordable housing. b. Construction of a 16-unit subsidized rental garden apartment complex. C. Construction of 17 new single-family homes sold to low and moderate income families . d. Federal funding to the Greenport Housing Authority for 87 units of Section 8 rent subsidies for existing housing. e . Support for the North Fork Housing Alliance (NFHA) , a local not-for-profit housing agency, in securing 80 units of Section-8 rent subsidies for low- moderate income families living within the iincorporated Village . f. Between the Village and NFHA programs, 183 of 348, 52 . 50 of all rental units in the village are subsidized. g. Support for the North Fork Housing Alliance in the acquisition and maintenance of 32 existing housing units in 14 properties located within the incorporated Village for low-moderate income families . (It is interesting to note that the NFHA, chartered to serve the housing needs of the entire Town, has no similar holdings outside the Village. ) h. Funded the improvement of scores of housing units • 9 • with interest-free loans or grants for home improvement and weatherization. i. The Village has also employed progressive regulatory reform to respond to the problem. In 2002, with the formerly depressed housing market booming, the Village Board rezoned 900 of the residential districts for as-of-right two-family use and for apartments over stores downtown. j . Of special relevance to the Petition, in 2004 the Village board by resolution and memorandum (see Exhibit A) proposed to the Town to jointly study the concept of adjusting the Village boundary • line to cause vacant lands currently outside the fully-developed Village to come under jurisdiction of the Village' s existing high-density zoning and to cause public water and sewer services to be available in order to induce owners of affected lands to undertake development of affordable housing without massive public subsidy. The Town, in its wisdom, gave this proposal no serious consideration and no progress was made. k. The Petition is but the latest installment on the Village' s consistent record over 27 years of comprehensive planning and performance through its • 10 . Community Development Program to meet the housing needs of low and moderate income families . AN OBJECTIVE COMPARISON OF VILLAGE AND TOWN HOUSING PERFORMANCE CONFIRMS THAT GREENPORT HAS THE GREATER CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT HOUSING INITIATSVES 25. A statistical comparison of Town and Village performance in providing affordable housing using the data detailed in Paragraphs 10 - 24 above produces a stark contrast: a. The Town has preserved 120 affordable housing units out a total housing stock of 13, 769 units, a performance measured as a percentage at 0. 90 . b. the Village has created or preserved 232 40 affordable housing units out of a total housing stock of 1, 075 units, a performance measured as a percentage at 21 . 50 . C. It is indisputable that the record and experience of the village in producing and preserving affordable housing is vastly superior to that of the Town, which has essentially done nothing. SOUTHOLD' S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: CONCENTRATE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AND MINORITY FAMILIES WITHIN THE EXISTING VILLAGE BOUNDARY 26. The unofficial policy of the Town of Southold has always been to concentrate low and moderate income and minority families within the Village, which is accomplished by the Town' s • 11 • exclusionary zoning and intentional failure to address the need for affordable housing. Demographic data tells the story: 4 a. In the Town, minority residents of all types constitute 11 . 20 of an overall population of 20, 599. b. In the Village, minority residents of all types constitute 410 of an overall population of 2, 048 . C. Median family income in the Town is $61, 108 d. Median family income in the Village is $36, 333 e. Percentage of families living in poverty in the Town is 4 . 10 f. Percentage of families living in poverty in the • Village is 21 . 20 27 . It is clear from this data that the village is impacted with a starkly disproportionate share of the minority and low-income residents living within the Town. Given these facts and the Town' s regulatory bias toward development of expensive housing as discussed in Paragraphs 13 - 16 above, and the Town' s utter refusal to even consider boundary line adjustments when first proposed by the Village in 2004, it is easy to conclude that the Town would like to contain the socio- economic diversity of the Village to within the confines of its existing boundary. • °All data taken from the 2000 US Decennial Census 12 • USE MARKET FORCES TO INDUCE THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT MASSIVE PUBLIC SUBSIDY 28 . The project relies on high-density development that is typically blocked by NIMBYism, the `snot in my backyard" syndrome that has become synonymous with political paralysis in response to the housing crisis on Long Island and elsewhere in the region. With high-density development of affordable units, and the separate project component providing for 64 open-market units, KACE has been induced to risk private capital to fund the development. This approach preserves scarce public resources for use in addressing other pressing needs. 29. The project makes efficient use of the Village' s existing utility infrastructure and residential zoning, which comports with a pattern of development in the Village featuring one-and-two family homes on 50' X 100' lots, or 8 - 16 housing units per acre, that dates back to the Village' s 1838 founding. The project proposes 8 units per acre, at the lower end of this range . It is the availability of suitable zoning regulations and utilities that have induced KACE to propose the project and assume the significant financial risks appurtenant thereto. USE MINIMAL MARKET INTERVENTION AND GOOD DESIGN TO PROMOTE FUTURE AFFORDABILITY NATURALLY 30. The housing economy of the North Fork, encompassing both the Town and the Village, has a major structural flaw: s 13 • prices are dictated by second-home buyers who earn much higher incomes in places like New York City than do full-time local residents who earn much lower incomes in the weak local economy. 31 . Because prices in the housing market are tied directly to incomes, local buyers are rendered impotent and are largely excluded from the market. For Greenport, this market failure is exacerbated by a complete lack of vacant land available for development within the Village and a lack of suitable zoning and utility infrastructure in the Town to support affordable housing development on lands located outside the Village. 32 . Census data illustrates this market failure in bold relief: 680 of all new homes sold in Southold Town between 1990 and 2000 were sold to second-home buyers .5 33. This condition is also reflected in the fact that in 2000, 33. 80 of all homes in Southold Town, excluding Greenport, were identified as "vacant", which refers to housing occupied by parties who choose to report to the census in other jurisdictions. 6 In Greenport in 2000, 29. 7% of all housing units were identified as "vacant" for the same reason. 34 . This data confirms a market paradox: owners of seasonal homes in both the Town and the Village are a distinct 5 2000 US Decennial Census 6 2000 US Decennial Census 14 • minority of the population overall but enjoy a virtual monopoly on the housing market. 35 . To address this market failure, we propose a very simple yet powerful solution: restrict by deed covenant the sale now and forever of the housing to be created to people who live or work in the Town, including the Village, according to a fair and thorough test administered by a governmental agency, such as the Greenport Housing Authority. 36. By so doing, I estimate that the wealthiest 600 of the housing market will be disqualified, allowing the remaining market to freely set future prices at levels that are always reflective of the local economy and the wages it produces, • thereby rendering such prices inherently affordable in any market with only minimal ongoing regulatory involvement. 37 . In addition to this market intervention strategy, the project will utilize good design to minimize price inflation. By creating small living spaces, ranging from as little as 700 square feet, the project will discourage the interest of affluent buyers whose preference is for larger living spaces . 38 . The Village will require KACE to covenant that merger of contiguous units will be forever barred, thereby ensuring that the small-scale configuration and the natural market brake it exercises are preserved. 39. By restricting buyers to people living and or working • 15 • full-time in the Town, and by creating modest small-scale housing, the market for the housing created will reflect the limitations of the local economy, resulting in natural price moderation. The playing field for local families hoping to buy homes will be leveled by operation of market forces without massive public subsidy or complex, unmanageable regulatory schemes . THE VILLAGE OR THE NYS DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SHOULD BE DESIGNATED LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW 40. Inasmuch as the Town prematurely denied the Petition prior to completion of the environmental review required pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, it is incumbent on the parties to complete the required environmental quality review ("SEQRA") before the petition is decided. 41 . With both the Village and Town declaring themselves lead agency in the matter, the dispute must be resolved by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (` DEC") and that resolution is pending. 42 . The foregoing recitation of the vastly superior capacity of the Village over the Town to consider, plan and implement affordable housing programs, and the Village' s clear standing as the entity likely to experience most of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and best suited to 16 evaluate and asses them, make clear that the Village should be appointed lead agency. 43 . However, recognizing the need to resolve the dispute, and the superior capacity of the DEC to evaluate environmental impacts, the village will support a decision by DEC to appoint itself lead agency, if it so chooses . 44 . Given the Town' s poor history on the housing issue and its clear bias against high-density development, appointing the Town as lead agency would be putting the "fox in the henhouse" . 45. In the event DEC chooses not to declare itself lead agency, the Village asks that it be so appointed. SUBMARY 46. The Village is faced with two choices in responding to the critical need for new affordable housing: it can grow up (vertically) by raising the height limits for construction thereby altering the intimate scale of the Village, half of which is listed on the Federal Register of Historic Places, a characteristic that fuels the tourism that has helped revitalize the Village economy. Or it can grow horizontally as proposed in the Petition 47 . The absence of any vacant land for horizontal growth within the existing village boundary gives rise to the Village' s interest in annexing vacant lands outside the Village, like the 17 • KACE property, upon which affordable housing can be developed if sewer service and village zoning are made available . 48 . It is beyond dispute that high-density development is required to promote the development of affordable housing at the scale needed to keep low and moderate income families living in Greenport, on the North Fork, and in the region for that matter. 49. It is beyond dispute that high-density development cannot occur unless a public sewer connection is available. 50 . The only public sewer system on the North Fork is the Greenport Sewer System and capacity exists with which to serve the KACE project. 51 . The Village denies that KACE is entitled to a sewer • connection other than as a discretionary act, because the property is presently located outside the Village, and a 1996 stipulation of settlement providing for a connection is obsolete and void. 52 . It is manifest that the actual effect of the Town' s zoning policies over a long period of time has been to concentrate low and moderate income families and minorities within the Village. 53 . The Village is proud of its diversity and is actively interested in expanding the supply of affordable housing but seeks to do so in a way that enhances and does not destroy the physical character of the Village that, in addition to its i 18 • socio-economic diversity, distinguishes Greenport as a vibrant American small town. 54 . It is reasonable for a Village struggling to thrive, while accommodating the housing needs of a diverse population, to collect tax revenues that accrue from development that can only occur with a connection to the Village sewer system, and with the availability of other village services and resources 55 . The Village cannot collect taxes on the KACE project unless it is annexed. 56. Municipal Boundary line adjustments can and should be considered an important tool for meeting the housing needs of a diverse society. • 57 . The Petition should be approved by the court as a novel but reasonable strategy to address an intransigent and critical public policy dilemma: the provision of affordable housing without massive public subsidy in a way that strengthens rather than weakens a community that agrees to bear the burden of servicing such housing; in this case, the Village of Greenport. 58 . Either the Village or the NYS DEC should be designated lead agency for the purpose of compliance with SEQRA. 19 • WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that the Court grant the Petition and vacate the Order and Determination, determine that the Annexation Petition should be approved, and in the alternative, determine that the Village of Greenport be appointed lead agency for purposes of SEQRA in this matter. David E. Kapell Sworn to before me this Day of February, 2006 • • 20 g � i "V t November 25, 2008 The Kace Group 43 West 54'h Street New York,New York 10019 Attention: Constantine E. Koiatokosta Dear Mr. Kontokosta: You .have advised. this office of your proposal. to create a 1.28 unit mixed incoine housing development in Greenport,New York; consisting of One, two and three bedroom home ownership units, 64 of�vliich are proposed to be built as affordable units within the parameters of the Suffolk County Workforce Housing Program, • We also understand that the proposed development will promote innovative p energy efficient and environmentally responsible smart growth design principles. This development will meet New York Energy Star requirements and incorporate elements of the U.S. Green Building Council'sLEED Hon:ies and .LEER Neighborhood Development green building standards. The forgoing points along: with the number and types of affordable units proposed are commendable in any assessment by this office. Alesupport your efforts and encourage the approval of'your proposed development. Our office looks forward to assisting with this noteworthy project. Sincerely yoi-i s, Patrick A, l leanev Commissioner PAI 'kmb cc: Jill Rosen-Nikoloff Director of Affordable Housitlo • Su+io'k County becuti;e BETTER FOR US11 SS—BETTER FOR LIFE Commissioner Fi,Lee Denni<_on Bldg..2nd Floor•Hauppauge,Long Island,NY 1788-0099.phone:0-853-4600 fax:5�I-65s r:866. nw�:uFo kcouniyr_�ovlexeuercn. i ■ i j Appendix G t g Engineerft,Suez. Thig and Landsax Architecture, 3C-