Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Written comments on the DEIS
Comments from the Southold Town Planning Department on the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE March 10, 2016 General Comments by Subject Soils, Natural Resources, Wildlife Habitat, Noise and Disturbance to Neighbors. The need to clear and bulldoze the entire site has not been fully justified in the DEIS. The impacts of clearing the entire site and removing all wildlife and wildlife habitat, as well as many significant trees 10" and greater in diameter are large, both to the habitat and wildlife on site. The impacts to the neighbors are also large, as all natural screening will be removed and neighboring properties will be exposed to significant noise and visual discord. Planting small trees is not as effective in saving wildlife habitat as retaining large trees, nor is it as effective as natural existing vegetation at screening the noise and visual discord of construction from the neighbors. The adverse impact of clearing the entire site could be mitigated by retaining trees and existing native vegetation where feasible. In the DEIS, the justification for clearing the entire site is related to soil contamination and remediation. The testing protocol, including the number of samples and the thresholds/levels for remediation action are based on obsolete guidelines and nine-year old soil sample data. New samples to provide new data are required. The sampling protocol and methods for presenting the data will be determined by the Lead Agency during the FEIS process, as will the acceptable objectives for soil contamination remediation. Any mitigation and soil management plan required by the Lead Agency must be addressed in the FEIS after the new data are available for review. Natural Resources To better determine the impacts to natural resources, provide the existing tree inventory on a plan that shows the relative size of the trees and their species on an overlay of the overall site plan. 1 Phasing The impacts to neighbors due to construction is potentially large due to the long time to completion of this project, and that proposed Phase 1 involves the clearing of the entire site. Propose and describe mitigation that could be achieved if the project was completed in fewer phases or shorter phases. Lighting. The site lighting plan shows many values over the maximum value of 5 footcandles allowed on site by Town Code section 172. This will cause a significant adverse impact to the night sky by causing sky glow. There have also been documented health impacts associated with excessive night lighting. How will these impacts from excessive site lighting be mitigated? Energy efficiency. The Suffolk County Planning Commission, in their comments to the Planning Board, pointed out that the application could be improved with more attention paid to energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. Explain the potential mitigation the installation of solar panels could have on the future use of electricity. Provide additional mitigation to offset the increased energy the site will use. Can the units be made more energy efficient? Less outdoor lighting? Is geothermal a possibility? Community Character In their comments to the Planning Board, the Southold Town Architectural Review Committee has noted that the lack of diversity of units in terms of house shape and color is a detriment to the quality of life for the future residents, and is out of character with most other residential areas in the Town. This is an impact that must be mitigated as this type of monotonous development is not consistent with the community character. Possible mitigation could include increasing the diversity of house shapes and colors in this development. Emergency Services The Cutchogue Fire Department has expressed concern over the increased number of calls that will result from this development, and has requested the mitigation measure of a medical/nurse's station to handle minor medical complaints. From the Planning Board's experience, including members of the Planning Board that currently serve as emergency service providers, retirement communities' residents will make increasing 2 numbers of emergency calls as they age. There will be an impact to the emergency services, and mitigation for this must be considered. Groundwater (Section 2.2; Appendix E) 1. The potentially large adverse impacts of Nitrogen to groundwater and surface waters have not been fully explored, nor their mitigation demonstrated in the DEIS. Provide a table that shows the concentration and amount of Nitrogen expected to be released into the groundwater from the standard septic systems proposed, based on known data about these systems. Also provide a comparison to the concentration and amount of Nitrogen expected to be released into groundwater from the alternative systems mentioned in the DEIS (the systems outlined in the fourth alternative that are in the Pilot Program testing phase in the SCDHS, but will be approved for use later this year, and proposed by the applicant's agent at the public hearing to be used in the development). The SCDHS has told us they have preliminary data about the amount of Nitrogen released into the groundwater from these systems. Also describe the time it will take for the groundwater from this site to migrate to the nearest private drinking water wells, as well as to the nearest surface water. 2. The Applicant should consider whether there are any options for reducing the amount of irrigation required to reduce consumption of water. 3. The remediation plan includes grading the top 12 inches of soil that contains arsenic and mercury and placing the soil in a capped berm. Additional information should be provided to assess whether irrigating the mounds will create a scenario where infiltrating irrigation water can mobilize existing contaminants. Transportation (Section 3.1; Appendix G) 1. Backup documentation (ATR Counts, historical count data) should be provided that provides support as to how the peak hours of the traffic network were determined and how Sunday was determined as the most conservative weekend day. 3 2. Additional explanation as to why the intersection of Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Crown Land Lane was eliminated from the list of intersections to be analyzed should be provided. If it is for the same reason that the intersection of NYS Route 25 and Highland Road, it should be so stated. 3. The official traffic signal timing plans (from NYSDOT or the appropriate transportation agency) for the signalized intersection of NYS Route 25 and New Suffolk Road should be provided. 4. The DEIS states that rear end and right angle accidents are most prevalent in the study area and that these results are expected for an arterial roadway through a business district "when speed limits change and driveway activity increase along the roadway." Please clarify the speed limit reference. Does it refer to speed limit changes along a single roadway? 5. The Existing Conditions LOS and Delay results should be checked for accuracy as some of the results presented in the LOS tables do not match the result descriptions in the text (see page 99 of the DEIS). 6. The southbound approach of the intersection of NYS Route 25 & Depot Lane is shown to experience an increase in delay from 56.7 to 62.9 seconds (LOS F) during the PM peak hour and a decline in LOS from LOS E (delay of 48.6 seconds) to LOS F (delay of 57.7 seconds) during the Weekend peak hour from No Build to Build conditions. These increases in delay and decline in LOS should be identified as impacts. 7. Mitigation options for the impacts at the intersection of NYS Route 25 & Depot Lane include: a. construction of an exclusive southbound right turn lane (as presented in the DEIS), as well as improvement of the turning radius there, or b. signalization of the intersection. The DEIS concludes that traffic volumes at this intersection would not satisfy the Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Signal Warrant. A preliminary review of both the PM and Weekend peak hour Build volumes indicate that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant (MUTCD Warrant 3) would be satisfied for both peaks; however, more weight can be given to the Four-Hour warrant than the Peak Hour Warrant. It is important to note that meeting a signal warrant satisfies 4 the minimum criteria necessary to consider the installation of a traffic signal at a specific intersection. The warrants do not define the need for a traffic signal but merely indicate that further engineering studies are needed to determine if the installation of the traffic signal is justified. The Applicant should meet with NYSDOT and the Town to discuss the appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented. 8. The DEIS mentions that there are no planned roadway improvements (for No Build conditions) in the study area. However, the intersection of CR48 and Depot Lane is presented as an unsignalized intersection under Existing Conditions and signalized under No Build and Build conditions. Signalization of this intersection should be identified and analyzed as a planned area roadway improvement which would be expected to be present under No Build (and Build) conditions. 9. The DEIS and TIS do not identify the southbound left-turn and right-turn movement delay and LOS results at the intersection of NYS Route 25 and Griffing Street beyond Existing Conditions—only the composite southbound approach delay and LOS results are presented in both the text and tables for No Build and Build conditions. While the composite southbound approach does not show any notable deterioration in LOS, the Synchro analysis shows that the southbound left-turn movement would decline from LOS D (No Build) to LOS E (Build) during the Weekend Peak Hour, which should be identified as an impact and mitigation measures should be identified. The delay and LOS results for the southbound left-turn and right-turn movements at this intersection should be presented for all conditions. 10. The DEIS states that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) indicates that 14 minutes is the minimum response time by fire personnel. Documentation that verifies this should be provided. 11. The DEIS states that "in order to control speed and provide traffic calming, all internal roadway intersections within the project site are stop controlled." Stop signs are not generally recognized by transportation professionals as a traffic calming measure. More generally recognized traffic calming measures (e.g., speed humps, speed tables, mini-roundabouts, etc.) should be investigated and considered for recommendation within the DEIS. 12. The FEIS should provide recommendations to improve pedestrian and traffic safety at the intersection of Project Site driveway, Schoolhouse Road and 5 Griffing Street. As mitigation to traffic impacts to pedestrian and traffic safety, the Southold Town Transportation Commission recommends the intersection of the three be controlled by stop signs for all three approaches, a crosswalk from the east side of the site driveway across Schoolhouse Lane to the corner on the east side of Griffing Street. They also recommend adding a sidewalk on the east side of Griffing to connect the site to the Post Office and hamlet center. 13. Who would be responsible for the costs and implementation of any improvement/mitigation measures at locations identified as experiencing impacts? 14. What route will construction vehicles travel, and what impacts might this have on local streets? How many construction vehicles per hour? Per day? Over what time period? For how long? Has the option of a construction route directly from the property to Depot Lane been explored as mitigation to the impacts of construction vehicles traveling over local streets? Is it possible to lease land for a temporary construction road to Depot Lane? The following comments are organized by page number from the DEIS. Page iv states: "...at least 50 percent of the subject property to be set aside as open space" Fifty percent or 23.03 acres of"open space"is proposed to be preserved, however, the proposal is to clear most if not all of existing vegetation for the purpose of soil management." Accordingly, the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development has been designed to comply with (1) the Town Code and other provisions of law and land regulations that existed prior to the aforesaid 2009 local laws, and (2) the aforesaid development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. Chapter 280 defines open space as — "Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring 6 such open space, provided that such areas may be improved with only those buildings, structures, streets and off-street parking and other improvements that are designed to be incidental to the natural openness of the land." The current proposal does not support this definition, specifically the terms "natural openness of land". The DEIS states this is not possible due to the soil remediation required by soil contamination, which in turn requires the entire site to be cleared and the top layer of soil stripped. It is acknowledged by this department that the soils on site may be contaminated with arsenic and mercury, however the data used to determine the level of contamination are old (collected from samples taken in 2007). On March 3, 2016 this office contacted the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation to discuss the relevancy of the data and acceptable time frames for such data sets. It was indicated that the protocols used by the DEC would not accept the data due to its age. New data must be provided to show whether there are options to leave the soils in place in the open space areas. If this is the case, it is strongly recommended that vegetation within the areas is also avoided and left in a natural condition to meet the purpose of open space. Passive recreational activities that cause minimal removal of vegetation may be permissible as determined by the Planning Board. The open space is proposed to be cleared and excavated. What percent of the open space land will be covered by the proposed re-planting of the areas? Page vii states: "A three to five-foot-high vegetated berm along the northern, eastern, and western property boundaries to provide screening for adjacent uses and properties." The soil proposed to be used to construct the berms will be excavated from areas with possible arsenic and mercury contamination and mixed with clean sand (essentially diluting the ppm or ppb). This department is concerned about the use of contaminated soils to construct the berms due to the following: 1. Potential exposure to adjacent property owners. 2. Lack of a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) during site construction. Page ix states: "Water Usage (gallons per day[gpd]) Landscape Irrigation will total 43,500 (during irrigation season) gpd. The average daily potable water consumption and irrigation usage would be approximately 66,000 gpd, during irrigation season." This level of water usage conflicts with the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan and the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. The Towns aquifer is characterized by a series of isolated water table mounds, each of which corresponds to a hydraulically distinct freshwater flow system. The North Fork is comprised of three oblong water table mounds east of Mattituck Creek and James Creek that represent the principal freshwater flow systems. The freshwater flow systems contain a series of flow subsystems, each of which corresponds to the area contributing groundwater to an individual water body. These flow subsystems are generally separated from one another by local and regional groundwater divides (creeks and bays) that extend inland from the coast and converge toward the respective water table mounds (The United States Geologic Service (USGS). It is important to recognize that all drinking water and irrigation water supply on the North Fork is withdrawn from the upper glacial aquifer because groundwater in the deeper aquifers is mostly saline. The importance of Southold's groundwater resources are recognized by the designation of certain areas of the aquifer by the NYSDEC as Special Groundwater Protection Areas. These areas are particularly important to groundwater protection because they are the core areas of recharge to Southold's aquifer. The water supply, treatment, distribution and storage facilities for mainland Southold's public water supply are owned and operated by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). In 2012, 8,235 customers were connected to SCWA public water in Southold (Smith). There is also significant usage of groundwater from private wells for residential, agricultural and commercial use. The proposed volume of water to be used for irrigation does not support the following goals and objectives in the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan: s Goal 1. Conserve Water Quantity. The potable water supply in the Town is limited. Using potable water for many day to day uses without conservation measures can strain the existing public system and decrease the supply of potable water in the aquifer. One of the largest consumers of water is the homeowner irrigation of lawns which increases in times of drought. As the population of the Town continues to grow, more demand on the existing public water supply system and aquifer will occur forcing an expansion of services. Such an expansion is expensive and not easy due to the geography, contamination and salt water intrusion threats. With such an expansion, rates for water are expected to increase. To address the projected water supply needs, five scenarios were analyzed by the SCWA in the Draft Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (2010). They include: 1. Install a SCWA Riverhead Transmission Main with supplemental Southold Town wells; 2. Expand existing well system in Southold Town; 3. Existing system with water conservation; 4. Develop wells in Pine Barrens; run transmission main from Pine Barrens to Southold Town; 5. Install SCWA Riverhead Transmission Main. The most practical scenario is to use the existing system with conservation measures (Scenario 3). If a conservation program is successful in reducing peak outdoor (irrigation) use during the summer months, SCWA forecasts that only three additional wells would be needed instead of the twenty-two forecasted in (Scenario 2). From an engineering standpoint, the installation of less wells is the best approach as there are significant concerns with developing new wells including: salt water up-coning/intrusion, impact to wetlands and surface water bodies, additional capacity, identification and acquisition of available land for well sites and potential treatment facilities and cost associated with construction of the additional wells, transmission mains and treatment facilities. If conservations measures are not implemented, the plan identifies that Scenario 5, "Install SCWA Riverhead Transmission Main" to serve Southold Town as the most cost effective approach to satisfy the 2030 water demand on the North Fork. This 9 option requires the fewest new wells, however, numerous factors could affect the feasibility of this scenario. Complete details of each alternative can be found in the plan. The proposed project's plantings and irrigation plan must be redesigned to meet the goal of conserving potable water. The SCWA suggests a separate well for irrigation. This suggestion, however, does not solve the problem of a limited aquifer, and could affect neighboring wells by drawing down the aquifer. Other mitigation measures must be considered, including using less irrigation, and water conservation measures Please clarify what areas and how many acres of the open space are proposed to be irrigated. Please calculate the gallons per day necessary to irrigate the open space area if it will be irrigated. Please indicate what areas and identify how many acres of the open space will be fertilized. Please identify how the project conserves potable drinking water and would not cause strain on the existing water supply system including in periods of drought. Page ix states: "Development of the proposed project would necessitate the entire site be cleared. Proposed soil management activities would be required as part of the development of the proposed project to properly mitigate exposure to the residual arsenic and mercury found in on-site soils." The assessment and analysis of on-site soils that caused the development of the Soil Management Plan is based on nine year old data and insufficient number of samples per acre. This department contacted the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation on March 2, 2016 to gain insight on the validity of soil analysis taken in 2007 and if an updated analysis should be required. The office indicated that the 2007 data would be considered invalid to develop a soil management plan in 2016, and is outdated. Note that the division of DEC cited above does not review residential actions and was contacted only to gain insight on the sampling and reporting protocols, current regulations and guidance for soil remediation practices. The DEIS indicates that 10 "since the time of preparation of N&Ps Pesticide Report, the NYSDEC TAGM 4046: Determination of Soil cleanup Objective and Cleanup Levels RSCOs has been superseded by the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) provided in 6NYCRR Section 375-6.8(a) or(b). Given the more stringent SCOs contained in NYSDEC DER Part 375, additional exceedances with respect to pesticides and other constituents may be present." NYSDEC Part 375 includes SCOs protection of public health based on usage (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial), protection of groundwater, and protection of ecological resources." The comparison of soil sampling results to NYSDEC Part 375 should be completed after new data are provided from new soil samples taken according to a sampling protocol approved by the Lead Agency. Page xi states: "Additionally, all clearing, grubbing and earthwork related to soil management activities would be completed prior to construction of any infrastructure" § 280-137. Standards for residential site plans of the Southold Town Code outlines the process of phased development. The Planning Board shall permit the phased development of residential properties that meet all other applicable standards, but shall condition the approval of the development of any permitted phase upon the maintenance of the undeveloped phases in their undeveloped condition, and shall prohibit all clearing and site preparation on such undeveloped phases until such time as development is permitted. The proposal to clear, grub and conduct earthwork related to soil management activities would be completed prior to construction of any infrastructure. Clearing the entire site does not comply with the above code section. We have concerns about the effect of fugitive dust on the health of residents, and the lack of a Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). The loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat is also a concern. The mitigation proposed for wildlife and wildlife habitat is not to the greatest extent practicable. 11 Page xii states: "construction would not occur before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. It is not expected that construction would occur on Sundays" Please identify if construction would occur on Sundays. Page xiv states: "The subject property consists of approximately 28.3 acres, or 62 percent of Soil Group 1 soils, or those soils capable of the highest crop yields, while approximately 13.8 acres, or 30 percent of the subject property, consists of highly productive agricultural soils, as classified as Soil Groups 2-4. Specifically, the two soils that comprise the majority of the site, HaA and RdB, are in Soil Groups 1 and 2, respectively, which indicates they are capable of producing high crop yields. As most of the subject property would be cleared and graded for development of the proposed project, the agricultural soils would be disturbed. As the subject property is not currently being farmed, and has not been in active cultivation for many years, the agricultural soils are not being actively utilized according to their capability classifications. As such, it is anticipated that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the use of agricultural soils." The proposed project would have a significant adverse impact upon the use of agricultural soils. Irrespective of the current use, the proposal would result in the net loss of prime agricultural soils and soils of statewide importance within the Town of Southold. Note that trees for commercial purpose have been repeatedly harvested from the property through the years. The impact will remove highly productive soils from agriculture use and will be converted to a non-farm use. Since the action covers the entire 45.99 acres and there is no potential to farm the property post development the impacts to these agricultural soils is significant in the Town of Southold. This impact is supported by the SEAR Moderate to Large Impact analysis. The proposal meets two of the four parameters. 1. There will be permanent loss of these soils with no chance of use for agricultural purposes again. 2. A large portion of the site will have the soils disturbed that will make it hard or impossible to continue use of them for agriculture. This must be stated as a significant impact and addressed in the FEIS. 12 Page xiv states: "A Soil Management Plan was developed to eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants by future residents at the proposed Heritage at Cutchoque, which includes scraping of the top layer of impacted soils, the depth of which varies on the site, and burying this material at various locations across the subject property within berm and open space areas in accordance with SCDHS guidance." The soil management plan fails to provide safeguards to minimize exposure to surrounding properties e.g. CAMP. Reduction of exposure to contaminants must include all adjacent properties potentially at risk from fugitive dust. Please clarify, in detail, the best management and industry practices that will be taken to minimize exposure to potential contaminants to all potential affected properties. Will one water truck be on site to control dust on the cleared 45.99 acres as stated? This seems insufficient to prevent fugitive dust. Page xv states: "clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed." Note that the document also indicates that the entire site will be cleared at the same time. Please clarify this statement. The document also states: "dust control and watering plan would be instituted to prevent surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces." There are few details regarding the dust control practices. Will the entire 45.99 acres, once cleared, be controlled for dust? Explain how dust will be controlled if there are windy, dry conditions. Will these practices be employed to control contaminated soils over the entire site or in specific locations? Will measures be taken to prevent equipment from transporting potentially contaminated soils off site? Page xix states: "the proposed project would result in the replacement of the three existing ecological communities." Removing all existing ecological communities would cause a large impact. 13 Could the soil management practices be reengineered to preserve existing ecological communities in their natural state? The complete removal of 45.99 acres of existing habitat and associated wildlife species is a significant impact. The proposed action will remove nesting/breeding, foraging, and over-wintering habitat for the species that use the project site. The re-planting of cleared areas to lawn and landscaping is not likely to recreate the biological/ecological functions and values of the habitat and species eliminated. Could the project be redesigned to mitigate significant impacts to existing habitat and wildlife through avoidance, leaving the existing vegetation and habitat in place in the buffer and open space areas? Page xix states: "...the majority of wildlife present within or expected to utilize the subject property are considered to be generally more mobile (e.g., blue jay, eastern gray squirrel, etc.), and, therefore, would avoid elimination and be displaced to adjacent and nearby areas of undisturbed habitat." Please identify the nearby areas (in acreage and distance from on-site habitat) of undisturbed habitat suitable for the species displaced. Page xix states: "...consultations with the USFWS would be necessary to determine potential species impacts or development restrictions associated with northern long-eared bat." Please provide when the USFWS will be contacted for inspection of the site and what personnel will be contacted. Page xxii states the mitigation involves the creation of the following: "vegetated open space habitats would be established over 23±-acres (approximately 50 percent) of the subject property." The biodiversity of the naturalized habitats that have developed over the past 30 years cannot be replaced to the level of pre-development conditions through landscaping and 14 soil manipulation. Please provide proposed maintenance practices and survivability terms of the planted species. Page 18. Fertilizer usage is estimated at 2.30 pounds of nitrogen-bearing fertilizer per 1,000 SF of area. Town best management practices require a maximum of 1 Ib. of nitrogen per 1000 square feet in any one application, with a cumulative application of no more than 2 lbs. per 1,000 square feet per year. Please clarify if the applicant can meet the Town best management practice for nitrogen bearing fertilizer applications. Reduction in nitrogen loads into the aquifer is a town goal. Pages 27 and 28. As stated above the soil analysis was conducted in 2007 and to be accurate must be repeated with current sampling protocols and compared to current objectives for soil cleanup from the DEC. Page 31. A dust control and watering plan would be instituted to prevent surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. Please provide details of the dust control and watering plan in the FEIS related to each phase and the 4 to 6 year projected timeframe. Page 32 states: "The following measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation due to construction activity. Limits of clearing and grading would be established and construction fencing would be installed along the limits. Existing vegetation to remain would be protected and remain undisturbed during construction." 15 It is unclear what existing vegetation would remain undisturbed during construction. Please clarify this statement. Page 33 states: "Based upon Town comments, a new on-site test well was installed on October 157 2015 by Casola Well Drillers to evaluate whether or not arsenic is present in groundwater at the site. According to analytical results provided by the laboratory, no arsenic was detected at a concentration above laboratory methods detection limits." Please provide the location of the new test well. Is one on-site test well the acceptable/correct sampling protocol for groundwater testing over 45.99 acres? Page 48 states: "the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study." This department disagrees with the statement in that the analysis does not include a reduction in irrigated areas by preserving natural communities, installing rain gardens and or integrating xeriscaping that would not require irrigation. Page 49 states: "Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant goals of the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan." We disagree with the statement in that the analysis does not include a reduction in irrigated areas by preserving natural communities, installing rain gardens and integrating xeriscaping. The proposed project would use approximately 43,500 gpd during the irrigation season which is concerning to the Town and the SCWA. Pages 51-52 state: "The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would utilize clustered on-site septic systems to accommodate sanitary waste generated by the proposed development" Please state that the applicant has agreed to install an alternative sanitary system to further mitigate impacts from sanitary flow within the FEIS. Provide an analysis of the rate of reduction of nutrients, pharmaceuticals and personal care products between the 16 standard clustered septic systems proposed in the site plan, and the alternative systems discussed at the public hearing by the applicant's agent John Wagner (see Groundwater topic below) Page 61 states: "Erosion and sedimentation controls to be implemented during construction are detailed in Section 2.1.2 of this DEIS, and depicted on the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (see Appendix A). As identified therein, graded and stripped areas and stockpiles would be kept stabilized through the use of temporary seeding or other effective covers, as required. Sediment barriers would be installed, and these and other proposed erosion control measures would remain in place until upland disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Permanent stabilization includes the installation of parking and paved areas and landscaping as soon as practicable following disturbance" It is unclear what timeframe will be used to stabilize the 45.99 acre site once it is cleared of all vegetation. The phasing schedule indicates that the site construction would take place over 4 to 6 years. Is it possible to clarify the timeframe of each phase in detail in table format? The impacts to neighbors due to a multi-year construction are potentially large. Review the mitigation that would occur if the project was accomplished in fewer phases or shorter phases. If clearing the entire site is found to be necessary to remediate contaminated soils, the clearing ought to be accomplished in phases, also, to reduce the impacts to neighbors. Page 62 states: "Although lawn areas would be created, 30 percent of the open space would include native plantings, and an additional 7.79± acres of landscaping around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways would be installed throughout the site." Please clarify if the remaining 60% of open space will be planted with non-native species. 17 Page 62 also states: "The proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to water resources, and the following measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts to water resources." Various water efficiency measures would be employed to reduce potable water demands, including: 1. Use of native, low-maintenance plant species to reduce irrigation demand, 2. Use of drip irrigation systems and limiting irrigation areas; and 3. Installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures." This department disagrees with the statements above. The analysis does not include a reduction in irrigated areas by preserving natural communities, installing rain gardens and xeriscaping among other water conservation measures. The large amount of water proposed for irrigation is concerning, and considered unsustainable by the Suffolk County Water Authority. Page 70 states: "As the soil management plan requires the stripping and handling of material from every portion of the site in order to address soil impacts associated with former agricultural uses, it would not be possible to utilize and/or relocate the majority of existing vegetation on the subject property." As indicated the soil management plan is based on data obtained in 2007 and is outdated. It is also unclear to what extent (coverage) soil was found to be contaminated. The habitats identified on site provide ecological value. Please provide a map overlaying the open space and habitats identified to determine if areas could be preserved (pending new soil data, collected under new protocol as determined by the Lead Agency) through avoidance and species management. Page 75. Birds. What mitigation is proposed to lessen/avoid impacts to bird species occurring/using the site? 18 Page 76 states: "However, this list (of mammals occurring on site) is not intended to be an all- inclusive inventory of on-site mammals." Why is the list incomplete? Why weren't more field surveys conducted to generate a complete list of mammal species on-site to develop a more accurate impact assessment? Will additional field surveys be conducted? What is the mitigation proposed to lessen impacts to mammal species occurring/using the site? Page 77 states: "However, given the timing of the field inspection during autumn, some of the potential resident species may have been in brumation (winter dormancy) mode within sheltered locations (e.g., underground, beneath leaf litter or tree bark), and, therefore, would not have been readily apparent." The impacts to herpetofauna are significant given their relatively slow mobility, and the proposed removal of all their habitat. It is difficult to determine the degree of environmental impact without more complete information about the occurrence of herpetofauna on site. Page 78 states: "In addition, the existing site conditions represent potential habitat for two colubrid snakes noted on the NYSARAP database - eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and the New York State Special Concern species eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos). The highly terrestrial northern redback salamander(Plethodon cinereus) and gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) may also occur at the subject property." It is very concerning that the proposal is to clear the entire site of all habitat and vegetation and a survey to determine the presence or absence of the above species (among others) has not been thoroughly conducted in the appropriate season. 19 Will additional field surveys for herpetofauna be conducted during the appropriate seasons? Page 80 states: "Based upon these considerations, potential summer roosting habitat and foraging habitat for northern long-eared bat is supported within the wooded portions of the subject property." When will the USFWS be contacted to conduct a survey for the long—eared bat, a federally listed species? Page 83. Eastern Box Turtle The complete elimination of habitat that includes the eastern box turtle is unacceptable. Consider mitigation that will preserve areas of existing habitat in their natural state for the eastern box turtle. Page 88 states: "During clearing and construction phases of the proposed project, it is expected that individuals of some wildlife species, (i.e., smaller, less-mobile animals or juveniles of certain species) would be impacted within the successional habitats at the subject property." Please elaborate on the types of impacts that would occur to the less mobile species and what mitigation is proposed to lessen the impacts. Page 89 states: "vegetated perimeter buffers located adjacent to off-site woodlands and successional habitats would offer the most suitable on-site habitat for herpetofauna." Please provide evidence that herpetofauna utilize landscaped buffers as habitat. Will the areas be maintained (mowed understory) and fenced? 20 "In summary, following implementation of the proposed project, the overall area of vegetated habitat for wildlife at the subject property would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, and the ECNYS Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Tree communities would become the dominant vegetated cover types. It is anticipated that the post-development subject property would continue to support a similar wildlife assemblage to existing conditions, though reduced densities for most species." We disagree with this analysis based on the proposed clearing of the entire parcel. "no significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations are anticipated as a result of the proposed project." We disagree with this analysis based on the proposed clearing of the entire parcel. Page 91 states: "Native tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species requiring little or no irrigation, fertilizers or chemical applications would be utilized in the proposed landscaping to the maximum extent practicable. The majority of the species to be utilized in the planting plan are included on the Town RNP list and none of the proposed plant species are considered to be invasive." This claim is not supported by the 43,500 gpd proposed for irrigation. Page 172 states that the action is consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) policy as follows: "Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold"with the following explanation: "The sanitary systems would be designed with adequate capacity for sanitary wastewater generated by the development, within SCSC Article 6 limitations and in conformance with SCDHS requirements. In addition, landscaping for the site would include low-maintenance, native species that require minimal application of fertilizers and/or pesticides and irrigation" This policy is not supported by the proposed project due to the enormous amount of water that will be used for irrigation on the property, which is not considered "minimal" irrigation. 21 Page 167 states that the action meets the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) policy: "Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem; with the following explanation: "Although the development of The Heritage at Cutchogue will require the removal of 45.99+ acres of vegetation from the site, as indicated in the Land Use subsection above, no significant or protected ecological communities or species have been identified on the site." The LWRP policy identifies more than protected species and/or habitats contributing to quality and biological diversity of the Town. The document also recognized the value of more common, broadly distributed natural resources and species. The proposal to clear 45.99 acres (habitat resulting in species elimination) does not appear to meet this policy. Policy language (in part) is cited below (underline emphasis added). The biological components include the plants and animals that make up a wide range of ecological communities in and around the Town of Southold. Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. In addition to specifically identified discrete natural resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly distributed natural resources, such as the extent of forest cover, the population of overwintering songbirds, or benthic communities. These more common natural resources collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem (LWRP). Page 174 cites the LWRP policy "Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources." The proposed project does not integrate solar energy in the design. To further this policy is it possible to integrate renewable energy generation (Solar) and use into the project design? The local climate is well suited towards the use of solar. Page 192 shows a photograph, facing southwest, across a field adjacent to Depot Lane. 22 There is a concern that if the entire parcel will be cleared of vegetation (as proposed) that the same view shed would be adversely impacted by the roofline and number of structures of the development. It is unclear if the vegetation shown in the photograph occurs on the subject parcel or on the adjacent parcel. Could you clarify where the vegetation is located? Further, what visual changes to the view shed would occur if the vegetation is removed? Page 200 states: "However, a vegetated buffer would be provided around most of the property perimeter, with a three-to-five foot berm along the northern, eastern and western property boundary. Therefore, potential views of the condominium units and amenities from Depot Lane and adjacent residences and would continue to be obscured and be similar to the existing condition." There is a concern that if the vegetation is removed and the berms are constructed, the views would not be "similar to existing conditions". Is the height of the berm with plantings comparable to existing vegetation density and height? Will the height of the berm and vegetation be effective in screening the residential units? Since a visual impact study was not submitted showing the views post construction, the comparison with the proposed mitigation is difficult to assess. Page 203 states: "The proposed development would remove most of the on-site vegetation; as such, visibility of the subject property, from Depot Lane and from the surrounding residential properties along Highland Road, could potentially increase. However, in order to reduce the potential visibility from these locations, a vegetated buffer would be planted within the 75±-foot setback with a three to five foot vegetated berm along the northern, eastern and western property boundary that would assist in screening the site from the surrounding area." There is a concern that the mitigation proposed outlined above is not sufficient to screen and/or prevent large impacts to the view shed from Depot Lane. How would the existing trees and shrubs being left in place in the buffer compare to the screening proposed by the planted berm? 23 Page 205 states: "The Town Code notes in §180-7.A (2) that noises due to construction activities between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. are allowed seven days a week. Construction of The Heritage at Cutchogue would comply with the relevant Town noise regulations." Please clarify if construction would take place seven days a week and at what time of day. Further, what noise monitoring procedures (if any) would be used? Page 207 states: "A vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the subject property would assist in attenuating noise generated by the future residents." Please provide an analysis indicating what level of noise attenuation would be achieved by the vegetated buffer. Comments on Plans in the DEIS Overall Planting Plan L-1. 1. Tree Protection Notes — the note reference "existing trees to remain" however, no trees are identified on the plan as existing. Please clarify. 2. What percent of the total number of plants proposed to be planted are native? Existing Tree Inventory Plan L-2 The plan shows large trees, including several species that are beneficial to wildlife and environmental quality. It is our understanding that the proposal is to clear the entire site based on contaminated soils, however, the soil analysis is outdated and must be re- done. In the event that soil sampling results allows the avoidance of natural habitat, it is recommended that the trees that are located within the open space be preserved to support town goals as outlined in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Policy 6.1 which states the following: Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold. 24 B. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical. The proposal to clear the parcel including trees (some significant) does not currently meet this policy. b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented during construction. Although some loss of indigenous plants is expected, the need to clear all vegetation on the parcel is not substantiated by an acceptable soil management plan. Shrub Planting Plans L-4 and L-5 Please provide the percent of total plants proposed that are native species, and indicate if they are drought tolerant. Alternatives 1. Alternative technology for wastewater. New alternative technology for wastewater has the ability to significantly reduce potential adverse impacts to groundwater by reducing the amount of Nitrogen released in the effluent from septic systems. Include a more detailed discussion of alternative wastewater technologies, including a table that shows the different average levels of Nitrogen released in 25 the effluent of different alternative technologies, including the alternative technology that was offered by the applicant's agent at the public hearing. Also include a discussion on the mitigation this alternative technology may provide to the groundwater that could reach adjacent private wells used for drinking water, and eventually will reach the surface waters, including the time it takes for the groundwater from the subject site to reach the nearest wells and surface waters. 2. Renewable energy alternative Include a discussion about renewable energy and the mitigation this would provide for the increase in energy use by the new homes. Solar power would provide the future residents with lower electric bills, and would be consistent with the Town's goals to use more renewable energy. 26 From: Maril Sawastynowicz <sawasty@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:09 AM u", l�wo To: Lanza, Heather Subject: The Heritage condo ��� Rla.n nhu ,g Board The Heritage originally Seacroft was back door zone changed 30 years ago when the North Fork had a mostly unpolluted Peconic Bay and plentiful clean drinking water in the aquifers.Before the dangerous non-stop traffic 10 months of the year. The North Fork is under tremendous pressure from over- development. Numerous clam beds are closed in Cutchogue and in many of the Towns on the North Fork and South Fork. Many are permanently closed due to run off from all the population already here. A sewage treatment plant is not the answer. Look to Riverhead to see how their facility fails to keep the Peconic river from massive nitrogen overload which has been killing terrapin turtles and causing massive fish kills. We still use well water at our Cutchogue home not far from the Heritage property. I am very concerned about future contamination from this huge development. The Long Island aquifers supplying clean water are under tremendous pressure now and cannot handle the demand of such a huge development. For instance Long island Lloyd aquifer is under threat of contamination from nearby saltwater intrusion. This zone change should never have happened! Correct the errors done 30 years ago. Do not allow this huge gated community development in rural Cutchogue and forever lose the charm of a small quaint town. Fourth generation Cutchogue resident, Maril Sawastynowicz 1100 Alvah's Ln Cutchogue NY 11935 z Northwest � Harbor and Creep Shellfish Closures ` 6 N1�CRR Pert 41 .3 �` Alewife Creek Paragraph 5 (Viii + ix) r ... ... ...j f Northwest Harbor n May I thrOUgh Delcernbet' '14 ly4 orange, marker oran markier �ry w„ E n Northwest Creek Uncertifiect r Seasonally Uncertified 3 March 5, 2016 Mr.Bryan Knipfing "la,' 1735 Clearview Avenue Southold,NY 11971 Ms. Heather M. Lanza,AICP Planning Director Town Hall Annex Building P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 To Ms. Lanza and the Planning Board, I would like to thank you for your service to the Town of Southold and your concern for the future of Southold. I am writing to express my opposition to the Heritage at Cutchogue project that is being considered by the Southold Planning Board. I believe that such a massive project of 124 units will have major adverse effects on our groundwater,the local environment, traffic, and the overall rural feeling of the hamlet of Cutchogue. This project is excessive and dangerous to the drinking water, local ecology of the area, and character of our town and must be opposed as it is currently proposed Thank you for your consideration and I hope the planning board does all in its authority to prevent this catastrophic project from moving forward. Sincerely, Bryan Knipfing P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING March 7, 2016 �� I 1102 CJ Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold . 54375 State Road 25 PA. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971rai�IGxi�fii �rtirN Raming ftar ° Attn. Heather M. Lanza, AICP Planning Director i Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Southold, NY JDear Ms. Lanza: P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) has reviewed the comments prepared by John Wagner, Esq, on behalf of the applicant at the February 22, 2016 Planning Board meeting for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project and have the following comments: • With regard to the floor area of unit B-1, PWGC requests that the floor plans be revised to show the correct square footage of 1,550 square feet. • Mr. Wagner indicated that the applicant intends to represent that the currently proposed 50" x 40" sliding basement window will be less than the minimum of 5.7 square feet as required by the New York State Residential Code. Since a sliding window can be easily replaced with a casement window and meet the minimum space required for habitable space, PWGC requests that the floor plans for all of the units be updated to show a smaller size masonry opening and eliminate the emergency egress window wells. • PWGC also recommends that the Town place a covenant on the property restricting a permit for the basements to be converted to habitable space, as this will prevent the future modifications to the basement windows and window wells that would allow for the basement to become habitable living space. Please feel free to contact me if you have you have questions or comments. Sincerely Yours, P W. Grosser Consul ' g Gerry Rosen, PE Senior Project Manager w• ooa �o ,F�, ��, �,,z. ACEC P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer& Hydrogeologist, PC P—F" vdW— 630 Johnson Avenue,Suite 7 • Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY• Syracuse, NY• Seattle, WA 9 Shelton, CT From: Lanza, Heather " r, Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:53 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: FW: Heritage Project A ; G; v , s Please print for the mail. a�r[i�::Nd o�fvn Kunirlq Loard From: Paul Davey [mailto:sligo87@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 08, 2016 6:23 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Heritage Project Heather, I just wanted to write in on the Heritage Project in Cutchogue. I think this is a well thought out project that will create affordable living spaces for people . We have an aging population that would like to stay here, but many are unable to maintain their old homes.I have spoken with several residents that would like to downsize and stay here, but again there are not many choices. The Heritage will give people who want to live here the opportunity to stay on the North Fork and participate in the community. Thank you, Sincerely, Paul Davey Southold Resident i Lk "C P)c 3.7.2016 ���i 8 TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD FROM: BENJA SCHWARTZ 6�I���rr�GrGa i 2'ani 2 RE: DEIS dated 10/2015 for a condominium development proposed to be built in Cutchogue. At the Southold Town Board Meeting on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 in response to my pleading for consideration of the ramifications of the proposal to develop a gated "community" of condominiums in Cutchogue, Supervisor Russell said "We are not focusing on the larger issues here we are getting down to gardening." With all due respect, the "larger" issues have never been focused on, and gardening is one of them. The North Fork is not large. The proposed development would change the character of the entire North Fork for our lifetimes and beyond. Large or small, issues related to a condominium development in the heart of Cutchogue Hamlet LARGER than the entire Hamlet center, outside of the "halo zone" are not limited to water supply and disposal. Not to denigrate the importance of water supply and disposal, but the proposed development would significantly change the environment of our community, including natural, social, cultural, human infrastructure, and economic aspects. The concession of the developer to include some form of sewage treatment is informative. Even the developer admits that the proposal is not only flawed, it is a failure. I will try to describe to you some of the reasons why the proposed development would be destructive of all the desirable features of the Town of Southold, but it is up to you to focus, not only on the "larger" issues, but also on the "smaller" issues. But first a note on process. While scoping is an optional step of SEQRA process, SEQRA does not include any authority for lead agencies to adopt scopes for previous plans. Therefore it is respectfully suggested that issues initially raised during the public hearing on the DEIS should be considered by the Planning Board for inclusion in the FEIS. Furthermore, the developer's claims in the lawsuit adjourned pursuant to the so called Stipulation of Settlement should be recognized as frivolous. The trial court issued summary judgment finding that the developer's claims of municipal malice were insufficient to make a case -- even if they are all accepted as true -- and the appellate court affirmed that judgment. The fact is that the lengthy duration of applications pending for the subject development is primarily the result of the developers' (in plural) initial refusal in the early 1980s and now in the 2010s nominal efforts to comply with the SEQRA process. And the position of Southold Town that an environmental impact statement is required was upheld by a court decision in the early 1980s. The essential problems of the DEIS dated 10/2015 are it is packed with lengthy material that has no bearing on reality and that it is missing any description, let alone analysis and response, to real issues. Unlike existing residential development in Cutchogue the proposed size and probable environmental impacts of this development subject it to site plan and environmental reviews. Probable Environmental Impacts Natural Water-While sewage treatment will mitigate impacts related to use of fresh water for sanitary purposes, The initial issue of water supply should not be overlooked. SCWA should not be permitted to expand without consideration of where the water supplied will come from. The limited quantities of healthy fresh water available on the North Fork have already resulted in transportation of water across watershed boundaries from aquifers in Riverhead. While algae blooms and fish kills in the Peconic Estuary have been studied, salt marsh dieback has been virtually ignored. As a result of recent expansion of SCWA pipelines to the Fisherman's Beach peninsula off of Nassau Point the salt marshes in one of the lagrest creeks in the entir estuary are dying at an increasing rate. Natural Open Space -The claims in the DEIS that the proposed site plan provides 50% open space are false. The so called open space in between the proposed construction perverts the essence of the idea of open space. Space enclosed inside a building such as a courtyard is not open, neither is space between two buildings. Open space is obviously not important to the developer, it is however very important to the Town of Southold. In the legal code of the Town of Southold, §280-128 Findings of fact; purpose. Begins: A. The Town Board wishes to protect the unique rural and open space character of the Town ... with due regard to the public interest, including but not limited to the following: ... the use of open land; ... B. It is the purpose of this article to encourage good design and to: (1) Protect the established character and value of the adjoining properties, both public and private, and of the neighborhood in which they are located. (2) Lessen and, where possible, prevent traffic congestion on the streets and highways upon which the site fronts or which provide vehicular or pedestrian access thereto. (3) Prevent overcrowding of land or buildings. (4) Secure safety from fire, flood and other dangers and provide adequate light, air and convenience of access. (5) Mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the land, air and water resources. § 280-4 Definitions ... OPEN SPACE-Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space, provided that such areas may be improved with only those buildings, structures, streets and off-street parking and other improvements that are designed to be incidental to the natural openness of the land. §280-8 Effect of establishment of districts. Following the effective date of this chapter: ... B. No yard or open space required in connection with any building or use shall be considered as providing a required open space for any other building on the same or any other lot. Such a key element of development design as site plan layout can not be approved by a so called Stipulation of Settlement negotiated is closed door meetings without any member of the public present and without any of the procedures required by New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The idea that a conceptual approval of the proposed site plan layout in the "Stipulation of Settlement" prevent the consideration of same in public is wrong. Natural Energy-There is no mention in the DEIS of solar power. Despite that the development is proposed for what is known as the sunniest place in New York State, the proposed site plan layout is not in any way oriented towards the sun. Use of passive solar energy would enhance the value of, and decrease the operating costs of, the proposed buildings. An EIS is supposed to list irretrievable squandering of natural environmental resources. The proposed development could be anywhere. The proposed location would be suitable for a solar electric power plant. Passive solar could provide efficient healthy heating, lighting, water heating. The proposed outdoor pool does not specify if it will be heated or not. Social - By increasing the population of the hamlet of Cutchogue by approximately 10% the proposed development will have social impacts. The proposed staffed gatehouse will be a division between the condominiums and the rest of the hamlet. It is particularly inappropriate to allow such a development to occur on the outskirts of the hamlet center. Security measures such as the planned guard post and proposed "security" lighting would urbanize the character of the North Fork and attract criminal activity. There is not currently any condominium in Cutchogue. The decision to pay into an "affordable" housing fund rather than provide a percentage of affordable units onsite is indicative of the segregationist attitude such developments engender. Cultural -At the heart of comprehensive planning of the Town of Southold the Agricultural / Residential zone was hailed as an innovative type of zoning, and was copied in other places. The proposed development is contrary to this historic basis of zoning in the Town of Southold. While gardening may frequently be viewed as an unimportant activity of domestic living, that is not always the case. Victory gardens have morphed into gardens producing local healthy food. Unlike the conventional subdivision west of the subject location, the proposed condominium owners would own only the interior of the houses. The lack of any provision for community gardening reflects another waste of natural solar energy, and departure from the rural character of the Town. An apartment complex currently being developed on Staten Island is part of a trend toward integrating such plans into high density housing developments. Human Infrastructure - Information in the DEIS on traffic is based only 8 hours of traffic counts, yet fills numerous pages with speculation based on computer simulation and conjecture. The reality is that traffic has been increasing every year for the 50 years I have been in Cutchogue and the past year the increase was more than ever. Economic - Economic considerations for the developer. The developer opens the door to this by stating that unless the proposed plans are approved without reduction in the number of units the project will be economically infeasible. Without details this is an unbelievable assertion that must be dismissed without serious consideration. Economic considerations for the residents that are relevant to goals of the Town of Southold that presumably led to the rezoning of the subject property include the anticipated purchase prices and costs of ownership of the proposed units. For example the proposed staffed guard booth may sound attractive to some potential buyers but will they want to pay a living wage to the guards? Economic considerations for the surrounding area. Property values are not only economic. Cutchogue is an attractive place to live because it still has rural characteristics. If the condominium residents do walk to town how long will it be before they want sidewalks? Who will pay for those sidewalks? In Conclusion The so called Stipulation of Settlement provides that"special facts" exist, but does not reveal what those facts are. The Planning Board is required by NYS law to follow the NY State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). But the Planning Board agreed with the Town Board and the Developer to follow the so called Stipulation of Settlement which by its terms supersedes SEQRA. It can not be both ways. Pre approval of any aspect of a proposed action violates essential principles of SEQRA which provide for one agency to review, and to approve or deny, the whole proposed action unpartitioned including all potential external impacts and alternatives. Essential provisions in the so called Stipulation of Settlement are unclear such as that the development may be up to 130 units. The only appropriate meaning of that provision is that the development will be less than 130 units. Why do I get the impression that the developer and Planning board think it meant that the developer is entitled to build up to 130 units? For more information on many of the above please refer to my letter dated 2.22.2016 to Southold Town Planning Board. Thank You in advance for your courtesy and anticipated consideration. Benja Schwartz From: rose ann burns <burnsroseann@gmail.com> J91 Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 4:44 PM To: Lanza, Heather ���( �t� G �` 20,,'G Subject: The Heritage Project ., �w,@dead fd�B IBoard Dear Planning Board Members, I reside in New Suffolk and am writing to state my opposition to the The Heritage Project. I believe the standards of living that residents in Cutchogue,New Suffolk and all of Southold currently enjoy will be severely compromised by this development. The density of housing and increased population,the related traffic problems,plus the demands on the wastewater system, and the environmental hazards to our creeks and Peconic Bay, will severely compromise our quality of life. Superimposing a development of this size on our small communities is ill-conceived and poses the question of whether the Board really has considered the communities'best interests. If this project goes forward as outlined it will mean that similar projects will be proposed and the momentum will be impossible to stop. It will change not only the character of the North Fork but the lifestyle of its residents. Many of us moved here because we felt there was something very special about the area and were willing to live this far east to experience it. That will quickly disappear. This project is contrary to everything the local environmental groups have done to preserve open space and the benefits it offers. Please reconsider what the developer is proposing and how the scope of this development will have negative implications for all Southold residents. Sincerely, Rose Ann Burns 4370 New Suffolk Road New Suffolk,NY 11956 i sck . . From: Corinne Doubleday <cdoubleday@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 3:48 PM To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Heritage La L�Iirx�Bum As I resident of New Suffolk for the past 20 years & a resident of Nassau Point since 1968, I am very concerned about this development in downtown Cutchogue. The scale of the project seems very large (half the size of New Suffolk). I envision horrible traffic at the Cutchogue traffic light and way too much congestion at our New Suffolk beach&boat ramp. I am also very concerned about water use and sewerage treatment as the water table goes to Wickam's creek,West creek&Peconic Bay. I fear this project will greatly affect our quality of life on the North Fork. Sincerely, Corinne Doubleday Sent from my Wad i r- Subject: FW: Heritage at Cutchogue From: BIGOUTLAW@aol.com [mailto:BIGOUTLAW@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 6:19 PM Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue �dlar�"���" d .a ,.. ,. Please forward this to the members of the Planning Board. Thank you. Dear Planning Board: I am writing to express my opposition to The Heritage Project as currently proposed. 124 homes is much too big a development for the hamlet of Cutchogue and Southold Town. Water quality is a critical issue. If you do nothing else, please get the developer to install efficient nitrogen- reducing septic systems or sewer treatment. If you don't,the nitrogen that leaches into West and Wickham's Creeks and Peconic Bay will cause irreversible damage to our ecosystem. Brookhaven has established septic requirements that are higher than the Suffolk County Department of Health and East Hampton is considering doing the same.Why can't Southold? The developer has stated daily water usage will be 22,500 gallons; double that when irrigating the property. This is a huge amount of water. To not, at least, mandate that they use gray water to irrigate is unfathomable. Native plantings, not huge lawns requiring nitrogen-rich fertilizer, is the only sane way to go. Undeveloped areas of the property should be kept as is. Deforesting the entire 45 acres is extreme and unnecessary. My town of New Suffolk will be negatively affected by this as well. Our town beach, boat ramp and streets are already overcrowded during the summer.These new residents and their guests will undoubtedly add significantly to our already-strained quality of living. Please do the right thing and get the developer to be a good/decent neighbor and develop responsibly.The future of our community, and life as we know it in Southold Town, is in your hands.Virtually no one is in favor of this development,especially at its currently proposed size. I am not anti-senior housing (I'm a senior myself) but the size and scope of the project is wrong for Cutchogue and the surrounding communities. It's too big,too wasteful,and shows complete and utter disregard for the environment.The Heritage is a slap in the face to all of us who live here and/or moved here to be able to enjoy the beauty and nature of the North Fork. Your responsibility here, and the decision you ultimately make as Planning Board, is huge -actually, life changing for everyone who lives in Southold Town now, and for those who may be thinking about moving here someday. Your decision will impact Cutchogue, New Suffolk and Southold Town forever. Please do everything in your power to minimize the harmful effects of The Heritage Project on our water, environment and the life we love on the North Fork. Sincerely, Paul Auriemma 945 Fanning Rd. New Suffolk, NY. 11956 i .,. Subject: FW:The Heritage at Cutchogue � . YYY From: LAurie6656@aol.com [mailto:LAurie6656@aol.com] .., Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:31 PM rgj ovd To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject:The Heritage at Cutchogue Good afternoon, Heather: Please send this to the Planning Board members: Thank you. Regards, Linda Auriemma **************************************************** Dear Planning Board: I was unable to attend the last public hearing on 2/22/16. 1 am still totally opposed to The Heritage as planned and I wish to comment further on some of the things that were put forward that night. First, and foremost, I am in full agreement with Kevin McAllister in that Southold Town should require that the amount of wastewater discharged from the development should not exceed 3 milligrams per liter on a monthly average, which is the same standard Brookhaven Town now requires for new development within the Carmans River watershed. You- the Planning Board - and the Town have a chance to do the right thing here. And what you ultimately do will impact all of us on the North Fork forever.Nitrogen limits and standards need to be established and clearly spelled out and defined so that our water is safeguarded and protected. The time to implement this is now. The idea of a huge gated development in Cutchogue saddens me. Is this what we are becoming....Nassau and Suffolk County to our west? If you approve a development of this density, composition and size, you are opening the floodgates and more out-of-scale developments will only follow. Please figure out a way to downsize this monstrosity. It's too big for Cutchogue and the surrounding community. It's too big to be anywhere in Southold Town. As Kevin said, "You have the obligation to really get this right." Sincerely, Linda Auriemma 945 Fanning Rd. New Suffolk,NY 11956 i P From: Russ McCall <RMccall@gfifoods.com> „ 0' � Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 5:57 PM ' � To: Lanza, Heather Subject: The Heritage To the planning board, Allowing a huge development like the Heritage to move forward makes all the quiet, small attempts at conservation in our town seem fruitless. Please deny this huge intrusion on the basis of water quality. Russ McCall 10230 New Suffolk Ave Cutchogue,NY 11935 i I a a ,G -u P FOR H oil,.. liu Ipui�ui March 6, 2016 w III IIII � w I Chairman Don Wilcenski & � �`'�'� ' 1� Members of the Planning Board µ Town of Southold �� I P.O. Box 1179 "��IIIII VIII IcllU�II��N"f�� �Ddl� �a��,rv.m Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue DEIS Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of Group for the East End, I offer the following comments and JII recommendations regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for VIII 1 the Heritage at Cutchogue site plan proposal. Wastewater Treatment Y -Analysis and Alternatives IIIV111111�1 ui II III II The DEIS lacks appropriate detail and analysis regarding the impacts of the project's proposed wastewater treatment and potential wastewater treatment alternatives. mIMII The applicant's recent testimony regarding ongoing discussions with the Suffolk uuu County Department of Health Services pertaining to the use of advanced treatment systems is somewhat encouraging,but the outcomes and commitments borne of these discussions must be documented in an amended or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),and clearly articulated as a requirement in the Findings Statement issued by the Planning Board for this proposal. u Attention to the issue of wastewater management on this site is critical and we strongly disagree with the conclusions reached in the DEIS which claim that if the project meets the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' guidelines,there will not be an impact related to wastewater.This is simply not the case,and this statement should be revised. Substantial scientific data available from Stony Brook University,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,the US Geologic Survey and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (based on water quality modeling and field testing done across the region) clearly demonstrates that wastewater is impacting groundwater which in turn,directly impacts surface water quality(Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan). In fact, Suffolk County and New York State have both made the issue of addressing nitrogen impacts stemming from wastewater discharge a top environmental and 1i IIII ISI economic priority, and begun investing millions of dollars toward the development II III f 111111 of new standards for sanitary waste disposal and nitrogen management across Long Island. J, 1 As a result,the environmental assessment of large-scale projects that generate substantial wastewater must reflect the fact that such projects have the significant potential to negatively impact our water resources and must therefore be the focus of meaningful and mandatory mitigation to reduce these significant environmental impacts. Because the SEQRA process requires that agencies make every reasonable effort to protect the environment in their decisions and because such decisions may require �I additional safeguards not imposed by the simple adherence to the minimal standards of other involved agencies, it is necessary for the DEIS to clearly address this issue from the standpoint of both potential impacts as well as locally-imposed mitigation measures. Should this project eventually be constructed with the use of advanced wastewater treatment, a well-defined and enforceable monitoring, reporting and compliance schedule should be adopted and overseen by the Town (in conjunction with the SCDHS) to assure that the desired mitigation is actually being achieved. The lack of staffing and appropriate compliance enforcement provided by the SCDHS is a well-documented and longstanding problem,which unfortunately shows few signs of improvement for the near future.As a result, should the Town require the installation of advanced wastewater treatment for this project, it must likewise share in the responsibility for assuring the environmental outcomes associated with project's imposed mitigation. We note that other communities, like the Town of Southampton, have imposed stringent multi-year groundwater testing and public reporting requirements on certain high-risk development projects, and the cost of this monitoring has been 1 assessed on the project developer (though all testing and assessment is done by third-party consultants hired by the Town). 1 This same practice should be imposed upon The Heritage development to assure regular and timely assessment and enforcement of the project's groundwater mitigation measures. Regular assessment will also assure that any groundwater problems are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity, before contamination Uecornes extensive,anu Lar,be r eimeuiateu. Given the complexity of the proposed mitigation and the need to clearly define the j f terms of all required monitoring, reporting and remediation, it is critical that these tissues be discussed in the DEIS and made part of the public record of this decision. l Alternative 5.3,"Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment" JIn light of the above outlined issues, we wish to point out that the section of the current DEIS dealing with the issue of alternative wastewater treatment does not provide any analysis that would allow the Town to responsibly evaluate just how a 2 I i i treatment plant (or multiple advanced treatment systems) may or may not be able to mitigate the project's wastewater impacts. This is essential to the Planning Board's ability to make its most informed decision. J1 This section is further deficient in rendering an unsubstantiated position that, "the costs of constructing and maintaining a sewage treatment plant would be prohibitive"(pg. 223). For this statement to have any value it would need to be supported by a detailed financial assessment of the overall project development and marketing costs as well as the developer's anticipated short and long-term profit assumptions. If such an assessment is not provided, the Town can only evaluate the applicant's statement about wastewater treatment plants as the applicant's opinion and not use this opinion as a basis for determining practicable environmental mitigation requirements. 1 Based on our prior assessment of hundreds of development applications over the last 40 years,we believe that at a minimum, an accurate assessment of the project's wastewater impacts, should include the following information and that such information be provided in the context of the DEIS for public inspection and not relegated to discussions between the SCDHS and the applicant. A discussion and analysis focusing on nitrogen loading. o How many pounds of nitrogen will the project generate annually? o How much total nitrogen will be reduced by one or more wastewater management alternatives? o How might this impact groundwater quality and eventually surface water quality in nearby Wickham's Creek? I� 1 A discussion on the state of the ground and surface water quality within the project's contributing subwatershed to Peconic Bay. J r o For instance,Wickham's Creek is located approximately one half mile an "Impaired Waterbod .NYSDEC away and is designated as p y ( ) How might thisroject's wastewater impact existing conditions? p J • An analysis with sufficient detail to provide a comparative assessment between tiie n1trogen n7npacts of standard sanitary systems versus those associated with an advanced wastewater treatment plant/system. A site plan design that clearly shows the location of any proposed wastewater treatment plant/systems and any associated leaching pools (as well as all required expansion areas). Discussion of potential private well impacts due to long-term nitrogen contamination down gradient from the site (not just adjacent to the site) 3 i r under a conventional wastewater treatment installation and an advanced treatment alternative. • Information regarding the types of activities (including all events that will require kitchen and wastewater generation) that will be permitted in the project's clubhouse. The DEIS should also clarify whether the clubhouse will be available for use by outside parties (not just residents an their guests) as such use is relevant to the SCDHS assessment of total wastewater generation and flow calculations. If large parties, catering events and similar activities are permitted,the Town should include this information in its assessment of the potential wastewater and overall site usage impacts (traffic, noise, etc.) related to this building as part of the overall site design. Open Space Configuration The proposed site plan does not provide meaningful open space. The project is spread across virtually the entire 43+ - acre site. At a minimum,the DEIS should require a comparative assessment (with design drawings) of an alternative site plan which substantially protects the site's many I� existing environmental assets (habitat,groundwater recharge, runoff control, separation between use - agriculture/residential, and community character) and JJ sets aside contiguous and meaningful blocks of undeveloped, natural open space that could help to mitigate the overall impact of this proposal. SEQRA directs lead agencies to assure that all projects are evaluated with the benefit of design alternatives that seek to mitigate identified environmental impacts on both the subject site as well as the surrounding community. Moreover, SEQRA directs lead agencies to select a design alternative that provides the greatest practicable 1 mitigation of environmental harm,which must be based on a reasonable assessment of design alternatives. In the absence of such additional design considerations for the subject proposal,the Planning Board cannot make its most informed decision. We strongly recommend a final alternative site design that includes protection of a substantial and contiguous portion of the site's intact natural resources and reflects attention to the stated concerns of adjacent landowners. c•__i wR_-_-_W_-. m�- Jull lvldlldgernerit Plan The HIS should include an assessment of the comments and findings from the NYSDEC and SCDHS regarding their review of the proposed Soil Management Plan. Conclusion The proposed project is one of the largest residential projects under review by the Town of Southold and will inevitably change the character of Cutchogue forever. 4 l Given the significance and permanence of this action,we ask that the Planning Board ensure that the DEIS more thoroughly examines the full range of potentially significant impacts (water consumption,water contamination,habitat destruction, community character,traffic) raised by our organization and so many others who have testified before the Board. In addition to this enhanced level of impact assessment,we strongly recommend that the DEIS be required to provide one or more development alternatives at a level of detail that is suitable for comparative assessment. In our view,an alternative design that provides for a substantial reduction in overall unit density the expanded protection of undeveloped land,and advanced wastewater treatment, could vastly reduce this project's impact on the environment,while still meeting the objectives of the project sponsor,the concerns of the community,and the legal requirements of SEQRA,which mandate defined mitigation for all potentially significant environmental impacts. l i To achieve this outcome,we reiterate that SEQRA provides the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency,with the authority to require mitigation measures not specifically required by the minimum standards of other involved agencies. Thank you for considering these comments. If I can respond to any questions or provide you with any additional information,please feel free to contact me should you have any comments or questions. For the record, I have submitted the attached curriculum vitae in support of my expert qualifications on matters of environmental impact assessment and SEQRA. I can be reached at(631) 765-6450 ext. 213 or at bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca President Attachment 1' i f�I > ROBERTS. DELUCA, President Group for the East End, P.O. Box 1792, Southold New York 11971 631-765-6450 x213 - bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org EDUCATION 1985 M.S. Environmental Science State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry 1983 B.S. Environmental Science Fordham University POSITION 1992-present: President/CEO, Group for the East End, Southold, NY. Chief Executive Officer and Director of Environmental Assessment and Advocacy Programs. Responsible for the review and technical commentary on hundreds of proposed development projects and environmental policy initiatives throughout Suffolk County and the five East End towns. 1990-2006:Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Long Island University, Southampton College, Southampton, NY. Primary Instruction Areas; State and Local Environmental Policy and Civic Engagement. 1987- 1990: Faculty Instructor, Long Island University,Southampton College, Office of Continuing Education, Southampton, NY. Environmental Science "Certificate Program" Instructor. 1986- 1992: Biologist&Sr. Environmental Analyst: Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), Office of Ecology, Riverhead, NY. Priority assignments: Comprehensive SEQRA review and commentary for hundreds of projects coordinated with SCDHS, environmental impact assessment for County initiated projects, water quality assessment and planning for the Peconic Estuary program. 1985-1986: Environmental Analyst: Group for the South Fork, Bridgehampton, NY. Review and technical comment of major development projects impacting the South Fork of Long Island. Representative Affiliations/Appointments Member–Suffolk County Water Quality Protection and Restoration Review Committee-active Member–Peconic Estuary Program Citizens Advisory Committee-active Founding Member–Preserve Plum Island Coalition and Steering Committee-active Founding Member–Long Island Clean Water Partnership- active Member–Suffolk County Airport Conservation Assessment Committee- active Member–Suffolk County Vector Control and Pesticide Management Committee- active Member–East Hampton Town Environmental Coalition –active Member–Southampton Town Sustainability Committee- inactive Awards andProfessionalRecognition 2013: Suffolk Times "Person of the Year" award to Group for the East End 2012: Long Island Pine Barrens Society "Outstanding Contribution to Long Island's Environment" award 2009: Press Club of Long Island—"Public Affairs Radio" media award–First Place 2008: Peconic Baykeeper "Bay Guardian" award 2008: USEPA "Environmental Quality Award –for protecting and enhancing environmental quality" 2007: Garden Club of America–"Contribution to Conservation Award" 1999: Long Island Progressive Coalition–"Vision of Sustainable Development Award" 1996: Long Island University Student Government - "Service Above & Beyond the Call of Duty" award Sang Lee Farms P: 631734-7001 25180 County Rd. 48 F: 631734-7103 Peconic NY 11958 N February 29,2016 ',bftlkf�llY�u4 iYhCh � Southold Town Planning Board VU 54375 Main Road(Rte.25) � P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: The Heritage DEIS Dear Southold Town Planning Board: I would like to thank you for your continued support and dedication to local homeowners, businesses and to the preservation of Southold town. I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the Heritage project in Cutchogue. My family leases a twenty five acre farm directly adjacent to the proposed building lot. We farm certified organic vegetables on the land. Personally,I am most concerned with the density this project is seeking and what this increased density could mean for the future of my family business. The farm we grow vegetables on is right next door and if this project is allowed to proceed at the density proposed it will only exacerbate the development pressure for the property we farm. This used to be a farm. How the zoning was changed needs to be readdressed. If you allow this project to continue at the proposed density I am certain that it will usher in an unacceptable amount of new environmental,social,and agricultural problems at a much faster rate throughout the nearby area. In particular,we will experience the burden of negative effects on our farmland and farming practices. We will see drainage and runoff issues during construction,there will be overwhelming impact on the water supply and quality at the farm. In order to preserve our organic certification we will immediately have to increase setback requirements from the landscaped and sprayed areas up to 150 ft. (as required under our Organic certification). We would lose valuable farm-able acreage to a new buffer zone that we would have to create between their sprayed or fertilized areas and our organic food crops. We are required to be in contact with every neighbor our farms border for spray regulations and nuisance hunting regulations-this will be a huge amount of new neighbors to be in contact with. The Heritage project will create a situation that is likely to increase the possibility of conflicts with adjacent neighbors(75ft away)and that is a planning problem the Town has long sought to avoid. It is unreasonable to put that amount of people on forty acres right next to a working farm. From an agricultural/horticultural point of view I am deeply concerned about the amount of water that will be flushing through the project's irrigation system and how that may impact the regional water supply that we rely upon for use at the land we farm. As a result,I suggest the proposed plan be required to include more undisturbed(not bulldozed)open space for the animals and beneficial insects. I also recommend that the proposal require the appropriate amount of top soil brought back on site to aid in fertility retention and minimizing nitrogen pollution into our water table. Absent the substantial addition of soil, the sandy loam that will be left on this property after bulldozing will need to be heavily fertilized to hold the nutrition that the grasses,shrubs and trees require to become established. This is going to force constant irrigating and fertilizer applications. As a result,the nitrogen pollution from the landscaping on this forty acres will be likely to produce a larger negative impact on the ground water and estuary systems in Cutchogue than the developers may realize or discuss in the DEIS.Any final approval must evaluate and address this action given our region's well-documented water quality problems. It is very clear that the documentation and research we have tells us that we have already exceeded the region's natural carrying capacity and more must be done to restore and reclaim our natural resources for the future. This is why at the local level we have long sworn to protect ourselves and our natural resources through the imposition of improved zoning restrictions. Unfortunately, this project abandons these fundamental environmental protections and community planning goals that we have put in place to save what is left on the North Fork. Given the site specific and potential town-wide implications,please use your authority through SEQRA to lower the density of this proposal,force more real open space in the plans,and make amendments to lessen the impact on the environment. These are the reasons we have zoning restrictions in this area. This project is counterintuitive to our town code,our goals to preserve the local environment,and our deeply and widely held vision for the future development of our community here in Southold town. You have the power to change the final landscape on these forty acres through the application of the SEQRA process. More than anything else,the density on this property should be reevaluated for legitimacy and consistency with years of planning and zoning efforts enacted to protect the Town's unique and historic character and resources. Thanks again for your attention to my concerns and for giving the local community your time and dedication. Sincerely, William Lee Certified Organic Vegetable Farmer Peter Lake 2270 Highland Rd Cutchogue, NY 11935 .oM��, March 4, 2016 �� i�r�i�`� v:"a�d To Members of the Town Board, I am contacting you to voice my concern of the Cutchogue Fire Department's ability to handle the increased volume of calls it will receive from the proposed Heritage, 55 and older development. I am a Nassau County Police Officer. As Police Officers we are trained as First Responders. Whenever a call goes out for an aided (a medical emergency)we respond, along with the Volunteer Fire Departments. We have several communities like the Heritage within the Precinct where I work. The call volume to those communities tends to be very high. So much so that some of the volunteer Fire Departments now refuse to respond to those calls.They simply do not have the man power needed to cover the increased calls. Nassau County Police Department has its own ambulances. When the Fire Departments cannot respond,for whatever reason, a County Ambulance goes to those calls. In addition there are certain areas of each precinct where the County Ambulance are the primary responders. This helps elevate some of the bourdon on the volunteers. Neither one of these scenarios is present in Cutchogue. The entire responsibility will fall on the hands of the volunteers. The realization is that the sear size of the Heritage alone will require extra service.Add into the equation that it is a development for Seniors and this could have disastrous effects to our entire community. If increased call volume ties up the Cutchogue Ambulance, other towns will have to respond to simultaneous calls. In instances of medical emergencies, precious minutes for another Ambulance to respond can be a life threating. Cutchogue Fire Department does an excellent job, but they do not have unlimited man power available. A development such as this could be over whelming for them. Sincerely, Peter Lake To Heather Lanza and the Planning Board, I am writing to express concern about the Heritage development and the effect it il—`' have on our community. I was recently before the Planning Board as an applicant, so I have had an opportunity to see the diligence and expertise with which staff and Board members approach proposed projects. I have no doubt that you will bring the same care and concern for Southold residents to your determination on the Heritage development. This proposed gated community and private club, made up of semi-detached condos with 2 car garages front and center, reflects none of the actual heritage of Cutchogue. It is a generic suburban development, Anywhere USA, unfortunately being deposited on a large parcel of land in our town. I understand that many aspects of this proposal have been determined, and your hands are tied, but I respectfully ask that, wherever possible, you compel this developer to make this project the best it can be, from the community's point of view. I believe it is within your jurisdiction to compel this developer to use an alternative wastewater system–the timing is finally right to do this–and the scale of this project means that the SCDHS will be ready to work with them. Public opinion also supports this. Traffic flow, landscape, lighting, irrigation, paving materials, and signage are also within your purview. Please consider them carefully. Will the gate be manned? Is this sort of accessory building allowed by zoning? Will the property be cleared for ease of construction? Most importantly, I hope lessons from this development can be integrated into the currently in-the-works Master Plan for Southold so this mistake cannot be made again. The beauty and the distinctive and desirable character of Southold hint at a dangerous future filled with development proposals. We are counting on you to be the gatekeepers. Thank you for your diligence. Sincerely, Barbara Schnitzler 220 Old Harbor Rd New Suffolk Anne Murray 300 Southern Boulevard East Marion,NY 11939 nemurray@optonline.net " "' Bard an March 5, 2016 Members of the Southold Town Planning Board, Having read the DEIS submitted by the developer of the Heritage at Cutchogue project I urge you to reject it as inadequate for the following reasons: Sanitary Flow: According to the DEIS,the total sanitary flow based on the size of the condominium will be 25,200 gpd. Since the maximum allowed by Suffolk County is 22,540 a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant should be required on site. Although the developer said at the public hearing it is open to using such a system, I urge you to require it as a condition of allowing the project.to go forward. Stormwater Runoff issues: Neighboring streets flood during rainstorms yet the developer proposes that the roads in the development be made up of impervious surfaces. The planning board should require the developer to study this issue and then require this project to use impervious surfaces throughout the development to mitigate stormwater runoff and filter the water. Excessive Water Use: Clean drinking water on Long Island and on the North Fork in particular, is a resource we cannot take for granted. Even if the Suffolk County Water Authority provides water to the Heritage,the DEIS states it will use 22,500 gallons daily plus double that amount for irrigation! Please consider the effect this excessive water use will have on the aquifer now and in the future. The developer does not provide for drought situations in the DEIS, nor does it provide for the effects of climate change, which can bring more draughts and extreme weather that can affect our water supplies and water quality. Once built the heavy water use by this project will be permanent. The developer does not address this issue. Traffic: The traffic study, conducted during a three-day period in October, is inadequate. Another study should be conducted in July or August when traffic on the North Fork is at its peak. In addition to studying parking and traffic in the hamlet of Cutchogue, it should also measure in detail the effects of additional cars parked at the nearby Cutchogue and New Suffolk beaches and road ends, which the developer promotes as nearby beach access for prospective residents. We know that the town has inadequate parking at the beaches and road ends as it stands now. The effect of additional cars will cause traffic hazards and safety issues for first responders both in the hamlet and on nearby roads. Emergency Response: The Cutchogue Fire Department has expressed concerns about its ability to respond to calls at the proposed development. This is a critical issue. For example, Peconic Landing in Greenport has overtaxed both the East Marion and Greenport Fire Departments. The effect on first responders of a potential ten percent increase in the population of Cutchogue —all over 55 —with the addition of the Heritage has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS. Community Character: This is not adequately addressed in the DEIS. The developer states the project"would be consistent with surrounding development." This is completely untrue. There has never been a residential development this dense on the North Fork, except for Peconic Landing, which is a different type of community. The fact that the developer proposes a gated community is completely out of character for the North Fork. Peconic Landing has no gate, welcomes visitors and hosts many community events. It has been a good neighbor in most respects. This developer proposes to keep the surrounding community out—with a guard at the gate no less! This sends a message to the community that the Heritage is an exclusive residence quite separate from the surrounding community. For all the above reasons I urge you to reject the DEIS. I believe if you allow the building of the Heritage project will have an adverse on Cutchogue and the entire town. Sincerely, Anne Murray Cynthia Lake 2270 Highland Road Cutchogue, NY 1193 5 ��,�,' �r 2,)(",,' � Mann4w ffiod March 3, 2016 To Members of the Planning Board, I am writing this letter to voice my distress over the Heritage high density development, proposed to be built in Cutchogue. My home is adjacent to the proposed development site; so this quite literally will be in my back yard. A backyard that for the past 35 years has been a very quiet and private place. A place where my children enjoy spending long summer days swimming in our pool and playing outside. A private sanctuary where we enjoy relaxing at the end of the day either with a cup of tea sitting by a fire, or a cool drink enjoying the quiet summer breezes. My family and I enjoy the nature watching we do right from our living room window. We see Osprey, owls and hawks hunting, deer, fox, turkey, pheasants, bats, rabbits, raccoons, turtles, frogs and all different types of small birds. In the early spring we are serenaded by the spring peepers. All that would dramatically change if this development were to be built as proposed. This development would negatively affect the quality of life for my family as well as that of our neighbors. The changes to our established community would be life altering, financially disastrous and create potential health risks and dangerous situations throughout our entire community. My quiet, private backyard will turn into a public war zone as loud heavy equipment and construction workers remove every tree, shrub and blade of grass from development site. Instead of seeing vegetation and wild life we will have a front row seat to watch in horror as animals try to scramble to safety; and watch as the very essence of what Cutchogue is and should be the is ripped down. Our quiet summer breezes will be replaced with unbearable construction noise, and diesel fumes. Dirt and pollutants from years of farming will become airborne, coating our homes, cars and outdoor space. Our privacy will be stripped away as we suffer through years of construction. Our compensation for surviving through this besiege will be to have multiple two story dwellings bearing down on us. Permanently stripping us of the solitude we have a right to enjoy. Condominiums, roads, parking lots, tennis courts, a pool, various other buildings and lined collecting pools will prevent critical recharging water from reaching our aquifers. Bright lights from within the complex forever altering our darkened skies that are perfect for star gazing. Our property values will suffer horrifically. No other place else on the North Fork are there private homes with condominiums adjacent to their property. Who would want to buy my home when the can go to ANY other block on the North Fork and not have their privacy invaded with ten or more neighboring houses within a hundred feet of the back yard. The negative effects of this development will reach far beyond our neighborhood and could very possibly cause irrevocable damage to the environment, our wildlife and the essence of Cutchogue itself. This development will most likely bring over 200 additional cars, driven by seniors, to our already overcrowded roads. Traffic accidents that over the past few years have claimed lives both on the Main Road and Sound Avenue will only increase. Addition stress will be placed on our local Police and Fire Departments, as well as area hospitals and other county services. We moved from Queens about 15 years ago to an existing family home on Highland Road. We made the decision to move far from my husband's work and friends, to try and provide a better quality of life for our children. We believed then, as we do now, that Cutchogue is one of the best palaces to raise a family. We love the open spaces, the small town community spirit and welcome that surrounds you here. Families here build fences to keep pets and small children in; NOT TO KEEP NEIGHBORS OUT. The fact the developer plans to put a guarded gate at the entrance to this development fortifies that this will in no way be a part of our town or provide any benefits our existing community. The travesty to me personally is that if this development goes through as purposed we will have more adjacent neighbors, in closer proximity to our home, then we did in Queens. What cost does any entire community have to pay for the profits of one private investor. That parcel of land was purchased for less than $100,000. The owner stands to make a ridiculous profit regardless of what type of building he is permitted to do. He should not be allowed to build something that becomes a parasite on our community, forever changing our town and lives,just because he wants to make an obscene profit. I request that the Town Board consider the following to help alleviate some of the negative impacts on the surrounding communities: 1. Increase buffer between homes on Highland. 2. Maintain nature existing buffer around property. Require replanting of large trees along property lines which were previously illegally removed. Scott Russell was witness to several tractor trailer loads of large trees removed when a cease order was in place. 3. Decease number of units. 4. Require a current environmental impact statement and enhanced traffic studies. 5. Consider a sewage containment system due to the volume of sewage and negative impact of nitrogen, pharmaceuticals and other bacteria on our ground water and waterways. 6. Require alternative sources for watering other than using ground water. 7. Prohibit loopholes that would allow children under 18 from being allowed to be permanent residents, to prevent impact to local schools. 8. Require removal of soil from building site. Do not allow developer to pile contaminated soil in concentrated area on property. 9. Prohibit excessive lighting. IO.Prohibit extensive parking lots, road ways and lined decorative water features that prevent ground water from reaching and recharging aquifers. I do not envy the position this decision puts the board members in. It must be a heavy burden to bare knowing your decisions could forever change the very qualities that makes our area unique. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Sincerely, Cynthia Lake CA . February 28, 2016 'Z TOt Toss of Southold, Planning Beard `� FROMt William Cichaanies 625 Schoolhouse Read Cutcheguo, 'fit. I. 11935 o�Wu okl io"7-11, REFEWCEs The Heritage Project 110011hlg BOW'd Dear Members of the Planning Beard, I am net happy with the Heritage Project as it will use Schoolhouse Read as its entrance. The amount. of traffic in this area (in and out) win affect our Pest Office, nearby scbool, the North Street playground, and the residents on Schoolhouse Road who back out of our driveways onto the read. Right now, ns sidewalks exist, area residents walk the read, some with lets. Many joggers and bicycles use this read and children Se to the playground nearby on Nprth Street. I fool a condo project of this proposed mists will overcrowd the area and take Cutchsgue's natural lifestyle avq, to be lefty with senjogtin of cars and fears of strange people to our area. Please consider more entrances and exits for the project. They will ease the flew of vehicles into all read& rather than one entrance with exit into the center of our village. This is ossoncial for the safety of our residents im an emergency, where those of the condo have to evacuate due to fire, gas leaks, violence, tsrerism or hurricanes. No entrance will hinder responses of emergency vehicles to got ia.er out of the condos, to help all to be safe. Thank Feu! Sincerely. will.iam 4ichanowl.es vi2i0 ,m �M ., Donald Wileenski February 25, 2016 Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear Mr. Wilcenski: As a resident of Cutehogue,I would like to go on record as opposing the Heritage at Cutchogue Condominium Project. I've attended both open meetings and have listened to the pleas of my neighbors,and feel compelled to join them. From local farrners,to families that live on Schoolhouse Rd.,and to residents like myself, and I believe you too,all know this is so very out of character for our community. As a member of the Southold Town Architectural review Committee. I have met with the developers representatives and have viewed the plans in great detail,probably knowing much more of the eventual impact of this project that most people. In the beginning;when I was made aware of the schedule for the ARC meeting in January and we would be reviewing the project, I presumed two things. First,that there would have to be a separate entrance to be used for the construction equipment and possibly also be used as a second entrance/exit. Second,with need for reduction of nitrogen loading here on the North Fork that I've been reading about for years,there would have to be a wastewater treatment plant on site. As you know, neither of these elements are part of this plan. There are two specific points Pd like to make which have not been discussed. Why is this being done now when almost half the residents of Southold Town are not even here? I can only image them returning to find out they have been left out of the process and did not have a chance to make their feeling known about this.Also,in conversation with the developers representatives, there is a plan to remove the top one foot of Temik contaminated soil from all 46 acres(76,000 cubic yards), and burying it on site. As you know,the pesticide Temik contains arsenic, but if left undisturbed on this site,posses no threat to humans or animals.Now I know this procedure is supposed to be safe, but I can't believe that in the process of clearing the soil from the entire surface of the site that some of this material in the form of fine dust will become airborne and possibly create a health issue. Lastly, most of my fellow members of the ARC feel as I do,and find this project to be highly inappropriate for Southold Town. StephenG '�' 450 Bittersweet Ln. Cutchogue,NY 11935 PS: I have included four letters.I have written to The Suffolk Times on this subject,the first two were printed,the second two were not_ .rimes Review Newspapers January,, 12, 2016 The Suffolk.Times 7785 Main. R-d, M'attituck, NY 11952 Mr. Gratit Parpan, Exec. Editor Dear Mr. Parpan, On January 11 th. I attended the Planning Board meeting at Town Hall regarding the Heritage At Cutchogue project. By far,the majority opinion voiced by those in attendance was the 124 unit gated condominium project on a 46 acre lot with its only entrance/exit at the comer of tariffing St. and Schoolhouse Rd. in Cutchogue was single a word, inappropriate. From ground water pollution and its negative effects on local creeks and the bay,to its impact on the environment, including several animal species,to the quality of life that threatens residents both old and young. The developers plan is to strip the land of all native vegetation and build in four phases, each to take one to one and a half years to complete, that's a four to six year flow of construction vehicles entering and exiting the Main Rd. at that intersection, not to mention the upwards of 300 vehicle that will occupy this exclusive complex when complete, I ask all of you that live in Southold,to make your voice heard to the Planning Board, of which the 5 members are appointed by the town, and to the towns elected officials. The Planning Board has extended the window for written comments on this matter and will revisit this issue again at the Feb, 8th. meeting. Please make this a priority and get involved,because if this is allowed to happen,there is no turning back for Southold. Sincerely, Stephen Gerac-i 450 Bittersweet Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 631 734-8452 Suffolk Times, E.diton Jan. 23, 2016 Reasonable people would take issue with some of the points made by Mr. Lastoria in his letter. He states "many of the speakers were not local or from local organizations." In fact, everyone I heard speak at the planning board meeting, whether from an organization or private citizen, was local. There were different figures presented by of sides pertaining to water usage and amounts of wastewater, but I am inclined to believe the people and organizations who spoke tip. I question the numbers that a self-serving builder, who doesn't have a vested interest in Cutchogue or the Town of Southold, would provide so their project can move forward. There were a number of relevant comments/complaints made by people who have the right to know what they would be forced to live with once this project is built, He seems to suggest these residents, some long time local farmers whose families go back generations, might not know what's best for our community. Lastly, he states "We would all like the good things we have had in the as not to change, but along with these good things were things not so good". Itis project is allowed to go forward, we will always remember this as one oft ose "things not so good". How can anyone believe this private and exclusive gated condominium project in our backyard would ever be remembered any other way? As a member of the Southold Town Arc'hitectural Review Committee, I see changes every month at our eeings® The'co mmittee's goal is to help well-meaning developers integrate their projects into our community with an even handed approach concerning practicality and aesthetics. The majority of the board looks upon this project with grave misgivings. I Please make time to attend the next open meeting of the Planning Board on Feb. 8, ® at Town Hall in Southold. Stephen Geraci 450 Bittersweet Ln. Cutchogue,NY 11935 631734-9452 ,.-Offlol.k.Times. Editor Feb. 16, 2016 With the North Fork caught in winters grip and almost one-half of its population gone for the winter, I would Just.hke to remind the residents of Southold'rown to try to attend the rest heduled.planning Board open forum regarding The Heritage at Cutchogue Condominium Project,your presence at this meeting will make a.difference. The meeting is next Monday, .Feb- , 22, at 6:OOPM at Southold Townflall. Stephen Geraci 450 .Bittersweet.LD.. Cutchogue, NY 11935 631 734-8452 E C E � g 800 Crown Land Lane L; Cutchogue, NY 11935 February 22, 2016 FEB 2 3 2Southold Planning Board 7aut6rolci Taw1'iaflt ;ag Boar Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11935 Re:the Heritage at Cutchogue Condominium Project Members of the Southold Planning Board and Staff The purpose of this letter is to express my opposition to the current site plan and DEIS for the Heritage at Cutchogue Condominium Project. Overall,this project will decrease the quality of life we presently enjoy. It will negatively impact most areas of our life, our safety,our environment, our culture and our local economy. For example, retail businesses and restaurants need more people to expand their sales. However, if people avoid the area because of poor water quality and traffic congestion,they will bypass us,avoid Cutchogue hamlet and travel further east. As we all know,the North Fork has become an agritainment destination due to the farms, wineries, breweries, retail businesses and restaurants associated with them.The infrastructure, especially the roads and traffic safety has not kept up with this boom.We have many buses and limos bringing more and more people to the North Fork with traffic safety becoming a major issue. Now the Heritage at Cutchogue is at the center of this problem. The reasons below describe my objections. • The Water Quality and Sewer components I will defer to the experts who have responded so eloquently to this part of the DEIS during other Public Hearings or through correspondence. • Traffic No. 1—The emergency roads for this Project which is proposed to connect Highland and Bridle Roads and Crown Land Lane is dangerous for the residents including the children who live on these streets. Who will enforce the traffic regulations for these emergency roads? The fire, police and ambulance services will be brought into a very peaceful area en route to the Heritage. Although I am deeply indebted and respect these services,the Heritage is a 55 and over project and the frequency of this emergency traffic will more likely to be higher due to the sheer number of residents and age. This will increase the level of risks we currently experience. • Traffic No. 2-Griffing St.—The plan to have the Heritage traffic enter and exit on Griffing St. and School House Lane is a very bad idea for many reasons. On Griffing St. and Main Road there is no traffic light.At the present time,this is dangerous intersection,especially during the spring, summer and fall seasons.The traffic backs up at the light on Main Road and New Suffolk Rd. which is about 50 feet away, making it almost impossible to make a turn.Cars parking on the Main Road in front of the businesses limit visibility. Did I mention the fact that the Fire Department is located about 100 feet south of Main Road and uses this intersection? In addition,there are two vacant retail properties on the east and west side of Griffing Street which will undoubtedly be developed if the Heritage Project is approved adding to the traffic. Furthermore,the Catholic School uses the parking lot and entrance on Griffing Street for bus and car traffic.This would put more people, especially children, at risk.To further complicate the issue,Sacred Heart Parish has the Rectory and Church up for sale.They also use the school entry on Griffing St. Finally,to make the make a bad situation worse,the Post Office, which is very busy is also on Griffing Street opposite the school entry. • Traffic No. 3 Depot Lane-Although Depot Lane and Main Road appear to be a solution,this would not only severely impact the residential homes on School House Lane but also require a traffic Signal on Main Road. At this intersection is a public school building and school bus parking lot and a busy gas station.This would back up the spring, summer and fall traffic west to the light on Main Road and New Suffolk Road. Even if you sync the traffic lights,the current volume of traffic is too great and would cause a constant traffic jam in the center of Town.As I stated at the beginning of this letter,traffic jams and safety issues in Cutchogue hamlet would have an adverse economic impact to the retail businesses and restaurants on Main Road because automobile drivers would avoid this area and use County Road 48 to travel further east. • Traffic No.4 Construction Traffic-How will the heavy equipment,trucks, bulldozers, cranes, etc. enter and exit the Heritage property?When will the construction time begin and end each day? It is unimaginable that they will be using Schoolhouse La, Griffing St., Highland Rd., Crown Land La.or Bridle Road. The Town of Riverhead planned and eventually zoned Middle Road in Riverhead for condominiums, Middle Road is a bypass to County Road 58 where most of the shopping is done in Riverhead.There are several condo residences that have direct access to Middle Road.The traffic is regulated with enough north south routes to move traffic off Middle Road.Southold needs a fresh approach to traffic safety if condos are the future of the town. Affordable Housing-Southold Town like many East End Towns is facing a problem with affordable housing. Many of our long-time citizens relocate to other states due to the cost of living and their ability to find affordable housing. Our young people have the same problem. Many go away to college and don't return to Southold because we lack affordable housing. In my opinion,the Town Board blundered by accepting$2 million dollars in lieu of requiring the Heritage at Cutchogue to build 12 affordable units as required by law.This would have been the perfect opportunity for 12 senior families to stay in Southold where they raised their family, perhaps staying close to their children. Furthermore,the Town Board was silent on how they would use the$2 million. i hope they come forward and disclose soon how they plan to spend the money. Maybe they plan to buy land and build 12 units for$166,000 each. Good luck! Ver truly yy urs Thomas J.WcAclaGmGt LB 2 3 2016 thuld Tawnnn'r rd '�,�.� `�"j "G +"�.� Wiz. n���" �• �i/� '24 J r - l`y , `-� •i_-�'�� G � �, �'��.�1Sr -CCS. l/ -4-cld-t aep��. EI-3 oll r 449�- `i, 344 /,�P, " ZZ . � U &� -C EV,E � VV, FEB 23 2016 SoaithWl�i Town Planning Board February 22, 2016 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Members of the Southold Planning Board and Staff: What makes average citizens come out time after time to Planning Board meetings and write letter after letter to local, state and federal officials regarding a condominium project? Anger— anger at decades of"deals done late at night," special interests, and a general lack of common sense. The populace of the North Fork is not an uneducated group of"yahoos"; rather, we are an informed, highly educated community who cares about our natural environment and way of life and is dedicated to preserving its integrity. Every day we are able to read in our newspapers, in our emails, on our Smartphones about the tremendous threats our North Fork faces in the way of nitrogen pollution, availability of safe drinking water and quality of life on our waterways and roadways. No one can claim ignorance of these facts. Whether we are natives or long-time residents, we know our way of life is threatened. Therefore,just as resident and expert alike come forward with courage and facts to plead our case for Cutchogue, I ask that this Board demonstrate the same kind of courage to forget past politics and the bad choices that ensued and to do the right thing for Cutchogue and Southold Town. Impose the strictest standards upon this proposed project to protect the Peconic Estuary from further contamination; require a complete and honest evaluation and re-design of our roadways to protect the safety of residents and visitors to our Town; allow current neighborhoods to remain free from encroachment in all respects associated with this project; initiate a real, detailed analysis of the economic impact of this proposed community on our resources, both natural and financial. Attached are several current articles that virtually all of us have seen recently. Our County, State and federal officials are articulating the threats and working to secure the funding for solutions to protect "Our Home." We, the People of Cutchogue, expect no less from our Town government. Sincerely, Newsday.com Page 1 of 2 http://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-nitrogen-action- = plan-targets-pollution-in-waterways-1.11442221 This copy is for your personal,non-commercial use only.To order presentation-ready copies Reprints for distribution to colleagues,clients or customers,use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or order a reprint of this article now. Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan targets pollution in waterways February 6, 2016 By Jennifer Barrios jennifer.barrios@newsday.com Excessive levels of nitrogen from sources such as wastewater and septic systems are harming the salt marshes on Long Island that are critical in protecting coastal communities from storm surges and flooding, the state Department of Environmental Conservation has said. Above, the salt marsh in the Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness. (Credit: National Park Service / Diane Abell) State and local officials are developing a multimillion-dollar plan to tackle the problem of excess nitrogen in Long Island's waterways, establishing recommended limits on the nutrient and identifying areas best suited for sewers or other wastewater upgrades. The Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan, funded with $5 million in the current state budget, is spearheaded by the Long Island Regional Planning Council and the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The two groups held three meetings—two in Suffolk and one in Nassau—over three days last week, soliciting public comment on the draft scope of the plan. The overall process outlined in the plan covers four years, Jim Tierney, the DEC's assistant commissioner for water resources, said at Tuesday's meeting in Riverhead, which attracted a standing-room-only crowd. "It's an ambitious plan," he said. The plan has two phases, beginning with an "early-action" element, designed to gather existing data on the current nitrogen problem. Excess nitrogen —coming from septic systems and cesspools, fertilizer runoff and other sources— has caused a variety of harmful effects in Long Island's waterways. http://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-nitrogen-action-plan-targets-pollution-in... 2/21/2016 Newsday.com Page 2 of 2 The nutrient has led to an increase in harmful algal blooms, decreased oxygen, overgrowths of macroalgae such as ulva, and a weakening of the coastal marshlands that serve as a buffer against harsh wave action during storm events. The plan also includes gathering information on the siting of wastewater-treatment plants, and a geographic inventory of areas with sewers on the Island, culminating in the creation of a map-based website. $129.99 Home ExpressionSTM A wastewater map and priority areas in need of Carter 10-pc.Comforter. advanced wastewater treatment will be identified will be developed for each watershed included in the plan: the areas along the Long advertisement I advertise on newsday Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary Complex, the Western South Shore Estuary Reserve, the Middle and Eastern South Shore Estuary Reserve and another category of waters, which includes Mecox Bay. Nitrogen-reduction targets also will be developed for each watershed, to be refined in later years. Officials expect the document to provide a science-based tool for guiding future policy around nitrogen reduction. "The plan is to lean on the science that has been done and select a comprehensive set of indicators as a set of water quality and ecological goals," according to the document. The second phase of the plan includes finding ways to fund some of the plan's elements. "The nitrogen problem on Long Island continues to exacerbate," John Cameron, chair of the Long Island Regional Planning Council, said at the Riverhead meeting. "The challenge is going to be, how are we going to pay to address it?" The three public meetings attracted government officials, advocates and members of the public, many lauding the effort while also offering suggestions about the process. "We really like the watershed approach," Carl LoBue, senior marine scientist with The Nature Conservancy, said at the meeting in Hempstead on Wednesday. Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, suggested at that meeting the creation of an "action index"to measure yearly progress of the plan. "So we can do a checkup once a year and see how we're doing," she said. The draft scope plan can be found on the DEC's website at www.dec.ny.gov/lands/103654.html. Written comments will be accepted until Feb. 19 at liwaterquality@dec.ny.gov < back to article http://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-nitrogen-action-plan-targets-pollution-in... 2/21/2016 Newsday.com Page 1 of 2 http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/steve-bellone-seeks- federal-funds-to-fix-infrastructure-curb-fish-kills-1.1 0563919 This copy is for your personal,non-commercial use only.To order presentation-ready copies Reprints for distribution to colleagues,clients or customers,use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or order a reprint of this article now Bellone seeks federal funds to fix infrastructure, curb fish kills June 20, 2015 By WILL JAMES will.james@newsday.com Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone holds up a Suffolk County water resource / management plan book during a news conference at the Peconic River in Riverhead Saturday afternoon, June 20, 2015. He addressed concerns about recent fish kills in the Peconic. (Credit: - James Carbone) Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone Saturday sought to tie recent fish kills in the Peconic River to a broader water-quality crisis, and called for federal funds to combat nitrogen pollution from septic systems and fertilizers. Bellone, speaking at a news conference alongside the Peconic River at the Riverhead Yacht Club, described the hundreds of thousands of dead bunker fish that washed up in recent weeks as "a stark reminder to all of us that we have an urgent issue to address in this region." State Department of Environmental Conservation and county health officials are expected to issue a report on the precise causes of the fish kills in a matter of weeks, Bellone said. Jim Gilmore, chief of the marine resources bureau of the DEC, said early findings showed FAMILY THING T-S H I R r an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 bunker fish asphyxiated in the river in three recent die-offs. inkpixi.com An initial die-off in early May went largely unnoticed, but the second in late May to early WILSON June drew officials' attention after more than 200,000 fish died, he said. A smaller one Ibm followed last week. jPeisonalized woan^ta+« Gilmore said a number of factors seem to have contributed to the die-offs, including an unusually early appearance of an algae known Hatsa More!1s to produce a mucus that coats fish gills and SHOP NOW» interferes with breathing. Scientists have http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/steve-bellone-seeks-federal-funds-to-fix-infr... 2/21/2016 Newsday.com Page 2 of 2 blamed nitrogen pollution for the greater advertisement I advertise on newsday frequency of algal blooms in local waters. Gilmore also said the bunker, a baitfish also known as menhaden, congregated in large numbers in the Peconic Estuary this year for warmth and were chased upriver by an unusually large number of bluefish, preventing them from leaving. Bellone called on federal officials to provide more money for sewers and other pollution- mitigation efforts, saying the Peconic Estuary was one of 28 in the country federal officials have deemed to be nationally significant. "We don't have the resources we need to reverse this water-quality decline and protect this national treasure," he said. Bellone declined to cite a specific funding amount or projects for which the money would be used but said solving the county's water-quality problems would cost billions and involve new wastewater infrastructure. About 70 percent of Suffolk homes have aging septic systems that are the major source of nitrogen pollution on Long Island, county officials and scientists have said. Riverhead Town Supervisor Sean Walter, who led an effort to remove 10,000 pounds of dead bunker from the Peconic River last week, said at the news conference that he wants to draft plans to reduce nitrogen pollution by building sewers on Peconic Bay Boulevard, a road that lies along northern banks of the river. Sewers would stop runoff from lawns from reaching -- and polluting --the river.Walter also called on residents on the riverfront to stop fertilizing their lawns. "Your neighbors are not going to care if it's a little brown," he said. < back to article http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/steve-bellone-seeks-federal-funds-to-fix-infr... 2/21/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times ... Page 3 of 8 DNS { 1 r � 1�•J'•� File< ri n.-Vfoiu`i>;co 021nI(0,ii:iim�.rrnoo) Neighbors of the intersection said it's a frequent spot for crashes. Ruth Urwand,who lives on Depot Lane,said she believes a regular stoplight should replace the blinking light that's currently there. Assistant Suffolk County District Attorney Elizabeth Miller said additional charges are expected in the case as Mr.Romeo is currently facing just one misdemeanor drunk driving charge. "At this time we are continuing the investigation and looking at upgrading the charges,"she said,adding that Mr.Romeo is due in Southold Town Justice Court Friday. When asked about the emotional state of his client,defense attorney Dan O'Brien of Nesconset said,"It's a tough,tough situation."He declined to say where Mr.Romeo was headed at the time of the crash. Ms.Miller said one of the women was"a bride,"and the friends were celebrating"an upcoming event." "I don't believe it was a bridal party,but they were celebrating," she said in reference to reports that the women visited the North Fork for a bachelorette party. News of the fatal crash led friends and family of the victims to post memories of them on social media. An anguished man who answered the phone at Ms.Baruch's house Sunday afternoon declined to comment,saying only that he couldn't talk."I'm sorry,"he said. http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/60639/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times I ... Page 1 of 8 Times Review Suffolklimes RiverheadNews-Review Shelter Island Reporter noithforker Find APro Subscriptions E-Paper Login TTjeftffoYk Timm 0 Write the Editor Send Us a Tip Advertise Classifieds Contact TR Digital Search the blog Se; CUTCHocur: FAMILY MEDICINE LET OUR FAMILY CARE I IUR FAMILY Ill..Main Road Cutchoqu� NY VISIT US> 631.734 8 7 42 News Government Police Education Sports Opinion Community Obituaries Events Eat&Drink Real Estate Stay&Play Shop * Recent Posts to Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo Planning Board to is t-boned in Cutehogue reopen public hearing on Heritage at by Grant Parpan,Tim Gannon,Joe Werkmeister,Vera Chinese and Rachel Young I Cutehogue + . 07/19/2015 9:01 AM Guest Column:The Like Shen asK Tweet G-1 2 lessons learned from • ... VW'sscandal _ Southold native NOW IN OUR 41H GENERATION victorious as Hamlin's e crew chief at Daytona noto e 500 Milk,Street.Southold 631-765-3562 ELIH opts to partner with Stony Brook University Hospital lD Suffolk Times Newsletter Sign Up L Mattituckgrad rides Your Email Address.... GO motorcycle 2K miles r' across Vietnam Cops:57-year-old man nabbed on DWI charge 8yTfnik (631)76M262 �. in Greenport SocxH#y Ol**for wcttula Cops:Man caught with 5yeteme stolen wallet,lottery tickets In Mattituck Meet Mattituck Nigh SAVES YOU MONEY. They were all 23 and 24 years old,their whole lives seemingly school's valedictorian ahead of them. and salutatorian SAVES YOUR LIFE. They were visiting the North Fork to celebrate a major event in one Thunderstorm knocks out power in CLICK FOR YOUR FREE QUOTE cc of their friends'lives. Mattituck,Greenport Then,as the driver of the limousine they booked to help keep them PHOTOS:Greenport safe on a trip to local wineries attempted to make a U-turn on graduates class of Route 48 and Depot Lane in Cutehogue,the lives of the four friends 2015 came to a tragic end Saturday. northforker Town:Examination of ustice court Steve Romeo,55,of Southold was charged with driving while is a work in..finances A glimpse of spring tight: intoxicated after his pickup truck allegedly t-boned the limousine Through Your Lens North Fork while traveling westbound along County Road 48 shortly after 5 Can you spell it?Local p.m. hamlet named to top. 10 list Love Lane Kitchen,two other The crash took the lives of Brittany Schuman,23,of Smithtown; East End eateries receive'Snail Lauren Baruch 2 of Smithtown;Stephanie Belli 2 of Kings thug iacs to of pass, efApproval' 4r � P � 3. g though lack of clarity Park;and Amy Grabina,23,of Commack. concerns Russell Eat For 70 years,the Summer rentals,a new Greenport Class a wine $25:flowweek i and LI 1945 hasn't mlSSed.., wine under$25:Week in Review North Fork Cops:Greenport man charged with DWIAn early harbinger of spring: after crashing car WIIVNorth Fork Sunday Scene North F®rK Southold Town Board declines to pass short- term rental law http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/60639/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times I ... Page 2 of 8 71 Sinning helps lead Team USA to silver medal in Argentina sm{ P13MC faithful that ) North Shore-LIJ is i �` healthy fit � 6 The number of big - events in Southold is skyrocketing School Districts to see - -� increase in state aid, but at... LENWQOL7 ' Does someone in your family have a .a5-.�� ,u, ��-'r-::Arrckirrtt.Sr7tur,3ay�frr4rnrhoyva.;'rnl;thlRadrA,�MT;Ir^fywvz! r r � r •r Can you see what this Three of the victims died on scene and the fourth died at Peconic is doing to you? Bay Medical Center,Southold Town police chief Martin Flatley said. Injured but surviving the crash were four additional passengers: FAMILIES ANONMMQN Joelle Dimonti,25,of Elwood;Melissa Crai,23,of Scarsdale;Alicia OFFERS FREE HELP Arundel,24,of Setauket;and Olga Lipets,24,of Brooklyn.The driver of the limousine,58-year-old Carlos Pino of Bethpage,was also treated for non-life threatening injuries at a Suffolk County hospital. The limo had just left Vineyard 48 and was heading east before the Recent Facebook Posts driver attempted the ill-fated turn. Fire crews from Cutchogue,Mattituck,East Marion,Greenport, Planning Board to reopen public Southold and Jamesport all responded to the scene.Two Suffolk hearing on Heritage at Cutchogue County police helicopters assisted in the rescue,landing directly on While the developer has reduced the Route 48,which remained closed in both directions for several number of housing units and pledged to use hours.The road was open again by 11:40 P.M. advanced wastewater treatment systems, many residents say they. 0 0 -1 hour ago Guest Column:The lessons learned from VW's scandal "We were poster children for these cars,"an i Orient resident recalled recently. 0 0 4 hours ago Gender means nothing to this auto I student Cutchogue resident Cecilia Stevens won a statewide award recently and hopes to i study an auto-diesel program at a technical college upon graduating. 134 6 7 hours ago Southold native victorious as Hamlin's crew chief at Daytona 500 It was ahoto finish at Daytona n ul„'::Q�unlyc�!icer-;-Gcent-r trcnspa�Ko rrctim 60”)SJtwdo;�'s cw<h(C iol:Tim Gonnon) p International Speedway Sunday and for The crash scene was devastating to those with the misfortune to Southold native Mike 10"hccicr 's an it agethat will last a lifetime. drive past it Saturday. 279 23 20 hours ago "As we came around,all we saw were bodies out the left side of the vehicle,hanging out,"said Lynne Lulfs,a Hampton Bays woman Featured Letter:No turning back on who witnessed the accident."It was surreal;it did not look real." sports complex in Mattituck 'If this sports complex is built,it will Witnessing the tragedy hit home for Ms.Lulfs,who said her father exponentially create more traffic problems in died in a car accident when she was young. our town.' "This will resonate with us forever,"she said. 1 16 21 22 hours ago Find us on Facebook http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/60639/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times ... Page 4 of 8 w 'Soaring through rhe jungle in Mexico!'reads the caption on this photo on Amy Grobina's Facebook Profile(Credit:Focebook) One Commack woman,who asked to be identified only as the mother of one of Ms.Grabina's friends said"she was such a vibrant girl." "She tried everything,"the woman said."She was young—a young girl.I can't even imagine what her parents are going through right now." According to her Facebook profile,Ms.Grabina graduated from Florida State University in 2014 and had been hired less than a month ago as a staff accountant at New York City firm Ernst& Young. 4PP Steve Romeo in o Romeo Dinion Morine profile published in The Suffolk Times in 2010.(Credit:Courtesy) http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/6063 9/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times ... Page 6 of 8 ONE WAY {y Friae�.;on scene of Si ioy`o<c:'.aiL/0 eoi:Tim C-,rnon) Comments 242 comments http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/6063 9/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Cops: Four fatalities reported in crash after limo is t-boned in CutchogueSuffolk Times ... Page 5 of 8 Mr.Romeo pleaded not guilty at his bedside arraignment at Eastern Jong Island Hospital in Greenport,where he is being treated for non-life threatening injuries.Southold Town Justice Rudolph Breuer set cash bail at$500,000 or$i million bond. The Southold businessman was previously involved in a fatal accident in January 2014 at a construction site in Mattituck,when a 30-year-old worker was struck in the head and killed by a bucket that fell off of a skid-steer loader being operated by Mr.Romeo.He was not charged in that incident,but the U.S.Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued citations and fined the business,in part because Mr.Romeo had not been trained to use the equipment he was operating. Southold Town police Chiefhlortin Hmiey leods detectives into Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport for the onaignment of Steve Romeo Sundoy afternoon(Credit:Vero Chinese) A wrongful death suit filed by the worker's family against Romeo Dimon Marine and the owner of the construction site is pending in New York State Supreme Court,online court records show. A representative from Romeo Dimon Marine's Southold office declined to comment on the fatal crash Sunday morning. "It's a private matter,"he told a Suffolk Times reporter,declining to identify himself."It has nothing to do with business.I have no comment.Nothing to say to you. gparpan@timesreview.com Top photo:The intersection of Depot Lane and Route 48 in Cutchogue where four women where killed when an alleged drunk driver plowed into the limo they were riding in on Saturday afternoon.(Credit:Vera Chinese) r 9 i A Suffolk County police helicopter transpoi is a victim from Saturday's crash.(Credit:T)m Gannon) http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/07/6063 9/limousine-t-boned-in-cutchogue-near-... 2/22/2016 Newsday.com Page 1 of 2 http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/suffolk-to-study- 440WO&W installing-wastewater-treatment-systems-in-orient-1.8061686 This copy is for your personal,non-commercial use only To order presentation-ready copies Reprints for distribution to colleagues,clients or customers,use the Reprints tool at the top of any article or order a reprint of this article now. Suffolk to study installing wastewater treatment systems in Orient May 18, 2014 By WILL JAMES will.james@newsday.com Officials and environmentalists are looking to protect places like this in Orient, shown on Monday, May 12, 2014, where there has been a call for the U.S Department of Agriculture to designate Long Island Sound and the Peconic Estuary as a critical conservation area. (Credit: Randee Daddona) Suffolk County will study the prospect of installing high-tech wastewater treatment systems in Orient to replace cesspools and septic tanks buried throughout the hamlet. If the project comes to fruition, it will be a first for a pre-existing Suffolk community. Some new developments have included the systems, which remove nitrogen before releasing effluent into the ground. Scientists blame nitrogen pollution from cesspools and septic tanks for fueling the algal blooms degrading water quality and harming marine life across Long Island. Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone said in a statement that combating nitrogen pollution is his administration's top priority and "the greatest environmental challenge"facing the county. Orient, at the tip of the North Fork, sits in an environmentally sensitive position within the Peconic and Long Island Sound estuaries. The county has allocated $60,050 for an engineering report on the costs and feasibility of installing nitrogen-treatment systems in Orient. http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/suffolk-to-study-installing-wastewater-treatm... 2/21/2016 Newsday.com Page 2 of 2 "The whole point is to try to get a pilot working model so it becomes an option for towns and communities," said Glynis Berry, executive director of Peconic Green Growth, a Riverhead nonprofit that will conduct the study. "And we may fail. It may be just too big a leap for people, but you don't know until you try." Berry said the study will focus on "clustered" systems that collect waste from multiple , . properties at a central location where equipment can remove 75 percent to 90 1 Natural Trick to percent of nitrogen. Suffolk officials have said Fight Back AIZi,eiru@IaS the East End may benefit from those smaller systems in lieu of sewers. az-Watch video on next page Berry said she expects her nonprofit and an advertisement I advertise on newsday engineering firm to complete the study in a year to 15 months. < back to article http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/suffolk-to-study-installing-wastewater-treatm... 2/21/2016 Announcing new water quality efforts Senator Kenneth P. LaValle Reply To: Ms. Barbara J. McAdam<bjeansl7@hotmail.com>; Thu 2/18/2016 2:46 PM Newsletters KENNETH P. LAVALLE (R, C, IP) 1ST SENATE DISTRICT Protecting Our Most Essential Resource: Our Drinking Water This morning, I was at SUNY Stony Brook with the Governor and Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, announcing additional plans to protect our most precious resource—water. Here are the highlights: Mulching- New regulations will be established tightening the rules on composting/mulching operations, as I had sought with my legislation that passed the Legislature last year. Additionally, wells will be established and maintained for water quality tests at the locations. Water study—A new comprehensive Island-wide water quality study will be undertaken in coordination with the State, US Geological Survey,Suffolk County, Nassau County and SUNY Stony Brook. The state will fund the study with an investment of$6 Million. SUNY Stony Brook—Continued commitment of$2 million to launch the Center for Clean Water Technology to research water quality issues in coastal communities. I had obtained funding for the past two years to get this effort started, so I am pleased that we can continue to support the center. NY State Water Quality Team -Chaired by the Commissioners of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation,this new group will oversee state-wide water quality and include an action team to respond immediately to emergency issues. The above items are in addition to the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan that is currently being 'developed to address water quality. Last year, I was successful in obtaining$5 million in state funds for this program. All of these efforts are critical steps towards preserving our water for generations to come. Please follow me on Twitter/Facebook for the latest updates: Twitter:@SenatorLaValle 'Facebook: www.facebook.com/KenLaValle Son Pb I l 2.22.2016 FEB 23 2016 ' To Southold Town Planning Board, �I Southold Taws Planning Board ft is your calling and your call. The decision to approve, deny or approve with conditions the subject site plan application is not up to professional planners or lawyers, nor is it up to elected politicians, as individuals each one of you has a choice to make and collectively you have a decision to make. The developer's DEIS (10.15)states on page 261 that"The visual character of the site would be modified. However, the site would be developed with a residential community contextual with the character in the surrounding community." This is false. The proposed residential "community' is obviously not going to be in character with the surrounding community of residents farmers, fishermen, business people, families, etc. While I am not aware of any endemic security problems on the North Fork, on page 30 of the Executive Summary of the DEIS it states "the proposed project provides a gated entrance, with manned reception booth, that would restrict access to the community... " Case closed. Page 12 of the Executive Summary of the developer's DEIS states that one of the key benefits of the proposed project is "Final resolution of pending litigation between the Town and the subject property owner and applicant." The truth is that several final resolutions have already occurred and the Town won. The so called Stipulation of Settlement appears to admit liability for causes of action that were dismissed by a summaryjudgment motion for complete lack of any legal merit. The decision of the trial court was appealed and the developer lost. Why then is our local newspaper continuing (as recently as an article published online today still repeating that the current plan is based on"an agreement following a 2009 lawsuit ... that claimed the Town acted with malice to hinder the development by changing the zoning for the site." The first legal victory of the Town was in the early 198Os when the Planning Board originally decided to apply SEQRA and the Developer refused to prepare a DEIS.The current DEIS is flawed because it is based on a scoping done for a previous plan, and also because it is being controlled by an agreement for which I know of no supporting legal precedent. The Town Board should not be involved in, let alone controlling the site plan review.And the agreements on which impacts and alternatives to consider are against the essential purposes of SEQRA. The site plan does not include any solar power. This is ironic since Cutchogue is the sunniest spot in NYS. Lack of any mention of this fact in the DEIS appears to be complemented by an ignorance on the part of the Southold Town Planning Department. Solar electric is only one means of applying solar power. Solar orientation, hot water, pool heating, and lighting are all conspicuously missing from the DEIS. The site plan does not include any garden. This is unfortunate because the location is in between a traditional suburban residential subdivision and farmland. The description on page 11 of the DEIS of the land as undeveloped is contradicted in the same sentence by the recognition that it was farmed for decades. The reference on page 130 of the DEIS to "active farmland" on the East does not include any mention of the type of farming. I have heard that the farm is being cultivated organically. In contrast to the current trend towards organic and CSA farming, the Town of Southold does not seem to distinguish between farming which is environmentally destructive and farming which is environmentally beneficial. While the methods being implemented in the Urby apartment rental complex on Staten Island would probably not work in Cutchogue, there are plenty of good ideas in the article on community gardens in the current issue of Rodale's Organic Life magazine. This application has been pending a very long time. An article in the New York Times by John Rather circa 1981 refers to many of the same individuals involved in the genesis of this application and concludes that"dying up the potato land in the 60s turned out to be not such a good investment," Mr. Nickles said. "That is not prime residential property. There isn't a lot of amenity in living in the middle of a potato field." A 1984 letter to the editor by Danny Lyon the great American photo journalist states: "Seacroft is like a multi-organ transplant for the 300-year-old village of Cutchogue. Only the transplant is cancer itself, which will not only kill off Cutchogue but spread across the North Fork until every ancient town is as dead as Nassau County. Seacroft was the original name of the Heritage at Cutchogue. An article published in New York magazine in July of 1984 says "Robert Pike pointed to an architect's map that showed 36 open acres—suitable it had been said, for leasing to a vineyard or farmer—snaking between the condos. "The only open space I can see in that site plan," Pike said, "is between the statement that there is some and the truth." Please consider denying or severely conditioning this outrageous proposal. Benja Schwartz s uffol kti m es.ti m es revi ew.co m/2016/01/65027/res idents-fea r-heritage-development-will-im pa ir-the-environment Facebook Comments Plugin 9 Comments — Sort by Newest Tom Wacker What's really sad, is that the very few locals who feel that we need high density housing developments in Cutchogue as a source of affordable housing, and are willing to trade away clean waters and their rural way of life, will most likely be in for a rude awakening when the project is completed and they discover that they can't afford to sell their homes and buy into the development because it's priced out of their reach. Like - Reply - Jan 19, 2016 8:29am Linda Sullivan Auriemma - CUNY Queens College attended every minute of the Planning Board meeting last week, Mr. Torkelson. Not one of the - as you call them - "advocacy" people who spoke out against the current current plans for the Heritage project was from outside the community (Unless you mean one must reside in Cutchogue in order to legitimately speak up?) Bob Deluca (Group for the East End), Bill Toedter(North Fork Environmental Council), Glynnis Berry(Peconic Green Growth), and Kevin McAllister (Defend H2O and former Peconic Baykeeper)work tirelessly to make all of the North Fork and the East End a better place. Their unanimous words of warning about the Heritage Project should stop any Southold Town resident in his/her tracks. Water quality is the number one issue here, though it is by far not the only one. If installed, traditional septic systems for 124 households will leech waves of nitrogen into nearby West Creek in New Suffolk& Cutchogue and Wickham's Creek in Cutchogue before landing in Peconic Bay. The science is indisputable: Excessive Nitrogen kills marine life and causes algal blooms and brown tides. Allowing this project to proceed without sewage treatment or nitrogen-reducing septic systems is something we can't let happen. No one is against senior housing, but this project is so wrong in so many ways. It is grossly out of scale for the hamlet of Cutchogue and Southold Town, and will only result in further damage to the Peconic Estuary. Like • Reply - Jan 18, 2016 9:15pm Benja Schwartz This article makes many good points, but misses the big one. The agreement between the developer and the Town is unreasonable. It is impossible to understand and will lead to trouble if it is not clarified. For example the agreement provides that the development may be up to 130 units. The developer thinks that means that he is entitled to build 130 units, the Town thinks that means the development will be 130 units or less. Group for the East End president and East Marion resident Bob DeLuca spoke eloquently about unusual and undesirable nature of the so called Stipulation of Settlement, but the author of this article did not report his comment. Over 50 people packed the meeting room to protest this process. The meeting on February 8th will be an important turning point in the history of Southold Town. Like - Reply - 1 - Jan 13, 2016 6:20am Joe Pontino One dozen ppl spoke against wow. I know this is a small town but.............. Like • Reply • Jan 12, 2016 7:48pm Barbara McAdam The hearing ran nearly three hours and was held open until the next session on Feb 8th to accommodate those who want to advocate on behalf of our beloved hamlet. Aside from the developer's attorney, only two speakers, one who lives in Peconic, spoke in favor of the project- wow... Like • Reply • Jan 14, 2016 12:51 pm Kevin McAllister • Works at Defend H2O It's unfortunate that some folks don't recognize the adverse impacts that Suffolk County's archaic sanitary wastewater systems are having on regional water quality, namely nitrogen pollution. Their wastewater regulations (circa 1978) are grossly deficient in protecting both drinking water and surface waters. In part, that's why we have seen a precipitous decline in the ecological health of waterbodies. Sadly, bacterial contamination, algal blooms, fish kills have become a common occurrence. I find it egregious that Suffolk County can't muster the political courage to mandate advanced treatment systems, knowing what they now know. The reality is, the developer doesn't want to spend the extra money required to incorporate an advanced treatment system and I'm certain the county health will sit idle on this matter. Unless the Southold Town Planning Board steps up, proper sewage treatment is just not going to happen. I'm happy to help educate anyone who is interested in learning the facts. By the way, this activist is a well credentialed scientist who makes no apologies for trying to protect water resources in your community. Like • Reply • 4 • Jan 12, 2016 9:22pm • Edited Ellen Paterno The Heritage of Cutchogue will accomplish the following: It will destroy the rural character of Cutchogue and surrounding areas. The density and design of this project would mimic that of much of the rest of the Island. It will put increasing demands on resources including the shallow aquifer and will cause increased traffic. The development plan does not include sewage treatment and unless compelled by the DOH, will not likely in the future. Our local waterways are already severely impacted by nitrates and other pollutants. Afew residents have indicated they would like to move to senior housing so that they no longer have to maintain their houses. How many would actually buy into the Heritage given the costs, size of the units, and design that includes stairs? I am not an outsider. I live in Cutchogue and like so many others who live or visit Southold Town, I am here because I cherish the small town, rural character. Hamlet or not, the number of units proposed for this project and the design that urbanizes the center of Cutchogue village is wrong for our community! Like • Reply • 1 • Jan 12, 2016 6:21 pm Alex Wipf • CUNY Brooklyn No one objects to creating some housing for people who want to down size. What is objectionable besides the environmental cons iderations,which are substantial, is the size of the development. If this proposal is not challenged and substantial modified in terms of the number of units permitted, we will need road signs that say Cutchogue/ Heritage and old Cutchogue hamlet. This is a complete perversion of the intention behind creating the hamlet zoning category. I worked on creating the Community Preservation Fund under the banner of the North Fork Environmental Council and the off shoot Save Open Spaces Now 15 years ago.We were successful. Does everyone who paid that tax realize this invasion of suburban sprawl will destroy what everyone loves about Cutchogue.....and all because of a legal agreement which no one seems to know the content of. This town needs some investigative journalism to tell the public what this agreement actually says and what options are available to fight this miscarriage of Southold Town management. The planning board is a politically appointed body and while the chairman who is a professional farmer was attentive to the points made at the meeting there was at least one member who often appeared to be sleeping, giving the impression the hearing was pro-forma and approval was a for drawn conclusion. Please Suffolk Times do your job! Like • Reply • 2 • Jan 12, 2016 2:17pm Tor Torkelsen • Houghton College The NFEC is another group that has no problem with other people sacrificing their land but not theirs. I believe we can come to a sensible solution that has everybody giving something, but the arguments made, especially on the septic system and wanting to go beyond what board of health requires is ludicrous. The abandoned Oyster factory in East Marion is another fine job of downgrading the environment because people were unwilling to have anything else there. We can develop and do it with little harm to the environment. I support reasonable restrictions and scrutiny. I think most of the environmental boards are political too! Like • Reply • Jan 12, 2016 4:31 pm Tor Torkelsen • Houghton College Most of the negative comments come from advocacy groups outside the community. It looks like a well thought out project, and the need for 55 and older housing will allow our seniors to continue to live where they grew up and sell their homes to younger people with growing families. To some of the activists, there is nothing that the developer can do to make this right. Like • Reply • 3 • Jan 12, 2016 5:13am Don Ardillo • E.E. Dr. Jose Teodoro de Souza Regarding your comment "Advocacy groups from outside the community," is it your opinion that local people would welcome this project? If so you are profoundly mistaken. This project would destroy Cutchogue hamlet and the character of this entire community. It would mark the very end of Cutchogue as a rural destination. You are correct on one point, there is nothing the developer can do to make this right. Like • Reply • 3 • Jan 12, 2016 4:45pm Benja Schwartz The proposal is by a developer from out of town for a development that would radically change the community. As for seniors the design is for active seniors, older seniors are not included! BTW the activist who was recognized in New York Magazine for opposing this proposal is a third generation native of Southold. The only people who support this proposal are people who do not understand the need for environmental protection. Like • Reply • Jan 13, 2016 12:16am I ILLIJaI II'GI IIcgUILn.us.tiMI uc.v1-V 111117 yUm-+SUIT - 1c .g1m-I GyLf OI,\AGIItaI 1U'IC 11111101"-}IIUIC411U111 Residents blast Mill Road zone change request, demand farmland protection riverheadlocal.com A request for a zone change that would allow for the construction of a 162-unit assisted living housing development on a 25-acre site on Mill Road drew strong objections from the community during a two-hour public hearing last night at Riverhead Town Hall. The property,located on Mill Road between Route 58 and Middle Road,is currently in the Agricultural Protection Zone district and the change would put it in the Retirement Community district,which allows for high-density age-restricted residential development and assisted living facilities. The zone change petition of Genrac Associates LLC met with objection from farmers,environmental advocates,civic groups and area residents last night.They objected to farmland being rezoned for high-density development and said traffic impacts on already-overburdened local roadways would be significant. The developer's representatives gave the Town Board a one-hour presentation about the plan,which has been publicly discussed with town officials since at least 2011.Company principal Ronald Devito stressed the need for assisted living facilities in Riverhead,where none exist. DeVito said the town's lack of assisted-living facilities is forcing its senior residents to move out of town when they needed such housing.He said he is committed to making the assisted living units"affordable"based on Riverhead Town's median household income. After the developer's presentation,Councilman John Dunleavy,who has been an outspoken advocate for the proposal and sponsored legislation in 2012 amending the Retirement Community zoning code to allow for the construction of assisted living facilities,objected to allowing time for town planning department staff to address the application before the public could come to the podium. "This is a zone change not a planning board discussion,"Dunleavy said."I don't know why you let us go through a site plan hearing for an hour,"he said,turning to Supervisor Sean Walter."People are leaving.I want to listen to these people here to see if they feel we have a need for changing our zone." "They took an hour for their presentation,John,and the planning department has some questions about the environmental assessment form that was just submitted and I want to hear them,"Walter shot back. Walter,who in the past had expressed support for Genrac's plan,known as Concordia Senior Communities,has recently suggested—and he repeated last night—that the use would be better suited for Riverside,where zoning code changes recently adopted by the Town of Southampton would already allow it. Planning and building administrator Jefferson Murphree told the board that the State Environmental Quality Review Act requires the town to scrutinize the proposed development's impacts on not only traffic but also the loss of prime agricultural soils,the change of the acreage from a development rights sending area to a receiving area and the proposal's growth-inducing impacts.There are three other properties in the vicinity that are currently zoned APZ but meet the criteria for the retirement community zoning use district,including a horse farm immediately to the east of the subject site. The planning department just received the developer's expanded environmental assessment form a week ago and needs another two weeks to review it and write a report for the board,Murphree said. Four representatives of the Long Island Builders Institute spoke in favor of the proposal.LIBI associate director Will Hubbs said seniors and their families"desperately need"these facilities.They also said the proposal would bring construction and other jobs to the town.No one from the public spoke in favor of the zone change,though David Wilcox of East Marion,an owner of the horse farm and stables adjacent to the site on its eastern boundary,told the board he does not object to it. More than a dozen spoke in opposition,with many saying they understand zone the need for assisted living facilities in Riverhead,but urged the board not to allow their construction on land zoned for agriculture. Neighbors of the site said they worried most about traffic impacts. "I already have trouble getting out of my driveway to go shopping,"said Middle Road resident Marcia Kipperman.She said people who live in Southold refer to Middle Road as"the bypass." LES A traffic engineer for the applicant told the board last night the intersection of Mill and Middle Road already sees 890 vehicle trips per hour during the busiest hour on a peak day.The development would add 24 trips per hour at - that intersection and would not result in significant delays,according to Rebecca Goldberg,a traffic engineer with Cameron Engineering and Farmsfand on Mill Road,nilEacpnr if)pfupn:;ss1 as:oisrrao hv,r; Associates of Woodbury. Donn i of 0 Cnh 1 R Ofll Q MZ-9/f-nl DAA AACT iniNdiiivciica�wa.ai..vivwivi�u wwwciirviaai- iun-i�av-cviic-asaiyc-icyucar�ciiai�-iainan-N�ic.uviu But neighborhood residents and the town supervisor disputed those claims. "I hear what you're saying but I don't believe it or a minute,"Walter told Goldberg. Kipperman also said the impact of the senior housing communities in the Middle Road corridor has had a big impact on the town's EMS system. Calverton Civic Association president Rex Farr told the board the population of Calverton has tripled in the last 20 years,"according to the postal service,"he said. He read a letter from the civic asking the town board to reject the zone change application,based on the goals and objectives of the adopted master plan and the zoning of the site put in place as a result of that plan. The Genrac petition and plan"is a flagrant disregard fo the collective vision of the town boards that adopted the master plan in 2003 and the subsequent town board that adopted zoning regulation that complied with the recommendation of the master plan,"Farr read. Former councilman George Bartunek also spoke in opposition,speaking,he said,on behalf of the prior town boards that adopted the 2003 master plan and the zoning that implemented it. He reminded the town board that the 1973 master plan,which preceded the current one,projected a population of 150,000 people in Riverhead. "We could have been another Huntington,"Bartunek said."The 2003 master plan has done everything to find a balance for commercial development and the protection of farmland,"he said. Linda Nemeth of Calverton,representing the Riverhead Neighborhood Preservation Coalition,asked how many of the people who will live in the development will be Riverhead residents. "How many people can afford$6,500 per month?"she asked. Longtime resident Richard Wines,chairman of the Riverhead Landmarks preservation commission,said he was"part of the team"that worked on the 2003 master plan.The master plan is the result of"two overriding principles,"Wines said:first,to cap the town's population;and second,to preserve the town's agricultural heritage and the farmland that goes with that." The Genrac proposal is"a double insult to the master plan and to the farming community it's trying to sustain,"Wines said. "First of all, I think the RC znoing as it's planned now—the code that was done for Concordia anyway,"he said,referring to the Dunleavy amendment,"is flawed because it doesn't require any transfer of development rights in order to support something like this.In the principles of the master plan there should be no additional population,no additional housing anyplace in the town unless it's transferring development rights off agricultural lands. "It's double,because not only is it not preserving agricultural lands,it's taking agricultural lands,"Wines said. "Even worse than that,if you change the zoning,this sets a terrible example,"he said,because the sewer extension will open up other agricultural lands to the possibility of high-density development. Dunleavy,who has maintained that the site has not been farmed in over 30 years,asked Wines if he knew when it was last farmed. Wines said he didn't."But you know why it's probably not farmed now?Because somebody thinks they can get a lot of money selling it to Concordia.I can tell you if not,it would be farmed.It's happening throughout Riverhead,John,"Wines said. "Farmers are hungry for land." The public hearing was adjourned to March 15.In the interim,the planning department will complete its report,which will be provided to the developer in advance to allow it the opportunity to prepare a response. Website built by East End Local Media Corp.All content©2016 East End Local Media Corp.All rights reserved. D,,,a 9 of 0 cnj, is oma na-gA-Al DAA AACT Sc>b Submission Without a Cover Letter PO I H n q FEB fBoard Sender: 1\�C 1 (�J SOu plan Subject: SCTM#: 1000 - l 0 Z` Date: Comments: �OV3,C-N Q � LA:S� aw U' rtwrces Town of Brookhaven Long Island Donna Lent "Conn Clerk mid Registrw- January 14, 2015 Supervisor Edward P. Romaine Councilwoman Valerie M. Cartright Councilwoman Jane Bonner Councilman Kevin J. LaValle Councilwoman Connie Kepert Councilman Neil Foley {councilman Daniel Panico Re: INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW #36 OF2014 AMENDING CHAPTER 78 ENTITLED "WATER RESOURCES" Dear Mr. Supervisor and Members of the Town Board: Attached please find copy of the above-mentioned Local Law, which will be the subject of a Public Hearing on the 29th day of January, 2015 at 6:30 P.M. by the Town Board of the Town of Brookhaven in the Town Board Auditorium, One Independence Hill, 2" Floor, Farmingville, New York 11738. siIlcer'ely, Q�0�� te46.r Donna Lent Brookhaven Town Clerk DL:kb Enc. cc: Annette Eaderesto, Town Attorney Beth Reilly, Deputy Town Attorney Leigh Rate, Asst. Town Attorney Tullio Bertoli, Comissioner of PELM Brenda Prusinowski, Deputy Comm. of PELM Tom Carrano, Asst. Waterways Mgmt. Supervisor 011ice of tl1e Towrt Clerk Onc Indepcnde.rrce Hill • Farrrningville • NY 11738 • Movie (631) 451-9101 Fax(631) 451-9264 µvvw.b rookhaven.or;g Gencral Information: (631) 451-'COWL 1'rinwd on recydcd paper PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 20(5) of the Municipal Home Rules Law, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Brookhaven in the Town Auditorium at Independence Hill, Second Floor, Farmingville, New York on December 2, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. to consider enacting the following proposed Introductory Local Law: INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW #36 OF 2014 AMENDING CHAPTER 85 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN ENTITLED "WATER RESOURCES" BY ADDING ARTICLE II ESTABLISHING NEW DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH NEW AND UPGRADES TO EXISTING INTERMEDIATE FLOW SANITARY SYSTEMS AND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES THROUGH THE USE OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR GROUNDWATER CONTRIBUTING AREA TO THE CARMANS RIVER SUMMARY This local law would enhance water quality protection in the watershed of the Carmans River and to the Carmans River itself through a new requirement that both new and upgrades to existing "intermediate flow" sanitary systems and sewage treatment facilities within the 100-year groundwater contributing area to the Carmans River be required to utilize Best Available Technology. This is a summary of the proposed Local Law, a full copy of which is on file in the Town Clerk's office and is available for inspection during regular Town business hours. At said public hearing any persons interested shall be given the opportunity to be heard. C�nt,-, te.,� Dated:September 30, 2014 DONNA LENT, TOWN CLERK Farmingville, New York TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW #36 OF 2014 AMENDING CHAPTER 78 ENTITLED "WATER RESOURCES" BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE II ENTITLED "DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW INTERMEDIATE FLOW SYSTEMS IN THE CARMANS RIVER 100-YEAR GROUNDWATER CONTRIBUTING AREA Section 1. Legislative Intent. This local law enhance water quality protection in the watershed of the Carmans River and to the Carmans River itself through a new requirement that both new and upgrades to existing "intermediate flow" sanitary systems and sewage treatment facilities within the 100-year groundwater contributing area to the Carmans River be required to utilize Best Available Technology. Section 2. Text Amendment. Chapter 78 entitled "Water Resources", by adding New Article II entitled "Discharge Flow Systems in the Carmans River 100-Year Groundwater Contributing Area, as follows: Article II: Discharge Standards for Existing and New Intermediate Flow Sanitary Systems in the Carmans River 100-Year Groundwater Contributing Area §78- 9. Purpose. The Town Board finds that it is the policy of the Town of Brookhaven to maintain, and through time, improve water quality in the Carmans River and its associated aquatic and wetland environments, and in groundwater beneath terrestrial environments situated in the watershed of the Carmans River, by reducing the concentration levels of various nitrogen compounds in surface- and groundwater in accordance with the short-and long-term water quality goals established by the Town Board. To that end, the Town Board in 2013 adopted the Carmans River Conservation and Management Plan. Implementation of the Plan included setting forth Discharge Standards for Existing and New Intermediate Flow Sanitary Systems and Sewage Treatment Facilities within the 100-year groundwater contributing area to the Carmans River at levels below current standards accepted by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The stricter standard is being implemented in order to protect the ecological integrity of the Carmans River. The stricter standard is necessary because the standard in use by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is generally intended to protect human health, but is not sufficient to protect ecological health and to avoid ecological impacts to the Carmans River. §78- 10. Designation of District. A. The Discharge Standards for Existing and New Intermediate Flow Sanitary Systems in the Carmans River 100-Year Groundwater Contributing Area is applicable to the entire 100-year groundwater contributing area of the Carmans River as set forth within the Carmans River Conservation and Management Plan and applies to all properties with existing or future Intermediate Sanitary Flow of wastewater between 1,000 gallons and 30,000 gallons per day. B. The criteria set forth in this Article are in addition to any and all other approvals required by other government agencies. §78- 11. Water Quality Discharge Standard. All new sanitary systems and sewage treatment plants requiring Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval and SPDES permit, producing a sanitary flow of between 1,000 gallons per day and 30,000 gallons per day, shall utilize Best Available Technology (BAT), which results in nitrogen not exceeding 3 parts-per-million over a twelve month rolling average. At no point shall the monthly average exceed 5 parts-per-million. §78- 12. Implementation. A. All new sanitary systems and sewage treatment facilities shall be required to comply with the terms and conditions herein as of the effective date of this Article. B. All intermediate flow sanitary systems and sewage treatment plants existing prior to the effective date of the Article shall make the necessary improvements and upgrades to comply with the terms and conditions of herein within ten (10) years of the effective date of this Article (1) The Town Board may grant an extension of time for implementing the necessary improvements and upgrades, upon written request from the applicant/owner to the Town Clerk. The Town Board may grant a maximum of one (1) extension, not to exceed five (5) years. Said request must sufficiently demonstrate that: (a) The applicant is diligently pursuing other required governmental permits or other approvals; and (b) The applicant is subject to substantial hardship delaying compliance; and (c) The extension request is received by the Town Clerk prior to the expiration of the ten(10) year period. §78- 13. Application Procedure. A. Any applicant/owner of a project that requires Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval for an existing or proposed Intermediate Sanitary Flow of wastewater between 1,000 gallons and 30,000 gallons daily within the Designated District shall also submit an application to the Division of Environmental Protection, which shall include a copy of such Suffolk County Department of Health Services application. B. The Division of Environmental Protection, or its designee, shall review such application for conformance with the discharge standards set forth herein. If the application is in conformance with discharge standards,the Division of Environmental Protection shall issue a Notice of Compliance. If the application is not in conformance with the discharge standards, the Division of Environmental Protection will issue a Notice of Non-Compliance and notify the Suffolk County Department of Health Services that the application is in violation of Town Code standards. C, Permitting and Reporting. (1) Any application shall demonstrate that all permitting fees and reporting requirements are in compliance with requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and/or ECL Article 17 relating to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. A copy of any and all monitoring reports, engineer's reports, and performance and maintenance reports required pursuant to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and/or ECL Article 17 shall also be submitted to the Division of Environmental Protection of the Town of Brookhaven in the same manner as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. §78- 14. Penalties for Offenses. A. Penalties and Fines. (1) Any person who violates any provision of this article shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and for a second and each subsequent offense, be guilty of a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000. Each offense shall be a separate and distinct offense, and, in the case of a continuing offense, each day's continuance thereof shall be a separate and distinct offense. (2) Any corporation which violates any provision of this article shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of not less than $500 not more than $1,000, and for a second and each subsequent offense, be guilty of a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000. Each offense shall be a separate and distinct offense, and, in the case of a continuing offense, each day's continuance thereof shall be a separate and distinct offense. B. Any fines collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited in the Carmans River Conservation and Management Plan Fund, the purpose of which shall be to provide funding to implement recommendations of the Plan, as recommended by the Carmans River Conservation and Management Plan Performance Committee, and approved by resolution of the Town Board. C. Equitable relief. The Town of Brookhaven shall have the right to seek equitable relief to restrain any violation or threatened violation of any provisions of this article. §78-15. General severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or item of§§78-9 through 78-15 shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not impair nor invalidate the remainder hereof, but such adjudication shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or item directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Section 3. Authority. The Town Board is vested with the authority to make these amendments by local law pursuant to Town Law §264 and 265, Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and in conformance with Municipal Home Rule Law §20. Section 4. This local law shall become effective immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Dated:September 30, 2014 DONNA LENT, TOWN CLERK Farmingville, New York TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN B '; f7ebruary 22, 2016 Dear Members of the Planning Board, Hann I am writing to you today to voice my deep opposition to the proposed 'Heritage' high-density development proposal. While receiving yet another letter in opposition to the proposed development is, in all likelihood, nothing new for you, unlike so much of what has received attention in the news, my concerns have little to do with the impact this development will have on the quality of water here on the North Fork, and Everything to do with the quality of Life here. My family and I live on Highland Road in Cutchogue. I own my own business, employ local people, and my office is on the corner of North Street and Main Road in Cutchogue. My two young children go to Cutchogue-East. Until recently I served as the Vice President of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Library. In other words, Cutchogue is the epicenter of my life, And as such, I have given a great deal of thought to the impact that this proposed high-density senior development will have not only on the life of me and my family, but on the community at large. And how the decisions made in conjunction with this proposal will also shape the future of the entire North Fork. On a personal level—and no, this is not NIMBY-ism—this development will have a profound detrimental impact on my life and the life of my family. On a much larger level, approving this development in any form will be remembered as the death knell for the North Fork as it has existed for generations. Sure, traffic, noise, water-quality—they'll all get worse. That's just common sense. And yes, property values in a considerable radius will also drop considerably. But those are quantifiable, objective issues: those are the 'givens'. What are not 'Givens', however, are to me the things that will have the greatest impact on the quality of life here on the North Fork—and will likely be the critical reason as to why long-time North Forkers choose to stay, or to sell their homes and move away to other places, as is so often the case here right now. The things that keep us here, even though we may grumble sometimes, because as we all know it's not easy to live here on the East End year round. The little things that hold a community together and keep it healthy and viable. The all-important intangibles. As a father of two young daughters, I look ahead to what kind of heritage we're building on if this development—which will set a precedent moving forward—is allowed to occur. And yes, I get the legal arguments, and the position in which your board often finds itself, but the reality that transcends the objectively 'legal' is this: you, as a board, are stewards of the North Fork. You get to shape what it looks like now, and in the future, through your decisions. You are representing the interests of our community. You have a tremendous impact on our day-to-day lives. What does this mean?What happens if the 'Heritage' goes forward? Forme, it means that the song of the Spring peepers that live in the proposed development property, and that my daughters and I listen to every year as we sit on our front porch on Highland Road, will become a memory. It means that my oldest daughter and I will no longer be able to go out into our backyard and point out the constellations in the night sky, because there will be a permanent glow in our neighborhood due to the lighting needed to run such a monstrosity. It means that I'll have no good answer when my youngest daughter asks, as she has, where all of the animals will go when they get rid of all of those woods to our east. It means that our street—one of the few remaining affordable neighborhood streets where middle income people can raise families, will begin to be sold off. It means that our Halloween neighborhood traditions where people drop off their kids will come to a halt. It means that our way of life, on a very personal level, will be negatively impacted—and likely irreparably. And, speaking from experience, it will very likely be the death knell for the North Fork that we've all known for so many years. I know this process all too well, because I grew up in Bridgehampton and watched the very same thing happen on the South Fork, where the communities were eroded, families left and never came back, and it's become little more than an ephemeral shell driven by an endless parade of temporary residents —second homeowners who tend to take from, rather than contribute to the community. I cannot attend the meeting tonight as I will be working, which is why I'm writing this this morning, just to add my own voice. And it's funny, because my clients—clients like Dick, Bill and Rich Mullen, and Bob and Jamie Mills—have businesses that are in their 41h and 511 generations, right here on the North Fork. They too are businesses that both create and contribute to the fabric of our community. And neither might see another generation if the community becomes an unlivable, tourist-driven shell of its former self. And senior-only high density condominiums that cannot, and will not, be left to the next generation will do nothing to contribute to the long-term health of this very special place. I'd meant to be more eloquent, and apologize if this reads as first-draft theater, but I hope you get my point. Good luck, and thank you for your hard work. 11 ' r�o, Principal l Writer and Brand Communications Strategist LGM creative Advertising and Brand Communications 28495 Main Road, Cutchogue 775-7844 larry@lgmcreative.com Father and Husband, 2275 Highland Road, Cutchogue 734-7257 .. S February 2016 Ms. Heather M. Lanza, AICP Planning Director Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 " Southold,NY 11971 Dear Ms. Lanza: I am writing to expand upon my previous comments about the "Heritage at Cutchogue", the 124-unit condominium complex proposed for the heart of Cutchogue; specifically, I will focus my letter on the potential impacts of excess Nitrogen levels that would be generated by the development. Nitrogen is a chemical element that is essential to life: it is present in amino acids, proteins and nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) -basic cellular components of all life forms. Elemental Nitrogen is abundant in air, but few organisms (mostly bacteria) can use this form of Nitrogen. Ammonia, nitrites and nitrates are the forms of Nitrogen most commonly used by terrestrial and aquatic plants; these forms of Nitrogen are incorporated into chemical compounds in cells during the process of photosynthesis—when light energy is harnessed to fuel these chemical reactions. As opposed to what is seen on land, where large plants (trees, shrubs, grasses) are responsible for most of the photosynthesis that takes place, in the oceans it is single-celled organisms (algae and bacteria) that are responsible for the great majority of the photosynthesis that occurs here. In coastal marine waters of New York(e.g. bays, estuaries), single-celled algae (phytoplankton) are usually the most dominant and important photosynthetic organisms. In surface marine waters,Nitrogen is considered to be the factor that usually limits the rate of photosynthesis (Miller 2004). When Nitrogen levels are higher than usual, the rate of photosynthesis thus increases. When Nitrogen levels are very high, this can lead to dramatic increases in phytoplankton populations—known as algal blooms. These may occur naturally when increases in Nitrogen inputs result from increased runoff from the land(rivers and streams), when higher nutrient levels in deeper waters are circulated into shallower waters (as in upwelling), or when living or dying organisms release Nitrogen(Miller 2004). Algal blooms may also result when high Nitrogen inputs to bays and estuaries result from human activities, such as: wastewater flow(most notably, sewage), runoff of surface waters that contain Nitrogen-laden fertilizers (e.g. from agriculture, lawns and golf courses), erosion of farmland, and/or from discharge of groundwater that includes Nitrogen that has accumulated from discharge of septic systems (as well as irrigation) (Castro & Huber 2013). Most phytoplankton species are integral components of healthy, well-functioning marine ecosystems but some may be harmful to marine life or to humans. When blooms of harmful phytoplankton occur, they are referred to as harmful algal blooms (HABs). In waters of Long Island, New York, HABs that have been seen regularly in recent years include brown tide, rust tide and red tide. Brown tides (Aureococcus anophagefferens) decimated Peconic bay scallop populations in the mid-1980's—mid-1990's (Cosper et al. 1987); these populations have only recently rebounded due to very extensive restoration efforts (Tettelbach et al. 2015). Rust tides (Cochlodinium polykrikoides) have been shown to rapidly (in hours to days) kill finfish and bay scallops in laboratory experiments (Tang & Gobler 2009) and are believed to be the likely cause of recent scallop and finfish mortalities in the Peconic Bays (particularly in 2012 and 2013). Red tides (including Alexandrium spp.) are also present in the Peconic Bays (Gobler et al. 2012). Red tides may directly harm human health and may even cause fatalities (Miller 2004), although this has not been observed in Long Island waters to date. When red tides have occurred, as in the Peconic Bays in 2015, closures of shellfish harvesting areas have been enforced by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Another, separate impact of algal blooms (harmful and non-harmful) results when phytoplankton populations die off(crash); cells are then metabolized by bacteria, which deplete oxygen levels in the water(Castro & Huber 2013). These conditions, known as hypoxia or anoxia(when there is very little or no dissolved oxygen present, respectively), may cause further mortality of shellfish and finfish species (Castro & Huber 2013). This was most recently seen in the Peconic River in spring 2015,when mass mortalities of menhaden(bunker) occurred due to very low dissolved oxygen levels. The connections between wastewater,Nitrogen input and harmful algal blooms have been very clearly linked in the scientific literature (see below); this is why Suffolk County executive Steve Bellone has made Nitrogen reduction one of his very top priorities for protecting the water quality of Suffolk County's bays and creeks. Nitrogen reduction is also the central focus of the Peconic Estuary management plan, which was adapted after massive brown tide algal blooms of the mid-1980's decimated the Peconic bay scallop fishery- reducing commercial harvest from an annual average of 300,000 lbs of meats (1966-1984)to <100 lbs in 1987 and 1988 (Tettelbach& Wenzel 1993). Most recently, the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan(LINAP) has been introduced through the efforts of the New York State Legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo to coordinate and catalyze efforts of state, county and local agencies to reduce Nitrogen inputs to Long Island's groundwater and surface waters. In a paper co-authored by many of the world's leading experts on algal blooms, in response to a charge given by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Heisler et al. (2008) worked to reach a consensus on the relationships between eutrophication(nutrient pollution of aquatic environments) and harmful algal blooms. Their unanimously adopted conclusions, which are most germane to the focus of this letter, are as follows: "Degraded water quality from increased nutrient pollution promotes the development and persistence of many HABs and is one of the reasons for their expansion in the U.S. and other nations"; "High-biomass blooms must have exogenous nutrients to be sustained"; "Both chronic and episodic nutrient delivery promote HAB development"; and "Management of nutrient inputs to the watershed can lead to significant reduction in HABs". Gobler& Sanudo-Wilhelmy (2001) found a highly significant correlation between groundwater seepage and the density of brown tide algal cells in West Neck Bay, Shelter Island, NY; they concluded that groundwater inputs to this bay can stimulate growth of brown tide (Aureococcus anophagefferens)by initiating blooms of other phytoplankton species, which in turn supply remineralized organic nitrogen to Aureococcus. Gobler et al. (2012) studied the dynamics of rust tide (Cochlodinium polykrikoides)blooms in three different estuaries on Long Island,NY(including the Peconic Bays) and determined that various forms of Nitrogen stimulated blooms. They concluded that rust tide blooms are limited by the amount and type of available Nitrogen; the predominant forms of Nitrogen assimilated by phytoplankton communities dominated by Cochlodinium were nitrate and nitrite. Nitrate is the form of Nitrogen most commonly released from leaching fields of septic systems (Toor et al. 2014; Barnstable County Department Of Health And Environment 2016). Hattenrath et al. (2010) studied the dynamics of red tide (Alexandrium fundyense) blooms in Long Island,NY waters and concluded that"sewage-derived N [Nitrogen] loading and above average spring temperatures can promote intense and toxic A.fundyense blooms in estuaries". In addition to higher numbers of Alexandrium cells resulting from sewage-derived Nitrogen inputs, the authors determined that the toxicity of these cells also increased. Lapointe et al. (2015) stated that nutrient pollution(including Nitrogen) is a primary driver of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in coastal waters and estuaries around the world. They determined that in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, high Nitrogen levels explained the widespread occurrence of HABs and that much of this Nitrogen input occurred via groundwater flow. Their analyses indicated that the most likely source of Nitrogen inputs to this marine system was from septic tanks. They concluded, based on the high degree of Nitrogen contamination in the Indian River Lagoon from sewage, combined with recent HABs, occurrence of toxic seaweed, seagrass loss and wildlife mortality, that there was "a critical need for improved sewage collection and treatment, including nutrient removal". In a study of Nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary, which was sponsored by The Nature Conservancy in partnership with the Peconic Estuary program, Lloyd (2014) showed that for Cutchogue, wastewater contributes 40% of the Nitrogen loading from land to the Peconic Estuary. As cited in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) submitted by the "Heritage" developer, wastewater from the clustered septic systems proposed for the "Heritage" would flow Southeast into Wickham Creek and then into Great Peconic Bay in just a few years. Unlike sewage treatment plants or other methods of advanced wastewater treatment, septic systems do not reduce the amount of Nitrogen present in sewage. Furthermore, fertilizers (which contain high levels of nitrates)that would be used for the>I 0 acres of lawns proposed for the "Heritage" development would also make their way into groundwater in conjunction with the excessive irrigation that is proposed(more than double the volume of sewage during the irrigation season). Thus, the sewage and fertilizers from the proposed "Heritage" development can be expected to contribute substantially to the Nitrogen loading of Wickham Creek and adjacent portions of Great Peconic Bay. Dr. Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University (personal communication, January 2016) estimates that the proposed"Heritage" condominium complex would likely raise the loading of Nitrogen to the Peconic Bays from wastewater in Cutchogue from 40%to 50%. Furthermore, Dr. Gobler noted that Alexandrium (the cause of red tides) and anoxia have been detected in nearby Haywater Cove (also in Cutchogue) and that these would be expected to worsen with increased Nitrogen loading. As noted above, harmful algal blooms have become a regular occurrence in the Peconic Bays. It has been clearly shown, as cited in scientific papers above, that Nitrogen input to coastal waters (primarily via sewage) drives the formation and persistence of harmful algal blooms and raises their toxicity; in addition, mitigation of nutrient inputs to these aquatic systems can lead to significant reductions in HABs. As stressed in management plans adopted by the Peconic Estuary Program and Suffolk County, and in the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan, reduction of Nitrogen inputs to our bays and creeks is essential to their well-being and sustainability as well as to the health of local citizens, resident marine life (including bay scallops), and the local economy. Increased Nitrogen inputs that would result from the proposed"Heritage at Cutchogue" condominium complex thus represent a significant threat to the Peconic Estuary, the center of life on the East End of Long Island. Sincerely yours, Stephen T. Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 and Professor of Biology, Long Island University 720 Northern Blvd. Brookville,NY 11548 References Cited in Text Above: Barnstable County Department Of Health And Environment(2016) Basics of Wastewater Treatment. http://www.barnstablecountyhealth.org/resources/publications/compendium-of-information-on- alternative-onsite-septic-system-technology/basics-of-wastewater-treatment(accessed 5 February 2016) Castro P, Huber MF (2013)Marine Biology, 91h Ed. McGraw-Hill. Cosper EM, Dennison WC, Carpenter EJ, Bricelj VM, Mitchell JG, Kuenstner SH, Colflesh D, Dewey M (1987) Recurrent and persistent brown tide blooms perturb coastal marine ecosystem. Estuaries 10:284-290. Gobler CJ, Burson A, Koch F, Tang Y, Mulholland MR(2012) The role of nitrogenous nutrients in the occurrence of harmful algal blooms caused by Cochlodinium polykrikoides in New York estuaries (USA). Harmful Algae 17:64-74. Gobler CJ, Sanudo-Wilhelmy SA(200 1) Temporal variability of groundwater seepage and brown tide blooms in a Long Island embayment. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 217:299-309. Hattenrath TK, Anderson DM, Gobler CJ (2010) The influence of anthropogenic nitrogen loading and meteorological conditions on the dynamics and toxicity of Alexandrium fundyense blooms in a New York(USA) estuary. Harmful Algae 9:402-412. Heisler J, Glibert PM, Burkholder JM, Anderson DM, Cochla W, Dennison WC, Dortch Q, Gobler CJ, Heil CA, Humphries E, Lewitus A, Magnien R, Marshal HG, Sellner K, Stockwell DA, Stoecker DK, Suddles M (2008) Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A scientific consensus. Harmful Algae 8:3-13. Lapointe BE, Herren LW, Debortoli DD, Vogel MA (2015) Evidence of sewage-driven eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in Florida's Indian River Lagoon. Harmful Algae 43:82-102. Lloyd S (2014)Nitrogen load modeling to forty-three subwatersheds of the Peconic Estuary. Final Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy in partnership with the Peconic Estuary Program. Miller CB (2004)Biological Oceanography. Blackwell Publishing, Cornwall, England. 402 pp. Tang YZ, Gobler CJ(2009) Characterization of the toxicity of Cochlodinium polykrikoides isolates from Northeast US estuaries to finfish and shellfish. Harmful Algae 8:454-462. Tettelbach ST, Peterson BJ, Carroll JM, Furman BT, Hughes SWT, Havelin J, Europe JR, Bonal DM, Weinstock AJ, Smith CF (2015) Aspiring to an altered stable state: rebuilding of bay scallop populations and fisheries following intensive restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 529:121-136. Tettelbach ST, Wenczel P (1993) Reseeding efforts and the status of bay scallop Argopecten irradians (Lamarck, 1819) populations in New York following the appearance of"brown tide" algal blooms. Journal of Shellfish Research 12(2):423-431. Toor GS, Lusk M, Obreza T (2015) Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems: Nitrogen. University of Florida IFAS Extension Publication#SL348. https:Hedis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss550. (accessed 5 February 2016) February 3, 2016 J 01 r 1 Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Donald J. Wilcenski, Chair Dear Mr. Wilcenski: Having attended Planning Board meetings on 8/31/15 and 1/11/16 regarding The Heritage at Cutchogue project, I feel compelled to also voice my opposition to this project. As has been discussed,this project raises several major issues including, but not limited to water usage, surface water quality due to sewage disposal/nitrogen loading and increased traffic. Algal blooms such as the brown tide have been present here since the mid-eighties and continue to plague us. This project will directly add to this ongoing problem and this has to be addressed. In my opinion,this project does not belong at this location. I am hoping you will take a good look at the impact it will have on the environment,not to mention the local residents and do everything possible to mitigate it's unfortunate impact. It's interesting to note that there has been opposition to the project since it's inception back in the 1980's and has continued to the present. Does public opinion not count for anything when a situation such as this exists? If the project is approved,this developer will gain significantly,but at the high cost of our environment and quality of life here, and my fear is that it will open the door for future projects like it. Another reason, sadly, to leave Cutchogue. Sincerely, w Susan Brigham � | �� To: Planning BommiTom/nmfSouthold ---J bruarV3, 2016 Planning Board Members, -----' A letter speaking to the issues that will affect us all with the building of the proposed Heritage Projectin Cutuhmgue. We live on what was pushed up from the bottom of Long Island Sound by the last cycle of glaciation. It is a pile of porous and non-porous fill sloping down from the Long Island Sound to Peconic Bay.Any of us who were around for"Super Storm Sandy" remember seeing water flowing up through old historic watercourses through West Creek,Wickham Creek, Mud Creek and others.These are the paths that effluent from large septic systems for this proposed project will flow into our creeks and ultimately into Peconic Bay.We are suffering from full and seasonal closures for shell fishing in some creeks already. Do we want to wait until we are no longer even allowed to swim in our lovely bay before we take some positive action inthis cause? How about the Suffolk County Department ofHealth promote the use ofa more efficient septic system that will help remediate this insult to our environment? This project will also promote more use and abuse of the Town Beach in New Suffolk that already operates above its stated capacity as well as aggravating an already overloaded parking situation. We full time residents are already use to the fact that it is not practical or safe to attempt left turns through the summer season, which now extends from Memorial Day well into "pumpkin picking" season.The additional traffic Lights and controls will only make the traffic and congestion worse. Has our Town Planning Department and other town departments and committees really seen all the negative effects from such a project? Res9ectfu||ysubnn|tt The Board ofThe New Suffolk Civic Association 9au|Cacioppm President JmaPo|ashock ft.Vice President Caro| Din6m VP Membership Joan Doherty Treasurer K4irhe||m Roussann Secretary Tom McCloskey Newsletter Editor Jeanette Cooper Director Yvonne Duffy Director AndyUtersno Director The New Suffolk News J NSCA Letter Regarding the Heritage Project J The letter quote below has been sent to the following recipients: Town of Southold Planning Board,Scott Russell,Steve Bellone,Anthony Palumbo, Ken Lavalle,Al Krupski, Duane Gregory, Walter Dawydick. A letter speaking to the issues that will affect us all with the building of the proposed Heritage Project in Cutchogue. We live on what was pushed up from the bottom of Long Island Sound by the last cycle of glaciation. It is a pile of porous and non-porous fill sloping down from the Long Island Sound to Peconic Bay. Any of us who were around for "Super Storm Sandy" remember seeing water flowing up through old historic watercourses through West Creek, Wickham Creek, Mud Creek and others. These are the paths that effluent from large septic systems for this proposed project will flow into our creeks and ultimately into Peconic Bay. We are suffering from full and seasonal closures for shell fishing in some creeks already. Do we want to wait until we are no longer even allowed to swim in our lovely bay before we take some positive action in this cause? How about the Suffolk County Department of Health promote the use of a more efficient septic system that will help remediate this insult to our environment? This project will also promote more use and abuse of the Town Beach in New Suffolk that already operates above its stated capacity as well as aggravating an already overloaded parking situation. We full time residents are already use to the fact that it is not practical or safe to attempt left turns through the summer season, which now extends from Memorial Day well into "pumpkin picking" season. The additional traffic Lights and controls will only make the traffic and congestion worse. Has our Town Planning Department and other town departments and committees really seen all the negative effects from such a project? Respectfully submitted, The Board of The New Suffolk Civic Association Paul Cacioppo President Joe Polashock 1st. Vice President Carol Dinda VP Membership Joan Doherty Treasurer Michelle Roussann Secretary Tom McCloskey Newsletter Editor Jeanette Cooper Director Yvonne Duffy Director Andy Uterano Director .,Cauten X grant � G PO Box 648 9 Vew Suffolk, 97-Y11956 �..�. _ o � Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman � Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179L.......... Southold NY 11971 Dear Mr. Wilcenski, I am writing you to express my concerns and those of many residents living in New Suffolk, as pertains to the Heritage Project in Cutchogue. The main concern of which I have been made aware pertains to water: How will untreated sewage from this development affect our drinking and ground water?How the water quality of our creeks and bays will be affected?The additional nitrogen that will enter Cutchogue Harbor and Peconic Bay will be harmful to marine life and potentially result in harmful algal blooms and bring brown tides. There is also the negative impact towards property values the harming of these waterways will have on New Suffolk and Cutchogue residents. Cutchogue is already known as a cancer cluster because of the huge number of women with breast cancer, and now pancreatic cancer is on the rise. No one seems to know why,but it does give additional pause for concern. Looking back to when the Heritage Project was first planned, it was felt this extra burden in Cutchogue would be overwhelming for public services such as the Fire Department and the Police Department. It was also felt the development would prove difficult for people providing other residential services such as the Post Office and the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Library. Because of the concerns raised when Messrs. Nolan and Cronin owned the property and wanted to build a large numbers of condo's on it, The Chamber of Commerce, Fire Department and Library had joint meetings for the public to speak out and that they did, against the project. These worries still persist, particularly as pertains to how the Fire Department will handle potential medical emergencies from 124 additional homes. They are already looking into adding a substation to handle homes North of Route 48 and on Nassau Point because of their inability to get to them quickly from their existing location. Also, are there enough volunteers in Cutchogue and New Suffolk to donate their time to the Fire Department for emergencies?I have serious doubts. If you look at the affects of Peconic Landing on the Greenport Fire Department,you will see the amount of time Peconic Landing demands of the Greenport FD volunteers. Another area of concern with the Heritage Project was brought to me as a past president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. Question: how will this additional housing affect the already crowded beaches in New Suffolk, which on any given summer weekend will find people who day trips from Brooklyn, Queens and New York City to partake in what the New Suffolk Town Beach offers. Because it is a Town Beach, there is little we are able to do to prevent this and we have reluctantly had to turn it over to non-residents and settle for having it to ourselves on weekdays. There is also the issue of people to man New Suffolk Beach. Recent summers have shown not many individual signing up for beach attendant jobs and this problem will only get worse incoming years. I urge you to look carefully into whether or not a large development of 124 housing units is necessary to line the pockets of another greedy developer who clearly doesn't give a damn about out area. In my humble opinion,the land should be rezoned as two-acre zoning allowing 20 homes at the most. Sincerely, Lauren I . t'rant January 31, 2016 To: The members of the Southold Town Planning Board From: Alex and Sheila Bondarchuk Date: February 1, 2016 We would like to add our objection (along with so many other residents of Southold Town) to the Heritage at Cutchogue Project. We have lived here all our lives and see what has happened in Riverhead and towns further west, where developers have destroyed the land for their own profit with total disregard for the majority of residents. We strongly oppose this project and the total negative impact it will have on Cutchogue village. The traffic congestion alone for such a long period of time while the building is in progress will be substantial, plus we all know this will not be an "affordable" complex as the developers are trying to say. We urge you to consider all the ways this could backfire on our way of life out here on the east end of Long Island if you approve this project. f� 4 The Southold Town Planning Board has one difficult impending decision on whether to permit the senior housing construction in Cutchogue. On one side of the issues are the seniors that have lived on the North Fork and would like to continue to live their lives here. A 55 and over community seems to be the only viable answer for them. It doesn't seem fair to them to be forced to leave. On the other side of the issues, which includes our seniors, is the stress on the delicate environment that will suffer from the construction of their community. My wife and I are part time residents who live on Harbor Lane in Cutchogue just two hundred steps from East Creek. Before we moved in on 2011 we had our well water tested on two occasions, one privately at our own expense, and the other by Suffolk County. Both results were the same - indicating an unsafe nitrate level. This condition forced us to abandon the well and hook up to Suffolk water at a $5000 expense. We were informed that the well water was safe for our consumption, but not for children or pregnant mothers (our son and daughter-in-law were expecting their first child). I do not think that we can ignore this contamination of our bay system any longer. Shell fish can not be harvested from East Creek and Mud Creek due excessive nitrate levels. The past fish kill in the Peconic River is natures way of telling us that we can no longer look the other way. There are more cesspools out here than ever before, and I think we are at the tipping point. This is indeed a wake up call. Kevin McAllister, from Defend H2O, who doesn't live here, reiterated this problem. Mr. McAllister stated that the proposed waste system for the community is not sufficient enough to help keep our waters safe. Please consider consider t:he abov facts, and not: approve this project. xgg Robert and Mary Buonet ""�� 2500 Harbor Lane t �� Cutchogue, New York 11935 N Michaelis, Jessica From: Fred Endemann <fendemann@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:55 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica; lavaIle@nysenate.gov; palumboa@assenibi r l pte_41y us AI.Krupski@suffoIkcountyny.gov Subject: Heritage project Cutchogue 0� r Dear Southold Planning Board, �< . <"Jj, ..... " _"",............i I have been living in the Cutchogue -New Suffolk area for 66 years. The area has reached a crisis point""- in oint" -in terms of traffic and tourism, especially in the summer and fall. Our rural way of life and our groundwater and our creeks are already seriously threatened. The size and scope of the Heritage project will affect the two hamlets only in negative ways. Cutchogue could benefit from a small retirement community, as Southold has, but the large scale Heritage plan seems targeted at second-home owners who would create a traffic nightmare on the roads and serious pollution generated by the wastewater plan now under consideration. Please look at this planned project as a negative factor for the future of the North Fork and act accordingly. Sincerely, Frederic Endemann i Michaelis„ Jessica From: LAurie6656@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February03,2 0th 10:03 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica, Lanza, Heather Subject: The Heritage at Cutchogue t � Good morning. Please share this letter with the entire Planning Board: 4 " Dear Planning Board: I am writing to express my opposition to The Heritage Project as currently proposed. 124 homes is much too intense a development for the hamlet of Cutchogue and Southold Town. (124 units is almost half the size of New Suffolk!!!) My number one concern is our WATER - usage and water quality. If you do nothing else, please get the developer to install nitrogen-reducing septic systems or sewer treatment. If you don't, the nitrogen that leaches into West and Wickham's Creeks and Peconic Bay will cause irreversible damage to our ecosystem. Shellfish and finfish will die or go elsewhere. Brookhaven has established septic requirements that are higher than the Suffolk County Department of Health and East Hampton is considering doing the same. Why can't Southold? The developer has stated daily water usage will be 22,500 gallons; double that when irrigating the property. This is a huge amount of water. To not, at least, mandate that they use gray water to irrigate is unfathomable. Native plantings, not huge lawns requiring nitrogen-rich fertilizer, is the only sane way to go. Undeveloped areas of the property should be kept as is. Deforesting the entire 45 acres is extreme and unnecessary. I also worry about how this development will impact New Suffolk. Our town beach, boat ramp streets are already overcrowded during the summer. These new residents and their guests will undoubtedly add significantly to our already-strained quality of living. Please do the right thing and get the developer to be a good/decent neighbor and develop responsibly. The future of our community, and life as we know it in Southold Town, is in your hands. Virtually no one is in favor of this development, especially at its currently proposed size. I am not anti-senior housing (I'm a senior myself) but the size and scope of the project is wrong for Cutchogue and the surrounding communities. It's too big, too wasteful and shows complete and utter disregard for the environment. The Heritage is a slap in the face to all of us who live here and/or moved here to be able to enjoy the beauty and nature of the North Fork. Your responsibility here, and the decision you ultimately make as Planning Board, is huge - actually, life changing for everyone who lives in Southold Town now and for those who may be thinking about moving here someday. i Your decision will impact Cutchogue, New Suffolk and Southold Town forever. Please do everything in your power to minimize the harmful effects of The Heritage Project on our water, environment and the life we cherish on the North Fork. Sincerely, Linda Auriemma 945 Fanning Rd. New Suffolk, NY. 11956 cell: 515-965-5067 z BARBARA DIACHUN 875 SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD P.O. BOX 296 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 January 28, 2016 Martin Sidor, Member Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Sidor: I am writing you in regard to The Heritage at Cutchogue. The roads that would be used for access are not suitable for this development . Both Griffing Street and School House Road are narrow roads with no shoulder or sidewalks . The corner where these two roads meet floods in heavy rain. It is also dangerous as vehicles make wide turns coming around the corner. A lot of people enjoy using these roads to walk or ride their bicycles . Griffing Street and School House Road are not roads made for heavy traffic. These roads do have a lot of traffic as people use them to go the post office or the village. Also many large trucks and other vehicles also use these roads from Depot Lane to the Main Road to avoid going through the village. It is also very dangerous pulling out onto the Main Road from Griffing Street or Depot Lane to the Main Road especially if you try to make a left turn. To add the large amount of traffic this development would produce would make the area even more dangerous . I would appreciate if you would consider the matter when reviewing this proposed development . Thank you. Very truly yours, F„ajl �tBarbara Diachun 2 , 1� �� j a 1 Y �Ob K' Michaelis, Jessica Psltk uM\ �t 1 � From: Tom Wacker <wackerfutures@nyc.rr.com> f � w -� I� l Sent: Friday,January29, 2016 6:24 PM - �, fir, y � LLQ � 1 20"I ��, To: Michaelis,Jessica Cc: AI.Krupski@suffolkcountyny.gov; Russell, Scott; DuWayne.Gregory@suffolkcountyny.gov; scdhsweb@suffolkc unt+nw ov,uu��13(:�s d o a ,a lavaile@nysenate.gov; county.executive@suffolkcountyny.gov; palumboa@assembly.state.ny.us Subject: Proposed Heritage project Cutchogue. Southold Town Planning board Lead agency SEQR For the proposed Heritage project in Cutchogue Dear Mr. Wilcenski As a lifelong resident of Cutchogue, I'm very dismayed by the proposed Heritage development. It seems flawed in so many ways that are contrary to the interests of the community. The most egregious of many flaws in this project has to be the lack of wastewater treatment. According to the Heritage DEIS, the site will generate 22,500 gallons of sanitary waste per day with no plans for treatment. Further, the DEIS states that the groundwater under this project flows southeast toward Wickham Creek and eventually Peconic Bay. Wickham Creek has just recently been partially, seasonally opened to shellfishing. Clearly,this creek is in a fragile state. Robert Farmer of the SCDHS Bureau of Drinking Water has stated in a letter dated July 2007 that "the sewage from this area will flow southeasterly toward Wickham creek and Cutchogue harbor", and further that "private wells in the area may have their water quality impacted". According to a review of the DEIS undertaken by PW Grosser consulting Engineer and hydrologist PC,the flow calculations in the DEIS,which put the project under the outdated threshold mandating sewage treatment (ie permitting but not requiring the SCDHS to approve conventional septic systems) are wrong. In fact the projected wastewater output of the project is 25,200 gpd, well above the 22,500 cap. In addition,the developer's plans include basement spaces which will either be finished or easily converted to finished, and will also include club houses and other joint facilities which will definitely put the development way above the threshold for consideration of conventional septic treatment. Thus if the town and county were inclined to ignore the clear evidence of future damage to the ground and surface waters in approving this project,they don't have legal authority to do so. Approving this project without sewage treatment will expose the town and county to additional lawsuits on this sensitive environmental issue. Southold town is currently grappling with extensive traffic issues during most of the year. As the tourist season now seems to run from Easter to Thanksgiving, regular weekend bumper to bumper traffic is the norm. The town currently has no plans for alleviating the current overcrowding on the highways and there is significant opposition to the installation of traffic lights, even after the horrendous accident that occurred last summer. Bringing 124 more families, 1 with at least 250 more cars, into downtown Cutchogue will only exacerbate this problem. As this development is far from grocery stores and other amenities, its location in a town will not alleviate traffic. These residents will be just as dependent on cars as residents living in other communities. Southold has been blessed with beautiful public beaches but has little infrastructure to accommodate the crowds that are now enjoying them. One of my homes is across the street from the tiny Cutchogue/New Suffolk beach located at the end of Pequash Avenue. With a playground, restrooms, lifeguard and benches to enjoy the view, I am sure this will be a popular destination for the new extended families of the Heritage. The lack of parking facilities at this location is already creating a dangerous situation. With no sidewalks, cars parked on both sides of the narrow streets, and hills obstructing drivers'views, it is only a matter of time before there is a gruesome accident. Since the neighborhood is fully built around this park,there is no solution in sight. I know the community of New Suffolk has similar concern about overcrowding at their beach and in their community. This project has been pitched as appropriate for the hamlet of Cutchogue, as being a means of concentrating development in a hamlet center, rather than spreading development over the town at large, and thus saving the open space/farmland. But, this isn't going to be part of the hamlet. It's a GATED COMMUNITY which will be set apart from the hamlet. This is not the way to build a community. I've heard many times that there is no way to stop this development. But it has been over 30 years since this zoning was approved and the developer had ample time to build this before the community became as overcrowded as it is now. It is clear,this zoning would never be approved today. I also understand that people want to preserve the rural atmosphere of the community by preserving farms. But I also know, no one wants to gaze at the beautiful farm view because they're stuck in traffic, as I was many, many times last summer. It is time for Southold to address the overcrowding issue. How many more parcels are zoned for high density development? How many more Heritage projects can we expect? If we don't make a stand on this one, how will we address the others. I know the town was sued by this developer. I would much rather pay attorneys to fight the lawsuit than deal with the lifelong environmental and overcrowding problems this development will bring to Cutchogue and the North Fork. As every community organization in Cutchogue (Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association, New Suffolk Civic Association,The New Suffolk Waterfront Fund,The North Fork Environmental Council, and The Group for the East End), have voiced serious reservations about this project, I urge you to not approve it, and at the very least,to insist on sewage treatment if you do approve it. Thanks for your time-Tom Wacker (Cutchogue) 2 Michaelis, Jessica .-� From: daniel bingham <danielbingham@hotmail.com> 1 ;. Sent: Wednesday,January 27, 2016 7:01 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica �l -� �' ! 2 20 6 , Subject: Opposition to Heritage Project Dear Southold Planning Board, I am writing to express my opposition to The Heritage in Cutchogue , NY. I am very concerned with how the development will impact the health of our surrounding waters, both in the ground and in the bay. Traditional septic systems for 124 homes will leach large amounts of nitrogen into our groundwater, West and Wickham's Creeks and Peconic Bay. High levels of nitrogen will kill fish, shellfish and other marine life in our creeks and Bay, I feel very strongly that the developer install advanced septic systems or sewer treatment. The recent Galley Ho project installed advanced septic systems and this is a must for the proposed Heritage. I am concerned about the number of people who will use our beaches, where these new residents will park and the overall traffic patterns which will be affected. I am opposed to this project. Please take my views into consideration. Thank you Jacqueline Bingham 7 Kimogenor Point New Suffolk, NY 1 Michaelis, Jessica i From: Tom Gleason <tom.gleason@qnetic.com> ,l Sent: Tuesday,January 26, 2016 12:20 PM j To: Russell, Scott; Michaelis,Jessica;AI.Krupski@suffolkcountyny.gov; Y DuWayne.Gregory@suffolkcountyny.gov; lavaIle@nysenate.gov m Subject: Heritage Admittedly I have remained "out of the weeds" on the finer details of this proposed development. If I use simple logic, I see two obvious and serious problems imposed by this development. 1) Traffic Traffic between Depot Lane and Griffing St is intense and with the way some people drive through Cutchogue, downright dangerous. Main St traffic to/from: New Suffolk Rd, Cutchogue PO, Gas Station, 7-Eleven, Touch of Venice, Jitney and local Bus Stop, Cutchogue Diner, Karen's Deli,... cannot take on more traffic. Eastbound traffic (in season) is often queued up to the New Suffolk Rd traffic light meaning access to/from Griffing is dangerous and subject to grid lock. There is also the school zebra crossing which will be impacted traffic-wise. Redirection of traffic via Depot La simply pushes the problem to the Main St intersection which itself is often queued with traffic at the stop sign. Frankly, you couldn't have picked a worse location on the entire fork. Adding traffic lights just compounds the problem and ruins Cutchogue's character and appeal. Cutchogue does not want to end up like Mattituck or Southold traffic-wise—nor should it. 2) High ground water co-mingling with a dense and heavily used septic system. Over the past decade during very heavy rains, the groundwater rises to very high levels, soaking the land, followed by surface flooding—often in the flatlands between Main and Sound. Is it due to the shift in usage to the street water system with reduction of wells in the area? It would appear to correlate. During such periods of elevated groundwater, the septic system's leaching tanks and lines will co-mingle with the ground water distributing the toxic soup to the entire area. Due to the surrounding topology, there is no simple solution for capturing/redirecting the snow/rain fed groundwater. Would the Heritage use wells (vs street water) in close proximity to their septic fields? Doubt it. There is no upside to this project. If anything, it should be relocated to a low traffic density site. You wouldn't want the "Heritage Legacy" to be attached to you while you were at the helm—people have long memories out here. Do the right thing, don't throw Cutchogue under the bus. The developer needs to find a more suitable location. Sincerely, Tom & Nancy Gleason p.s. ... and we put our money where our mouth is regarding protecting and preserving woodlands and ag-zone property (12 acre PLT easement). Michaelis, Jessica From: Bob Fox <bobfox35@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,January 25, 2016 10:29 AM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: The Heritage at Cutchogue To the Southold Town Planning Board: I am a summer resident of New Suffolk, and I am writing to express my concern over the proposed 134-unit Heritage condominiums in Cutchogue. This development would bring more cars, boat trailers and beachgoers to our hamlet, whose streets, boat ramp and parking are already under pressure from outside New Suffolk. I am also concerned about the potential for additional nitrogen contamination of our groundwater and our creeks and bay. New Suffolk, Cutchogue and the Main Road, and our local waters, would be harmed by such a sudden, large increase in population density. Please do whatever is in your power to reject this project. Sincerely, Bob Fox P.O. Box 101 New Suffolk NY 11956 i Michaelis, JessicaIee.�l M 1 From: Suzie Fox <suzie.fox@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday,January 24, 2016 2:56 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue % - f I To the Southold Town Planning Board: As a lifelong, third-generation summer resident of New Suffolk, I am writing to express my concern over the proposed 134-unit Heritage condominiums in Cutchogue. I am concerned about the potential for contamination of our groundwater and our creeks and bay. Such a development would bring more cars, boats and beachgoers to our tiny hamlet,whose streets,boat ramp and parking are already under pressure from users from outside New Suffolk. New Suffolk, Cutchogue and the Main Road, and our local waters,would be harmed by such a sudden,large increase in population density. Please do whatever is in your power to reject this project. Sincerely, Suzanne E. Fox P.O. Box 101 New Suffolk NY 11956 Michaelis, Jessica RL :il From: Miriam & Michael Lastoria <miriamlast@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:59 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Cc: Russell, Scott; AI.Krupski@suffolkcountyny.gov i k Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Wettenski and members of the Southold Planning Board, We have lived in Southold since 1988 and have been permanent residents since 1999. We attended the Planning Board meetings in August and then again last week because they were about the Heritage in Cutchogue. Both meetings were troubling in that they seemed to be controlled by people representing groups all of one opinion. Some of the speakers were, by their own admission, not from the Southold community. We are not unlike many residents of Southold, aging and living in our own free standing home on a large piece of property. Of course such a home require lots of care and work--especially the gardens and grounds. We would love to move to a home requiring much less work on our parts. However, we love Southold town and are involved in many of it's activities--civic, philanthropic and religious. We don't want to leave our town!! The Heritage would be the perfect solution for us, and many other couples in the same situation. If the Suffolk County Planning Commission is satisfied with the plans and you, at some point, are satisfied with the plans, that will make it possible for us to remain in our wonderful town, independently and comfortably. Respectfully, Miriam and Michael Lastoria 2330 Anchor Lane Southold, New York 11971 Alex & Marion Wipf 940 West Creek Ave. Cutchogue, N.Y. 1193 5 u @1► PUO IC January 11, 2016 / Fie w t ng Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, ,New York Re: The Heritage Codominium Project To The Board: Here are my comments.....short and sweet regarding The Heritage Condo Project: 1) Too many units - causing density problems 2) Too many cars - causing traffic problems 3) Tremendous possibility of polluting our groundwater- Clean Water has become a major issue all around the world. We have clean groundwater NOW- We must keep it that way. Southold Town Board, we are relying on you to protect us from a situation that could damage our Town irreparably. Please don't"negotiate"with this business project and turn a blind eye to what is really needed here,your absolute commitment to us that you will do your jobs and do the best for the existing community. Sincerely yours, o 1 Marion Wipf P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING � January 11, 2016 io Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold 54375 State Road 25 ��� P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn. Heather M. Lanza, AICP Planning Director 1 i Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Southold, NY Dear Ms. Lanza: P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) has reviewed the plans submitted to the Town of Southold as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project and have the following coments: • Based upon a review of the proposed floor plans, there are six (6) possible condominium models. The following are the areas of the living spaces of each condominium as indicated by the architect: Table 2–Square Footagecs of Units Unit Name Ar.............. ea Shown on Architectural Floor Planssf A-1 1,999 .. A-2 1,997 .....------- B-1 _ ,994 B-21 597 C-1................................... ... —._.._..m_ _.__._..............._m.......... ....... 1,998 C-2 1,957 • The DEIS has indicated that there will be a total of 124 condominiums comprised of (52) "A" and "C" condominium units. There will also be a total of (72) "B" Condominium Units which is estimated to be split between the B1 and B2 units. • The B-1 condominium unit indicated on the architectural floor plans is 1,994 SF. The DEIS indicates that no "B" condominium units are in excess of 1,599 SF. The wastewater flow for the B1 condominium unit will be 225 gpd since it is greater than 1,600 SF and less than 2,000 SF. (this excludes a finished basement). • The total sanitary flow for the site based upon the various condominium sizes is as follows: 36 B1 Condominium Units x 225 gpd = 5,400 gpd 36 B2 Condominium Units x 150 gpd = 8,100 gpd 52 "A and C"Condominium Units x 225 gpd = 11,700 gpd The total sanitary flow for all of the condominium units = 25,200 gpd ACEC P.W. Grosser Consulting,Inc• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer&Hydrogeologist, PC 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7• Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY• Syracuse, NY• Seattle,WA• Shelton,CT Strategic Environmental Engineering Solutions • The maximum stated permissible sanitary flow for the site is 22,540 gpd. Flow in excess of this 22,540 gpd will require sewage flows to be treated by either on onsite or offsite sewage treatment plant. The plans do not show provisions for construction of a sewage treatment plant nor the construction of a pump station to convey the sewage to an alternate sewage treatment plant. • According to the DEIS, there is a stipulation that basements are to be excluded from the total square footage of the living area. This stipulation was agreed to by the Town, however the SCDHS may not consider this stipulation when the sanitary application is filed. • On May 13, 2008, the SCDHS published General Guidance Memorandum No. 23 which states that basements can be divided into two categories consisting of either finished or unfinished space. The SCDHS has defined finished space as a space that can be finished to the point where long term occupancy is possible for use as an office, retail, industrial space or other type of use due to adequate lighting, ventilation, egress, etc. • Each of the condominium units has a proposed a 50"x 40"sliding basement window. This window will provide an approximate free opening of 50" x 20". This equates to approximately 1,000 square inches or 6.94 square feet. New York State Residential Code considers a basement window with a minimum free area of 5.7 square feet as an emergency egress window. • If it is the intent to construct each basement with adequate ceiling height and an emergency egress window such that the basements would be code compliant for a living space according to the New York State Residential Code, then the SCDHS may consider the basements to be finished spaces. Each condominium could have an allocated sanitary flow rate of 300 gpd because the total finished space will be greater than 2,000 SF. • If each condominium units produces 300 gpd, the maximum number of condominium units could be reduced from 124 to 75 in order to be below the permissible sanitary flow of 22,540 gpd Conclusion Based upon the review of the submitted DEIS, it appears that the sewage flows generated for this proposed project currently exceeds the sanitary density. It will therefore be necessary to have the sewage flows treated by an on-site or off-site sewage treatment plant. Treatment of sewage flows by a sewage treatment plant can be eliminated if the size and/or quantity of condominium units are reduced. The Town should place restrictions on the size of the basement windows in order to prevent the basements from becoming finished spaces as classified by the SCDHS. This will also eliminate the potential for the basements to become future legalized bedrooms or other classified habitable spaces. Please feel free to contact me if you have you have questions or comments. Sincerely Yours, P.W, Grosser Cons I ing Gerry Rosen, PE Senior Project Manager GR P.W. Grosser Consulting,Inc• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer&Hydrogeologlst, PC 2 630 Johnson Avenue, Sulte 7• Bohemla, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 •www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY• Syracuse, NY• Seattle,WA• Shelton,CT 1 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 January 11, 2016 Southold Planning Board �Svh�u� 0, t i Town Hall Annex Building p U C l Cxn�v�g 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Members of the Southold Planning Board and Staff: Nine years later and the Heritage's developer and staff present the same nonsense...but nothing has changed. The Heritage still threatens our groundwater,the safety of our roadways and our overall quality of life. In July of 2007, I received a letter from Robert J. Farmer, a Public Health Engineer with the Suffolk County Health Dept. He stated then that the sewage from the Heritage project would move into Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor. Wickham Creek was finally re-opened to shell-fishing last year. Why would we knowingly allow it to be the final destination for sewage? Knowing the economy of the North Fork, and the time and money spent over the last decade to re-vitalize the shell-fishing industry there, why would we undo all the good that has been accomplished by not imposing strict sanitary standards and treatment on this project? This must be a strict condition imposed on the developer, regardless of the Stipulation agreement signed by the Town. Many Cutchogue residents still rely on their private wells, and the quality and quantity of potable drinking water is still a concern. How can untreated sewage be allowed to negatively impact people,the environment and our economy? You are all aware of the fatal traffic accident that occurred on Depot Lane and Route 48 five months ago—four young women were killed. Yet you want to give a"green light" to a condo development that will bring over 300 additional cars to the area less than 1/2 mile south of that accident. The traffic scene on Main Road in Cutchogue is also a nightmare—our wineries (of which Cutchogue has the greatest number of any hamlet on the North Fork) and agritainment industry have, in the last nine years, brought an explosion of cars, stretch limos, party buses, additional runs of the Hampton Jitney,North Fork Express, Suffolk County Bus Service, bicyclists by the scores where no bicycle lanes exist—to a roadway that was not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Cutchogue's hamlet is a tiny area where our Post Office, several churches, an elementary school with buses and students crossing Main Road for their gym class, Cutchogue Fire and Rescue Dept., restaurants, library, historical society, village green, several businesses, dentists and pharmacy, 7-11 and a gas station already exist on or very close to Main Road. Previous traffic studies have labelled Depot Lane and Griffing Street failing and dangerous intersections at Main Road - yet you are asking the public to sanction the addition of 10 percent of Cutchogue's current population to this immediate area! Ironically,today's Agenda includes Mr. Baxter's sub-division on Griffing Street—four more lots slated for development right in the middle of all of this action! Southold Town and Suffolk County have a dismal record in Cutchogue for traffic safety and are facing numerous lawsuits as a result of the aforementioned tragedy. Since NYS has etched Main Road in stone,who will make the study and creation of new traffic routes, patterns and roads that will ensure the safety of Cutchogue residents and visitors a condition for the developer before allowing this project to move forward? How will fire and rescue units get to residents all over Cutchogue through a currently dangerous and crowded hamlet center? A traffic study conducted on Columbus Day weekend to be "conservative" is highly suspect when the addition of 300+cars will be present during the spring and summer months—the "season" for the anticipated residents of the Heritage to be here in full force. The Heritage's developer is not concerned about 2 emergency access points at Spur Rd. and Bridle Lane—to one day be permanently opened to dump condo traffic into a residential area of over 60 homes on Highland Road and Crown Land Lane—to endanger children and older residents who have had a safe environment for over 40 years! We are not fooled by the "emergency access" or"crash gates" label—who will enforce this limited use, anyway? The developer is essentially asking residents of Highland, Crown Land Lane and Schoolhouse Road to acquiesce to a"condemnation" of sorts—because our neighborhoods will be destroyed when these points are permanently open to all types of vehicular traffic. Where are the conditions that take into account the safety of Cutchogue residents who already live in this area? The only way to avoid intrusion into long-established neighborhoods as well as the hamlet center,is to have direct ingress and egress to the Heritage from Depot Lane for residents,visitors, emergency, construction and maintenance vehicles. This would require the developer to acquire a right of way from the property east of the Heritage. Life in Cutchogue has some challenges—without addressing these concerns,the Heritage will make it impossible! Si iiccrc!y, Barbara McAdam Li k�r � f ti FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 554 • Cutchogue,New York 11935 August 20,2015 U�i .e, a P Q)%qU KAT, The Honorable Steven Bellone County Executive p �. J 100 Veteran's Highway PO Box 6100 Hauppauge,NY 11788 DuWayne Gregory �i✓ W� i I „�a Presiding Officer Suffolk County Legislature TM pub 1i C 15 Albany Avenue Amityville,NY 11701 Albert Krupski Walter Dawydiak Suffolk County Legislator,1s`District Director of Division of Environmental Quality 423 Griffing Avenue Suffolk County Health Department Riverhead,NY 11901 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2B Yaphank,NY 11980 Gentlemen: RG. Wastewater System for Proposed Heritage at Cutcho,Rue Condominium Project SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 We are a community of 300 households in the watershed of this development.We have grave concerns over the Heritage development,most especially about the issue of waste water. Consider the following: • The executive summary of the 2014 County Comprehensive Water Resources management Plan concluded "Suffolk County's water is at a tipping point. We face an alarming trend in the quality of the water our families drink,compounded by an impairment of the bodies of water in which our families play". Further quoting;"This is the only place in the world with that large a density in this tight space where the waste is going into a sole source aquifer immediately beneath us that we're drinking,and this is a big problem". • County Executive Steve Bellone stated"Failing and unmaintained septic systems and cesspools have created an excess amount of nitrogen pollution in the region's water supply,becoming a serious threat to Long Island's water quality,coastal vegetation,wildlife,quality of life,and has already decimated the once iconic shellfish industry." • The US Environmental Protection Agency determined(TMDL at Work-Sept.2013)Peconic Estuary has "Impaired aquatic life due to low dissolved oxygen levels from excessive loadings of nitrogen." • Yet incredibly,in spite of abundant evidence that excessive nitrogen loading endangers drinking and surface waters,the Heritage DEIS(Jan.2015)states it will use no new treatment but the decades old"clustered individual sanitary disposal systems".This DEIS states the"region's groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is expected to flow to the southeast,toward Wickham Creek and eventually Peconic Bay." We are very concerned about losing clean groundwater both for our private wells and SCWA public wells in Cutchogue and about the damage to Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor.Wickham Creek,having only recently been partially seasonally certified for shell fishing,has been deemed a"valuable ecosystem"by NYS DEC. It is a key part of"Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands",listed by NYS DEC as a Suffolk"Critical Environmental Area". So we ask you to please use all legal authority to not allow this project to proceed without state-of-the-art sewage treatment. Respectfully, Paul Silansky President 11 January 2016 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Town of Southold lean ~d'. . ..... 54375 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 I am writing, as a long-time resident of Cutchogue and as a professional biologist,to express my grave concerns over the impacts of the proposed 124-unit condominium complex,the `Heritage at Cutchogue'. In general,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) submitted by the developer minimizes or trivializes the potential impact of the proposed development on the residents of the Hamlet of Cutchogue and the Town of Southold—including environmental impacts such as endangering local drinking water and the Peconic Estuary via addition of excess Nitrogen and toxins in generated wastewater, elimination of probable seasonal wetlands on the property slated for development, and elimination of habitat for one federally threatened species(long-eared bat)that may utilize the subject property. Furthermore, community impacts are dismissed, including an increase in local traffic, unfair tax burdens to existing residents should the likelihood of school-aged children living in the proposed development materialize, and strong potential for growth inducement in the Hamlet of Cutchogue and on the North Fork. As detailed below,many/most of the potential impacts reviewed in the DEIS and deemed to have `no significant impact' are unsupported assertions. As stated in the New York SEQR handbook, 3rd Edition(2010) (ham:// w w yWgov/docs/permitscirp rAfio s p f/se boo lad "Where public needs and benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the environmental risks of a project,the agency may be compelled to deny approvals for the action."I firmly believe the potential benefits of the proposed Heritage project are, indeed,far outweighed by the environmental risks and threats to our way of life on the North Fork. My specific comments on the proposed project and the DEIS that was made available to the public in December 2015 are given below in sections; in most cases, I have made suggestions for further consideration and/or proposed actions (denoted by arrows: --+)that address impacts, unsupported assertions and factual errors that exist in the DEIS. These are presented along with quotes or summaries from the DEIS. Benefits of the Proiect Purported benefits of the proposed development are cited along with projected tax revenues that would accrue to the Town of Southold. The developer contends that the project is needed to provide housing to senior citizens of the North Fork but, as is mentioned many times in the DEIS,the units are expected to be occupied primarily by seasonal residents. The fact that the developer has done away with earlier plans to include `affordable' housing on the subject property suggests that the units that are to be built(1,599— 1,999 sq ft of living space plus breezeways,porches and full basements)are not considered `affordable' housing. So,the question is-what need is actually being satisfied? If these condominium units are to serve as seasonal residences for `snowbirds' how much are these units actually going to benefit local senior citizens who are looking to downsize from their current 2 homes. It seems reasonable to conclude that much of the clientele of the proposed development will not come from the North Fork. As quoted in the DEIS,the development would provide: "Generation of substantial new tax revenues for the Town without a significant related increase in demand for services." The fact is that the development would add nearly 10%to the population of Cutchogue—how would this not cause a significant increase in demand for services? Given the age of most of the projected residents (55+yrs),there is very likely to be a disproportional increase in demand for ambulance and fire services. While expected tax revenues are detailed in the DEIS, a comparable assessment of anticipated costs to the Town of Southold are not provided. --> The DEIS should be revised to offer more concrete estimates of increased costs to the Town of Southold due to higher levels of service required for the 250+residents of the condominium complex. In this way,the projected tax benefits of the development can be more properly weighed against the projected costs to the Town and its residents. This is the only fair way to evaluate this aspect. Overall Site Layout The DEIS states that"A three to five-foot-high vegetated berm along the northern, eastern, and western property boundaries [will be created] to provide screening for adjacent uses and properties." All of the proposed 52 two-story 1,999 square foot units and all of the 72 1,599 square foot units (which can be either 1 or 2 stories but are being assumed to be 2 stories),would be 30 ft high. If the quoted 3-5 ft berm is planted with the quoted evergreen trees of 3-5 ft height,the total height of the screening would thus be 6-10 ft high. The DEIS even states that, for aesthetic purposes,the planted trees will not be ones that grow rapidly. So, in both the short term and long term,the berms/plantings proposed will do very little to screen the condominium units from houses in the surrounding neighborhoods on Schoolhouse Rd,Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane—many of which are two-story homes. —),The Town should require a much more effective screen:the total height of the berm and planted trees should be much closer to 30 ft than is already proposed. Sanitary Disposal As currently proposed,the wastewater of the 124 Heritage units will be directed into conventional septic systems;there is no plan to provide for advanced sewage treatment. The ultimate destination of this excess Nitrogen is,of course, our groundwater. Local studies (cited by the developer in the DEIS) have determined that groundwater from this site will flow SE to Wickham Creek and then into the Peconic Bays-in just a few years. As you are probably aware,the work of Dr. Christopher Gobler at Stony Brook as well as others,has shown that excess Nitrogen input to our bays can be expected to lead to an increased frequency, 3 duration and toxicity of harmful algal blooms; in turn, as has been seen repeatedly in Long Island's embayments,these blooms can directly cause mass mortalities of shellfish and finfish. Furthermore, these die-offs can cause dissolved oxygen levels to plummet(hypoxia and anoxia), which causes further mortalities. Degraded water quality may then force closures of shellfish harvesting areas. I have worked for 29 years to restore Peconic bay scallop populations following their complete collapse due to brown tide algal blooms in the mid-1980's. The tireless efforts of dozens of individuals (marine biologists,baymen, students and volunteers)in this restoration program have led to a dramatic resurgence in bay scallop populations and fisheries. This has generated more than$8 million of revenue for local baymen, and more than$80 million in economic benefits to local business over the last 8 years(Tettelbach, ST et al. 2015.Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol. 529:pp.121-136). This resurgence has also helped to preserve the maritime culture that is central to the East End of Long Island. I firmly believe that the excess levels of Nitrogen that would be generated by the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue will pose a serious threat to Peconic bay scallop populations and fisheries, as well as other finfish and shellfish species. Suffolk County has the authority and, I believe,the moral responsibility to require the developer to install an advanced sewage treatment plant to address this impending threat to the Peconic Bay system. --+All of the above are reasons why sewage treatment of waste generated by the proposed development should absolutely be required if the project goes forward. Calculations of wastewater generated by the residents of the proposed Heritage development yield 22,500 gallons per day(gpd) -which is just under the SCDHS flow factors, cited to allow for 22,540 gpd. If the latter level is exceeded,then a sanitary wastewater treatment facility would be required by Suffolk County. While the above calculations would conform to existing law,they completely ignore the added runoff due to the excessive irrigation proposed for the development,which at 43,500 gpd during the irrigation season is nearly twice the volume of sewage generated. The irrigation runoff will undoubtedly contain pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers,which will enter the groundwater and then flow into our creeks and the Peconic Bays. From a sewage standpoint,runoff is classified as wastewater—so irrigation should be included in the calculations of wastewater generation. --> The Town of Southold should require the developer to calculate the expected increase in Nitrogen input to groundwater and the local bodies of water(i.e. Wickham Creek)-with and without a sewage treatment plant in place. These calculations need to include the irrigation water,with its inherent load of fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides. --+While the Town of Southold has been prohibited by the Stipulation agreement to require the developer to build a sewage treatment plant to handle the large volume of sewage that would be generated by the proposed development, Suffolk County has the authority, and the moral obligation,to require this. Site Landscaping and Lighting The lighting proposed for the development would include street lights along roads and in parking areas, over front porches and the front and back of each house, at the clubhouse,pool and tennis courts. The DEIS states that: "There will be no spillover of light onto neighboring properties."(!) 4 Well,this is patently impossible. No streetlights currently exist in the Highland Rd./Crown Land Lane neighborhood, except at Main Rd. As a resident of this neighborhood, I greatly value the relative absence of light pollution—it is one of the reasons I bought a house in this neighborhood. I highly value being able to look at the stars at night;this is how I was able to teach my son the names of planets and constellations,which are now clearly visible on most nights. The proposed `Heritage' development,with its extensive system of streetlights and other lighting fixtures will undoubtedly introduce a high level of light pollution to Cutchogue. —> The impacts of the proposed `Heritage' development on ambient light levels in surrounding neighborhoods of Cutchogue need to be modeled and assessed in detail. Further mitigation of light pollution resulting from the proposed development should be required by the Town. Construction and Operation As stated in the DEIS: "Construction activities,consistent with the Town Code,would not occur before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. It is not expected that construction would occur on Sundays." --> This wording is unacceptable; it gives the developer full license to work 7 days a week if needed. Start of construction at 7 AM, for 5-7 years,is also not acceptable. I urge the Town to mandate a later starting date, i.e. 8 AM—at least on weekends. Proposed Mitigation The DEIS states that"The following measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation due to construction activity: - Limits of clearing and grading would be established and construction fencing would be installed along the limits. Existing vegetation to remain would be protected and remain undisturbed during construction." BUT, it is already stated(pg. xi of the Executive Summary, Grading and Drainage)that"Development of the proposed project would necessitate the entire site be cleared." This would be the first thing to be done!!! —+ For many reasons(outlined below)the Town should require the developer to save as much of the existing vegetation as is possible. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitization-Soils The DEIS discusses"Addressing of impacted soils[specifically arsenic and mercury] (due to past agricultural use)found throughout the subject property"—but on pg ix of the DEIS Executive Summary, under Grading and Drainage—it is stated that"No material is anticipated to be imported or exported off the site." So—how does this address the impacted soils of the site?? --> How will burial of sediments, as described on pg xiv of DEIS accomplish this? 5 The DEIS acknowledges potential wind erosion once soils are disturbed. —+How can assurances be made that no dispersal of soil and associated toxins via the wind will occur to surrounding neighborhoods to the west and south and to the adjacent organic farm to the east? We get a large amount of sediment on our windowsills via aerosols now—it will very likely be much worse during the construction phase. --> The Town should require that the developer project the quantities of toxins that can be expected to be mobilized from the sediment into the air and groundwater during the excavation and construction phases of the development. The developer should also be required to evaluate the potential impacts of said mobilization of toxins on the health and safety of the construction workers, local residents and school children who attend Our Lady of Mercy school,which is located next to the proposed entrance to the condominium complex. Groundwater As cited in the DEIS, the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook prepared as part of the US EPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program lists the following recommendations related to Land Use and Stormwater Runoff. "Limit the removal of natural vegetation and the creation of lawn areas." "Minimize nitrate loadings to groundwater and surface waters by requiring natural vegetative controls to limit lawn areas,thereby decreasing fertilizer use." "Minimize grade changes and site clearing." "Reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces insofar as possible." "Reduce excessive use of irrigation water..." The proposed construction activities and site plan grossly violate all of these recommendations: - The site would be completely cleared of all vegetation prior to construction. - Lawn areas would comprise nearly 10 acres of the developed property. - Nitrate loading to groundwater would not be limited because wastewater would not be treated. - As detailed in the DEIS (pg. 52), impermeable surfaces represented by roads and sidewalks of the proposed development would equal—8 acres; including other impervious structures(e.g. rooftops:pg. 84)the total acreage of impermeable surfaces equals 15.17 acres (-33%of the property)! - Irrigation is clearly excessive as it will be at a level that is more than twice the level of sewage generation As cited in the DEIS, goals of the proposed development that are relevant to the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(2011)are: "All County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinking water MCL's,USEPA health advisories and New York State guidance levels." The DEIS states that residents of the proposed condominium complex would have access to safe drinking water because it will be pumped in by the SCWA. What is not addressed is the potential impact to drinking water for existing residents that live adjacent to the subject property;nine of whom have been identified as using well water. 6 The Town of Southold should require that an assessment be made of the quantities and levels of toxins (including nitrites,pesticides,herbicides and pharmaceuticals that are most likely to be expected to enter groundwater from the condominium complex,via residents and property maintenance. This is the only fair way to evaluate whether the health and well-being of local residents will be put at risk due to the construction and occupation of the proposed Heritage development. Depth to groundwater on the project site was only investigated at a handful of sites. But, I recall that in discussions at planning department meetings, and in an earlier version of the DEIS. that depth to groundwater in some locations on the property was identified as being 10 ft or less. --+ The Town of Southold should require that further testing be done at more sites on the subject property,particularly adjacent to surrounding neighborhoods,to investigate actual depths to groundwater. Since numerous local residents rely on wells to get their drinking water, and in alignment with the stated goal of the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(2011): "All County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinking water MCL's,USEPA health advisories and New York State guidance levels.",more needs to be done to assure the safety and welfare of these families. Subsurface Conditions No mention is made of the purported presence of a former gas station at the SE corner of the property proposed for the Heritage development, i.e.next to the current R/V park. In looking at the map of locations where samples were taken to assess the levels of toxins and heavy metals in soil, which is provided in Appendix D of the DEIS, it is apparent this area was not sampled. —> The potential presence of toxins in the soil that may be associated with this former gas station, and their potential for dispersal,need to be assessed by a qualified,independent agency such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). Surface Water It is stated on pp. xviii and xxii of the Executive summary, and several more times in the DEIS (e.g. pg. 88)that: "There are no surface waters or wetlands present at or adjacent to the subject property." This does not appear to be true. The characteristic(and unmistakable) chorus calls of the spring peeper(Pseudacris crucifer)have been heard emanating from the property where the development is located, annually, for many years— including 2015. As spring peepers are amphibians,they require water in which to lay their eggs (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/frogs.pdf). This means that there must be some type of wetlands or seasonal wetlands nearby—which may very well be present on the property proposed for development. Spring peepers lay their eggs in wetlands during the spring. Surveys done by the developer to look for wetlands were done on October 9, 2014: this is not the time of year when seasonal wetlands would likely be encountered. If wetlands/seasonal wetlands are found on the subject property, it is my understanding that Southold Town code would require a 100 foot setback radius around these wetlands or seasonal wetlands. The Town of Southold needs to require independent surveys to look for seasonal wetlands;these need to be done by qualified, impartial personnel (such as staff of the NYSDEQ. -+ Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of these seasonal wetlands,I urge the Town to prohibit the developer and his assigns from tampering with the property until such time that proper surveys are completed. The eastern box turtle, Terrapene carolina, is a species of special concern in New York state;this species has been seen by residents of Schoolhouse Road, including as recently as 2015, crossing the road near the point of the planned entrance to the Heritage. In the DEIS,the property is described as prime habitat for eastern box turtles, but the developer doesn't seem to have any plans to look for them, concluding that these animals will just die during construction. "Box turtles live in open woodlands,pastures, and marshy meadows. They are often found near streams and ponds. (https://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Eastemboxturtle.cfin) "Eastern box turtles prefer deciduous forests and mixed forests. The eastern box turtle is known to appreciate a moderately moist forest floor with good drainage. Sometimes eastern box turtles are encountered in non-forested areas, such as grasslands and pastures. Just as in the forests,the turtles want the floor to be moderately moist in these environments and seek out areas with wet leaves or wet dirt. When the weather is warm, eastern box turtles cool off by bathing in puddles and shallow streams. QLttp://www.boxturtles.com/eastem-box-turtieD -+ The above information about the local occurrence of box turtles in the vicinity of the property, and the above habitat requirements of box turtles, also suggest the possibility of wetland habitats; further investigation is certainly warranted. Vegetation and Wildlife pg. xix of the DEIS Executive Summary states that: "Implementation of the proposed project would result in the replacement of the three existing ecological communities with anthropogenic(created or altered by humans)habitats, including landscaping,buildings and pavement. More specifically, following redevelopment,the subject property would support five terrestrial communities, including mowed lawn,mowed lawn with trees,unpaved road/path,urban structure exterior and paved road/path." The implication of these sentences is that the condominium complex will provide more habitats for wildlife than the undisturbed land. This statement, and the characterization of paved and unpaved roads and paths, and urban structure exterior as"terrestrial communities", is blatantly incorrect. Ecological communities are defined as assemblages of biological species. pg xxi of the DEIS Executive Summary states that: "It is anticipated that the post-development subject property would continue to support a similar wildlife assemblage to existing conditions,though at reduced densities for most species. Based upon the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations are anticipated as a result of the proposed project." 8 The implication that the site's biodiversity, after high density development, will remain at an equivalent level to existing(undisturbed)conditions is completely unfounded. Replacement of existing vegetation(25 species of trees, 25 species of shrubs and vines, 69 species of herbaceous plants: pp. 69- 71 of the DEIS)with landscaping and non-native ornamentals is not desirable from an ecological standpoint.Natural ecosystems take time to develop. This is exemplified by the much greater ecological value and high biodiversity of old-growth forests versus rows of trees planted for timber production. Removal of all natural vegetation and replacement with"landscaping"does not mean that the area will serve the same ecological function to native animal and plant species. It is more likely that the opposite will occur. When an organism's habitat is destroyed the animals either leave and/or die. The statement that existing species will only be temporarily disturbed by having to relocate to other suitable habitats nearby, but will return to use the landscaped portions of the development is, at best, highly speculative. A 75 ft wide buffer is not equivalent habitat to a 46 acre tract of fields and woods. Some species have very specific habitat requirements (food, shelter, etc.) and so would not be expected to return to a high-density housing development, even if they survived the destruction of their ecosystem. The DEIS (pg. 68) states that"As the soil management plan requires the stripping and handling of material from every portion of the site in order to address soils impacts associated with former agricultural uses, it would not be possible to utilize and/or relocate the majority of existing vegetation on the subject property." —+ The Town of Southold required the developer to inventory those trees on the property that were >6"diameter; 200 such trees were identified in Fall 2015 on the property, as noted on pg. 68 of the DEIS. The Town should further require the developer to save as many of the existing trees on the property, especially those that are located along the borders of the property next to existing neighborhoods(i.e.the West and South borders)to serve as habitat for any remaining wildlife and to provide screening. Here's the reasoning behind this: Over the last 8 years,the developer has removed many hundreds of red cedar and other tree species;this has been documented by the Town as the developer was cited (and fined)for removing trees after having been directed not to do so. These trees were dug live and balled with existing soil—so, logically,these must have been relocated to other sites(and likely sold). If these trees, and their associated soil,were deemed safe enough to relocate before then there is no reason whatsoever to contend that the soil associated with the remaining trees is not safe enough to relocate on the property(or leave in place). It is stated in the DEIS that"Based upon the 2014 field inspection,potential summer roosting habitat and foraging habitat for the federally-threatened northern long-eared bat is supported within the wooded portions of the subject property.However, as detailed previously,the overall habitat quality of these wooded habitats has been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances and colonization by non- native/invasive plant species. Accordingly, given the restricted extent and disturbed nature of the on- site woodlands,the site presents limited and marginal habitat potential for the northern long-eared bat." First, bats have been seen on the property(pg. 75 of the DEIS) and we regularly see bats of approximately the same size as northern long-eared bats in summer in our neighborhood at Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue -which is—200 yds from the property proposed for the condominium complex. 9 It is certainly possible that these may be the threatened long-eared bat; given that the 46 acre tract is the largest contiguous undisturbed habitat it may be likely that these bats are utilizing this property for roosting. Second,there is no substantive basis for the conclusion that the overall habitat quality of the wooded habitats on the property is degraded to the point that long-eared bats would be less likely to utilize these woodlands.No evidence is presented in the DEIS that supposed colonization of the property by non-native plant species would affect the ability of bats to roost,nor is there any evidence that long- eared bats only roost in native vegetation and not in non-native trees. The conclusions of the DEIS are purely speculative. But that is not even the most important point here: the most important fact is that bats have been seen at and nearby to the subject property. As northern long-eared bats are a federally threatened species,protected under the US Endangered Species Act; surely, further work needs to be done to determine if this species is utilizing the subject property. The DEIS states that, "consultations with the USFWS would be necessary to determine potential species impacts or development restrictions associated with northern long-eared bat." This is absolutely necessary—but this cannot just be a nod to a possible conversation. —+ I urge the Planning Board and Planning Dept to authorize an independent assessment by the US Fish& Wildlife Service to determine if these bats are using the property. They should also be the lead agency that determines whether the relevant habitat on the property slated for development needs to he protected,and to what extent. Also, since the first step of the proposed Heritage plan is to level and completely remove all of the vegetation on the 46 acre tract, I urge the Planning Board to put a freeze on the further removal of trees or disturbance of other habitats by the developer. As noted above,hundreds,perhaps thousands,of trees have already been removed by the developer in the last several years;this may very well be why the site is characterized in the DEIS as having been exposed to anthropogenic disturbance!! —>Also, as assessment of the vegetation and wildlife at the site has only been done in the Fall,the Town should require a thorough series of comprehensive assessments of the existing natural resources (including vegetation and animal species)on the subject property during the most meaningful and pertinent times of the year, including: early-mid spring(when wildflowers bloom but before leaves emerge on trees and bushes); mid-late spring(i.e. mid-May to mid-June)when many native birds are nesting and when migratory songbirds travel through our area; and summer-fall when different species of plants and animals (including bats, as mentioned above)are clearly evident. This is a much better way to determine if there are any species and/or habitats of special significance. These surveys need to be done by qualified, impartial personnel(such as staff of the NYSDEQ. See above sections under `Surface Water' for discussion of spring peepers and eastern box turtles. As wildlife that survives the construction phase would migrate offsite,as detailed in the DEIS,the potential certainly exists for the dispersal of disease vectors such as ticks - which on Long Island are most commonly associated with deer, cottontail rabbits and white-footed mice; all of these species are found on the subject property. 10 In early summer 2007, we found a Lone Star tick in our backyard on Crown Land Lane for the first time in our 8 years as residents. This sighting may well have coincided with the first appearance of deer on our property during this same time period. I believe these deer were displaced by the removal of large numbers of trees from the proposed `Heritage' property during the prior year. This disruption to their native habitat likely has caused them to disperse to a wider area. This process will only get worse if the proposed `Heritage' project goes forward. —> I suggest that the Town require the developer to assess the potential for dispersal of tick vectors from the subject property resulting from the clearing of all of the vegetation so that the safety and well- being of local residents can be assured. Transportation—Traffic Conditions "To be conservative, a standard Condominium/Townhouse trip generation rate was used." Is this conservatively high or low?If impacts to local traffic patterns are being evaluated, it would certainly be most appropriate to use a conservatively high rate of traffic volume. The new(2014)traffic study, which is detailed in Appendix G of the DEIS, was done on one weekday and one weekend day in October. The DEIS states that this time of year was done to represent a period of maximal traffic conditions, but how much can really be learned by looking at something once? One of the very first rules that is taught in scientific analysis is to do sampling at multiple times(i.e. replication) in order to get a better idea of what is really going on. --), The DEIS projects vehicle trips from the proposed condominium complex based on the number of units; does this take into account the actual number of automobiles that would be parked in the proposed complex(>250)? The DEIS projects the number of trips to/from the proposed complex,but to more fairly evaluate the increase in traffic volume generated,percentage increases need to be shown. Also,why weren't data collected for Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane?As a resident of this neighborhood, I am familiar with the volume of traffic to/from these streets and I can personally state that the numbers shown for Cases Lane are well below those seen for Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane. The DEIS states that an impact was shown at three intersections: Main Rd and North St., CR 48 and Depot Lane,Main Rd and Depot Lane. But the DEIS states on pg. xxiii of the Executive Summary"In addition,the delay change for these intersections with a decrease in LOS [Level of Service] would not be noticeable to drivers."Pg. xxiv: "Any increases in delay at the study intersections are deemed insignificant."By whom?A decrease in level of service means that the time it takes to navigate an intersection takes longer, due to more traffic—so no driver will notice this?What? —+ I suggest that the Town require the developer to assess the impacts of increased traffic volume from the proposed development in percentages; also,the percent change in wait times to make turns, particularly left turns, should also be evaluated. Furthermore,traffic flows to/from Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane should be evaluated in the same manner(i.e.percent change in traffic flow and wait time for turning). - Will increased traffic volume necessitate new traffic lights being installed in Cutchogue village? 11 - If so,will the taxpayers or the developer be responsible for the cost of new traffic lights? Land Use,Zoning and Plans It is stated on pg xxv of the DEIS Executive Summary: "Likewise,businesses in the Cutchogue hamlet center are expected to benefit from establishment of new housing in that community." This implicit assumption is not a given. If traffic backs up markedly on Main Rd as motorists travel into downtown Cutchogue(which it often does already on weekends),motorists may choose to avoid Cutchogue altogether and travel on North Road(CR 48)—in which case there may even be a reduction in commerce conducted at Main Rd businesses in Cutchogue. —+ This needs to be evaluated more thoroughly in a more comprehensive traffic study. As stated in the DEIS: "The proposed residential condominium use would be consistent with surrounding development,which includes other higher-density residential subdivisions(i.e., along Highland Road)and a mix of both higher-density commercial and residential uses in the hamlet center corridor along NY 25." --+ The proposed condominium complex is not consistent with any form of development on the North Fork. On Highland Rd,the housing density is 1 per acre; it is more than 5 per acre in the proposed condominium complex. This needs to be given considerable weight by the Town and Suffolk County. Zoning The DEIS states that"The proposed project would include 124 residential condominium units, subject to covenants and restrictions limiting occupancy of the units to person 55 years or older, a spouse of any age,children or grandchildren residing with a permissible occupant provided they are 19 years of age or older, and individuals residing with and providing support to a permissible occupant." This is very vague. The clause"providing support"is extremely broad: does this include physical, emotional and/or other forms of support?If so, children of school age are clearly not precluded from living in these condominiums. This can be the only logical explanation for the fact that the developer contacted Dr. Anne Smith, Superintendent of the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District,by mail on Sept, 24, 2014,to inquire about the capacity of local schools and whether they would be able to accommodate school age children from the development(Appendix C of the DEIS). —+ If school age children live in the condominium complex and are allowed to attend our local schools, this would place an additional tax burden on the residents of Cutchogue and Mattituck who pay full taxes for schools, whereas the condominium owners would pay a much discounted rate— this is completely unfair! —+ To eliminate the possibility of school aged children living in the condominiums,without their parents paying the same level of taxes as other residents of the town, a specific provision should be included that prohibits any children from the proposed complex from attending local public schools - or—residents of the condominium complex should have to pay full taxes to the Town of Southold. 12 Relevant Comprehensive Plans As stated on pg xxix of the Executive Summary: "The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the operation or use of the Mattituck-Cutchogue bicycle and pedestrian route as the additional vehicular trips on Grilling Street [sic: Avenue] and Schoolhouse Lane would not significantly increase the level of service on these roadways." This is a very subjective determination: it is purely an opinion of the developer which is not supported by any factual information. The condominium complex will generate much more traffic than currently emanates from the subject property. Purely from a probability standpoint,the likelihood of a greater risk to bicyclists and pedestrians from Heritage traffic is irrefutable. The question is not if, but what, the level of greater risk would be. Fire Protection and Ambulance Services On pg xxxi of the Executive Summary the argument is made that"...it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact on fire or ambulance service within the community." -* The Cutchogue Fire Department has expressed reservations about their ability to answer calls from the condominium complex, should it be built. This is a serious issue. If a greater level of fire protection is required,residents of the condominium complex should be required to bear any and all additional costs-not existing residents of the Town. Community Character On pg xxxiv of the Executive Summary it is stated that the condominium complex will not change the character of Cutchogue. These words ring hollow on the ears of people that live of Cutchogue.Nothing even close to this level of building density, or to the extent and duration of construction, exists here. If this one gets built, it doesn't seem likely that this will be the only one of its kind to rise from the undisturbed farm fields of the North Fork. (see section below on Growth-Inducement). Lone-term Impacts It is stated on pg. 214 of the DEIS that"The visual character of the site would be modified. However, the site would be developed with a residential community contextual with the character in the surrounding community." -►This is absurd.Nothing remotely similar to the character of this development exists in the hamlet of Cutchogue. The proposed development represents a glaring example of overdevelopment. Alternatives No Action Alternative On pg xl of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "If the No Action Alternative is implemented, there would be no construction-related impacts,but the ongoing lack of varied housing for seniors within an area zoned for higher density would persist." As described above,this perceived argument is countered by numerous references,throughout the DEIS,to the expected clientele of the proposed condominium complex: e.g. pg xxxi of the Executive Summary: "As such, and because the proposed project would likely serve a large seasonal population,..." 13 - If these condominium units are to serve as seasonal residences for `snowbirds' how much are these units actually going to benefit local senior citizens who are looking to downsize from their current homes. It seems reasonable to conclude that much of the clientele of the proposed development will not,come from the North Fork. Partial or Full Preservation On pg xl of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "In addition,the Preservation Alternative would not establish a cohesive, attractive and convenient residential development on an underutilized property. With appropriate density in conformance with Town zoning regulations, which would also achieve several goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan." Natural areas are often perceived by developers as `underutilized'. Perhaps it is a philosophical question as the whether a housing development is more attractive than a fallow farm field with native wildflowers and resident wildlife. --+ But, in fact,the preservation of the site would undoubtedly achieve more goals of the Comprehensive Plan Southold 2020,than going through with the condominium construction, as outlined in the chapters on"Community Character", "Land Preservation"and"Natural Resources & Environmental Protection". Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment On pg xli of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "It has been suggested there is public concern related to the disposal of pharmaceuticals in the project sanitary system, and that an STP would address this issue. However, STP technology does not treat or remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater, and would not,therefore, address pharmaceutical disposal issues." This is patently false. A 2013 paper in Scientific American concluded that"Only about half of the prescription drugs and other newly emerging contaminants in sewage are removed by treatment plants." 1 tt Co wry atificaavuerica .con l rte /c I _it if qr- dru - ernoye �l� . _Wg n1 n J , however,this means that a sewage treatment plant would remove half and therefore would help reduce the levels of drugs and toxins entering our drinking water and our creeks and bays. Residents of Cutchogue with whom I have spoken with are greatly concerned over this issue. pg xlii of the Executive Summary states that: "Concerns by the Town related to the impacts of nitrogen, potentially present in sanitary effluent..." Nitrogen is not potentiallX present in sewage effluent; it is present. Completing the quote from pg xlii of the Executive Summary: "Concerns by the Town related to the impacts of nitrogen,potentially present in sanitary effluent, led to the third alternative,which is to install one of the sewage treatment technologies outlined in the SCDHS General Guidance Memorandum #32 Conforming to the Commercial Standards Appendix A. These systems have been evaluated by the SCDHS and were found to treat wastewater flows up to 15,000 gpd,which is less than the estimated 22,500 gpd for the proposed project." 14 Then, why not use two? Growth Inducement The New York State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR)handbook states that an assessment of growth-inducement, an impact resulting from the approval of an activity(e.g. approval of a proposed development)must be made in an applicant's EIS. As defined in the SEQR handbook, "Some activities will encourage or lead to further increases in population or business activity. This type of secondary impact is called growth inducement. When conducting an environmental assessment, it is important to recognize activities which may induce growth because a consideration of the whole action must examine likely impacts of such growth, such as the need for additional sewer,water and other services; increased traffic congestion; or accelerated loss of open space. The DEIS concludes(pg. 217)that"...implementation of the proposed action is not expected to induce additional growth within the community". —* I believe that more needs to be done to determine whether this assertion is reasonable. If the Cutchogue Fire Department has reservations about their ability to service the increase in calls at the development,then this matter clearly needs to be investigated more thoroughly. It is also reasonable to suggest that approval of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project may induce growth in the Hamlet of Cutchogue(e.g. increase in number of businesses and development near to the subject property—such as development of existing land between the Cutchogue Post Office and the proposed entrance to the condominium complex) - as well as in the Town of Southold. The SEQR handbook states"The growth inducement section of an EIS should thus describe any further development which the proposed action may support or encourage, such as: i. attracting significant increases in local population by creating or relocating employment, or by providing support facilities or services(stores,public services, etc.), or ii. increasing the development potential of a local area, for example,by the extension of roads, sewers,water mains, or other utilities. If this development is approved, it would increase the population of Cutchogue by—10%and would represent the largest and amongst the highest density projects in the Town of Southold; it is certainly within reason to suggest that the extension of the water main from Depot Lane to the subject property may accelerate the likelihood that the current organic farmland due East of the subject property(on Depot Lane) is converted into a housing development—especially if the construction activity and subsequent occupancy of the property impacts the organic certification of the farm through mobilization of heavy metals and other toxins such as pesticides,herbicides and pharmaceuticals. It is also possible that approval of the Heritage project may accelerate the number of other large developments proposed and perhaps approved by the Town. This would be a clear-cut example of growth inducement. As quoted in the SEQR handbook"When discussing growth inducement in the EIS, it is important to quantify growth effects to the extent possible given available information, and to document sources of data and growth predictions." 15 —>This has not been done adequately in the DEIS;no data or growth predictions are provided. This needs to be done in order to more properly evaluate whether the project, if approved,would be expected to cause growth-inducement. In sum,there are many serious environmental and community impacts that would result if the proposed Heritage development goes forward as planned; as outlined above,these require more comprehensive investigation and careful consideration. I believe the risks of the proposed development far outweigh the potential benefits and thus,ultimately, I urge you to stop this development from going forward. Thank you for your consideration, Stephen Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 stephen.tettelbach@g!nail.com 631-682-2865 and Professor of Biology, Long Island University 720 Northern Blvd. Brookville,NY 11548 cc: Mr. Pierce Rafferty, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. William Cremers, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. James Rich, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. Martin Sidor,Town of Southold Planning Board Ms. Heather Lanza, Director of Planning, Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Mark Terry,Principal Planner, Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Brian Cummings,Planner, Town of Southold Planning Department Ms. Alyxandra Sabatino,Planner,Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Scott Russell, Supervisor, Town of Southold Mr. John Bredemeyer, President, Town of Southold Board of Trustees sa?-i� P(61Vk ►AT ,�L Alex & Marion Wipf 940 West Creek Ave. '� y� 21"I"If", Cutchogue, N.Y. 1193 5 . Ca 1) PUu 3, is January 11, 2016 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, ,New York Re: The Heritage Codominium Project To The Board: Here are my comments.....short and sweet regarding The Heritage Condo Project: 1) Too many units - causing density problems 2) Too many cars - causing traffic problems 3) Tremendous possibility of polluting our groundwater- Clean Water has become a major issue all around the world. We have clean groundwater NOW- We must keep it that way. Southold Town Board,we are relying on you to protect us from a situation that could damage our Town irreparably. Please don't"negotiate"with this business project and turn a blind eye to what is really needed here,your absolute commitment to us that you will do your jobs and do the best for the existing community. Sincerely yours, dP `mow. Marion Wipf g's P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING ,01LtnAT. c ...... ..re r �w January 11, 2016 ' 1 Town of Southold Planning Board Town ofSouthold . ��U��� � i ...�... 54375 State Road 25 �. Pu(o��c. CeD P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn. Heather M. Lanza, AICP Planning Director Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Southold, NY Dear Ms. Lanza, P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) has reviewed the plans submitted to the Town of Southold as part of the r Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project and have the following coments: • Based upon a review of the proposed floor plans, there are six (6) possible condominium models. The following are the areas of the living spaces of each condominium as indicated by the architect: Table_2—Square l'botages of Units Unit Name. Shown Area ...'.�....__...._.. own onn Architectural Floor ...... Plans.....-sf) -- - A-11,999 ................_._._ — — m ........... . ........ _1,997 _ . .. ........... _1994 ............................... B-1 , . -- B-2......... ---- ......_.__ 1,597 --- ..................... C-11,998 .. ---- C-2 — ...,. 1,957 • The DEIS has indicated that there will be a total of 124 condominiums comprised of (52) "A" and "C" condominium units. There will also be a total of (72) "B" Condominium Units which is estimated to be split between the B1 and B2 units. • The B-1 condominium unit indicated on the architectural floor plans is 1,994 SF. The DEIS indicates that no "B" condominium units are in excess of 1,599 SF. The wastewater flow for the B1 condominium unit will be 225 gpd since it is greater than 1,600 SF and less than 2,000 SF. (this excludes a finished basement). • The total sanitary flow for the site based upon the various condominium sizes is as follows: 36 B1 Condominium Units x 225 gpd = 5,400 gpd 36 B2 Condominium Units x 150 gpd = 8,100 gpd 52 "A and C"Condominium Units x 225 gpd = 11,700 gpd The total sanitary flow for all of the condominium units = 25,200 gpd ACE P.W. Grosser Consulting,Inc• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer&Hydrogeologist, PC P.r%,""'ad"".W 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7• Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 •www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY• Syracuse, NY• Seattle, WA• Shelton,CT PWGC Strategic Environmental Engineering Solutions • The maximum stated permissible sanitary flow for the site is 22,540 gpd. Flow in excess of this 22,540 gpd will require sewage flows to be treated by either on onsite or offsite sewage treatment plant. The plans do not show provisions for construction of a sewage treatment plant nor the construction of a pump station to convey the sewage to an alternate sewage treatment plant. • According to the DEIS, there is a stipulation that basements are to be excluded from the total square footage of the living area. This stipulation was agreed to by the Town, however the SCDHS may not consider this stipulation when the sanitary application is filed. • On May 13, 2008, the SCDHS published General Guidance Memorandum No. 23 which states that basements can be divided into two categories consisting of either finished or unfinished space. The SCDHS has defined finished space as a space that can be finished to the point where long term occupancy is possible for use as an office, retail, industrial space or other type of use due to adequate lighting, ventilation, egress, etc. • Each of the condominium units has a proposed a 50"x 40"sliding basement window. This window will provide an approximate free opening of 50" x 20". This equates to approximately 1,000 square inches or 6.94 square feet. New York State Residential Code considers a basement window with a minimum free area of 5.7 square feet as an emergency egress window. • If it is the intent to construct each basement with adequate ceiling height and an emergency egress window such that the basements would be code compliant for a living space according to the New York State Residential Code, then the SCDHS may consider the basements to be finished spaces. Each condominium could have an allocated sanitary flow rate of 300 gpd because the total finished space will be greater than 2,000 SF. • If each condominium units produces 300 gpd, the maximum number of condominium units could be reduced from 124 to 75 in order to be below the permissible sanitary flow of 22,540 gpd Conclusion Based upon the review of the submitted DEIS, it appears that the sewage flows generated for this proposed project currently exceeds the sanitary density. It will therefore be necessary to have the sewage flows treated by an on-site or off-site sewage treatment plant. Treatment of sewage flows by a sewage treatment plant can be eliminated if the size and/or quantity of condominium units are reduced. The Town should place restrictions on the size of the basement windows in order to prevent the basements from becoming finished spaces as classified by the SCDHS. This will also eliminate the potential for the basements to become future legalized bedrooms or other classified habitable spaces. Please feel free to contact me if you have you have questions or comments. Sincerely Yours, P.W. Grosser Consting Gerry Rosen, PIS. Senior Project Manager GR P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc• P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer&Hydrogeologlst, PC 2 630 Johnson Avenue, Suite 7• Bohemia, NY 11716 PH 631.589.6353 • FX 631.589.8705 • www.pwgrosser.com New York, NY• Syracuse, NY• Seattle, WA• Shelton,CT 71 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 II January 11, 2016 Southold Planning Board Town HallBuilding a Annex J 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Members of the Southold Planning Board and Staff: Nine years later and the Heritage's developer and staff present the same nonsense...but nothing has changed. The Heritage still threatens our groundwater,the safety of our roadways and our overall quality of life. In July of 2007, I received a letter from Robert J. Farmer, a Public Health Engineer with the Suffolk County Health Dept. He stated then that the sewage from the Heritage project would move into Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor. Wickham Creek was finally re-opened to shell-fishing last year. Why would we knowingly allow it to be the final destination for sewage? Knowing the economy of the North Fork, and the time and money spent over the last decade to re-vitalize the shell-fishing industry there, why would we undo all the good that has been accomplished by not imposing strict sanitary standards and treatment on this project? This must be a strict condition imposed on the developer,regardless of the Stipulation agreement signed by the Town. Many Cutchogue residents still rely on their private wells, and the quality and quantity of potable drinking water is still a concern. How can untreated sewage be allowed to negatively impact people, the environment and our economy? You are all aware of the fatal traffic accident that occurred on Depot Lane and Route 48 five months ago—four young women were killed. Yet you want to give a"green light" to a condo development that will bring over 300 additional cars to the area less than %2 mile south of that accident. The traffic scene on Main Road in Cutchogue is also a nightmare—our wineries (of which Cutchogue has the greatest number of any hamlet on the North Fork) and agritainment industry have, in the last nine years, brought an explosion of cars, stretch limos,party buses, additional runs of the Hampton Jitney,North Fork Express, Suffolk County Bus Service, bicyclists by the scores where no bicycle lanes exist—to a roadway that was not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Cutchogue's hamlet is a tiny area where our Post Office, several churches, an elementary school with buses and students crossing Main Road for their gym class, Cutchogue Fire and Rescue Dept., restaurants, library, historical society, village green, several businesses, dentists and pharmacy, 7-11 and a gas station already exist on or very close to Main Road. Previous traffic studies have labelled Depot Lane and Griffing Street failing and dangerous intersections at Main Road-yet you are asking the public to sanction the addition of 10 percent of Cutchogue's current population to this immediate area! Ironically,today's Agenda includes Mr. Baxter's sub-division on Griffing Street—four more lots slated for development right in the middle of all of this action! Southold Town and Suffolk County have a dismal record in Cutchogue for traffic safety and are facing numerous lawsuits as a result of the aforementioned tragedy. Since NYS has etched Main Road in stone,who will make the study and creation of new traffic routes, patterns and roads that will ensure the safety of Cutchogue residents and visitors a condition for the developer before allowing this project to move forward? How will fire and rescue units get to residents all over Cutchogue through a currently dangerous and crowded hamlet center? A traffic study conducted on Columbus Day weekend to be "conservative" is highly suspect when the addition of 300+cars will be present during the spring and summer months—the "season"for the anticipated residents of the Heritage to be here in full force. The Heritage's developer is not concerned about 2 emergency access points at Spur Rd. and Bridle Lane—to one day be permanently opened to dump condo traffic into a residential area of over 60 homes on Highland Road and Crown Land Lane—to endanger children and older residents who have had a safe environment for over 40 years! We are not fooled by the "emergency access"or"crash gates" label—who will enforce this limited use, anyway? The developer is essentially asking residents of Highland, Crown Land Lane and Schoolhouse Road to acquiesce to a"condemnation" of sorts—because our neighborhoods will be destroyed when these points are permanently open to all types of vehicular traffic. Where are the conditions that take into account the safety of Cutchogue residents who already live in this area? The only way to avoid intrusion into long-established neighborhoods as well as the hamlet center, is to have direct ingress and egress to the Heritage from Depot Lane for residents,visitors, emergency, construction and maintenance vehicles. This would require the developer to acquire a right of way from the property east of the Heritage. Life in Cutchogue has some challenges—without addressing these concerns,the Heritage will make it impossible! Sificerel , Barbara McAdam -F FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ' 1 P.O. Box 554 Cutcho ue,New York 11935 August 20,2015 The Honorable Steven Bellone County Executive 100 Veteran's Highway PO Box 6100 Hauppauge,NY 11788 �Ii�r�,Serr I 1 � lii fi lfJ DuWayne GregoryF� "` Presiding Officer . pub 1 I c vVcLvt" Mir Suffolk County Legislature 15 Albany Avenue Amityville,NY 11701 Albert Krupski Walter Dawydiak Suffolk County Legislator,1s`District Director of Division of Environmental Quality 423 Griffing Avenue Suffolk County Health Department Riverhead,NY 11901 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2B Yaphank,NY 11980 Gentlemen: Re: Wastewater System for Proposed Heritage at Cutcho ue Condominium Pro'ect SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 We are a community of 300 households in the watershed of this development.We have grave concerns over the Heritage development,most especially about the issue of waste water. Consider the following: • The executive summary of the 2014 County Comprehensive Water Resources management Plan concluded "Suffolk County's water is at a tipping point. We face an alarming trend in the quality of the water our families drink,compounded by an impairment of the bodies of water in which our families play". Further quoting;"This is the only place in the world with that large a density in this tight space where the waste is going into a sole source aquifer immediately beneath us that we're drinking,and this is a big problem". • County Executive Steve Bellone stated"Failing and unmaintained septic systems and cesspools have created an excess amount of nitrogen pollution in the region's water supply,becoming a serious threat to Long Island's water quality,coastal vegetation,wildlife,quality of life,and has already decimated the once iconic shellfish industry." • The US Environmental Protection Agency determined(TMDL at Work-Sept.2013) Peconic Estuary has "Impaired aquatic life due to low dissolved oxygen levels from excessive loadings of nitrogen." • Yet incredibly,in spite of abundant evidence that excessive nitrogen loading endangers drinking and surface waters,the Heritage DEIS(Jan.2015)states it will use no new treatment but the decades old"clustered individual sanitary disposal systems".This DEIS states the"region's groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is expected to flow to the southeast,toward Wickham Creek and eventually Peconic Bay." We are very concerned about losing clean groundwater both for our private wells and SCWA public wells in Cutchogue and about the damage to Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor.Wickham Creek,having only recently been partially seasonally certified for shell fishing,has been deemed a"valuable ecosystem"by NYS DEC. It is a key part of"Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands",listed by NYS DEC as a Suffolk"Critical Environmental Area". So we ask you to please use all legal authority to not allow this project to proceed without state-of-the-art sewage treatment. Respectfully, Paul Silansky President n X41 6 +✓ � 1f ape p� �+ 4�'"ryrygpp7'µ"gl, 1� 11 January 2016 J Y l Mr. Donald Wilcenslci Chairman, Town of Southold 1a a 54375 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 I am writing, as a long-time resident of Cutchogue and as a professional biologist,to express my grave concerns over the impacts of the proposed 124-unit condominium complex,the `Heritage at Cutchogue'. In general,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) submitted by the developer minimizes or trivializes the potential impact of the proposed development on the residents of the Hamlet of Cutchogue and the Town of Southold—including environmental impacts such as endangering local drinking water and the Peconic Estuary via addition of excess Nitrogen and toxins in generated wastewater, elimination of probable seasonal wetlands on the property slated for development, and elimination of habitat for one federally threatened species(long-eared bat)that may utilize the subject property. Furthermore,community impacts are dismissed, including an increase in local traffic,unfair tax burdens to existing residents should the likelihood of school-aged children living in the proposed development materialize, and strong potential for growth inducement in the Hamlet of Cutchogue and on the North Fork. As detailed below,many/most of the potential impacts reviewed in the DEIS and deemed to have `no significant impact' are unsupported assertions. As stated in the New York SEQR handbook, 3`d Edition(2010) (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ejoperations pdf/segrhandbook.pdfl "Where public needs and benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the environmental risks of a project,the agency may be compelled to deny approvals for the action."I firmly believe the potential benefits of the proposed Heritage project are, indeed,far outweighed by the environmental risks and threats to our way of life on the North Fork. My specific comments on the proposed project and the DEIS that was made available to the public in December 2015 are given below in sections; in most cases, I have made suggestions for further consideration and/or proposed actions(denoted by arrows: --*)that address impacts,unsupported assertions and factual errors that exist in the DEIS. These are presented along with quotes or summaries from the DEIS. Benefits of the Proiect Purported benefits of the proposed development are cited along with projected tax revenues that would accrue to the Town of Southold. The developer contends that the project is needed to provide housing to senior citizens of the North Fork but, as is mentioned many times in the DEIS,the units are expected to be occupied primarily by seasonal residents. The fact that the developer has done away with earlier plans to include `affordable' housing on the subject property suggests that the units that are to be built(1,599— 1,999 sq ft of living space plus breezeways,porches and full basements)are not considered `affordable' housing. So,the question is -what need is actually being satisfied? If these condominium units are to serve as seasonal residences for `snowbirds' how much are these units actually going to benefit local senior citizens who are looking to downsize from their current 2 homes. It seems reasonable to conclude that much of the clientele of the proposed development will not come from the North Fork. As quoted in the DEIS,the development would provide: "Generation of substantial new tax revenues for the Town without a significant related increase in demand for services." The fact is that the development would add nearly 10%to the population of Cutchogue—how would this not cause a significant increase in demand for services? Given the age of most of the projected residents (55+yrs),there is very likely to be a disproportional increase in demand for ambulance and fire services. While expected tax revenues are detailed in the DEIS, a comparable assessment of anticipated costs to the Town of Southold are not provided. --* The DEIS should be revised to offer more concrete estimates of increased costs to the Town of Southold due to higher levels of service required for the 250+residents of the condominium complex. In this way,the projected tax benefits of the development can be more properly weighed against the projected costs to the Town and its residents. This is the only fair way to evaluate this aspect. Overall Site Layout The DEIS states that"A three to five-foot-high vegetated berm along the northern, eastern, and western property boundaries [will be created] to provide screening for adjacent uses and properties." All of the proposed 52 two-story 1,999 square foot units and all of the 72 1,599 square foot units (which can be either 1 or 2 stories but are being assumed to be 2 stories),would be 30 ft high. If the quoted 3-5 ft berm is planted with the quoted evergreen trees of 3-5 ft height,the total height of the screening would thus be 6-10 ft high. The DEIS even states that, for aesthetic purposes,the planted trees will not be ones that grow rapidly. So, in both the short term and long term,the berms/plantings proposed will do ve , little to screen the condominium units from houses in the surrounding neighborhoods on Schoolhouse Rd,Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane—many of which are two-story homes. --+ The Town should require a much more effective screen:the total height of the berm and planted trees should be much closer to 30 ft than is already proposed. Sanitary Disposal As currently proposed,the wastewater of the 124 Heritage units will be directed into conventional septic systems;there is no plan to provide for advanced sewage treatment. The ultimate destination of this excess Nitrogen is,of course,our groundwater. Local studies(cited by the developer in the DEIS) have determined that groundwater from this site will flow SE to Wickham Creek and then into the Peconic Bays- in just a few years. As you are probably aware,the work of Dr. Christopher Gobler at Stony Brook as well as others,has shown that excess Nitrogen input to our bays can be expected to lead to an increased frequency, 3 duration and toxicity of harmful algal blooms; in turn, as has been seen repeatedly in Long Island's embayments,these blooms can directly cause mass mortalities of shellfish and finfish. Furthermore, these die-offs can cause dissolved oxygen levels to plummet(hypoxia and anoxia), which causes further mortalities.Degraded water quality may then force closures of shellfish harvesting areas. I have worked for 29 years to restore Peconic bay scallop populations following their complete collapse due to brown tide algal blooms in the mid-1980's. The tireless efforts of dozens of individuals (marine biologists,baymen, students and volunteers)in this restoration program have led to a dramatic resurgence in bay scallop populations and fisheries. This has generated more than$8 million of revenue for local baymen, and more than$80 million in economic benefits to local business over the last 8 years(Tettelbach, ST et al. 2015.Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol. 529: pp.121-136). This resurgence has also helped to preserve the maritime culture that is central to the East End of Long Island. I firmly believe that the excess levels of Nitrogen that would be generated by the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue will pose a serious threat to Peconic bay scallop populations and fisheries,as well as other finfish and shellfish species. Suffolk County has the authority and, I believe,the moral responsibility to require the developer to install an advanced sewage treatment plant to address this impending threat to the Peconic Bay system. --+All of the above are reasons why sewage treatment of waste generated by the proposed development should absolutely be required if the project goes forward. Calculations of wastewater generated by the residents of the proposed Heritage development yield 22,500 gallons per day(gpd) -which is just under the SCDHS flow factors, cited to allow for 22,540 gpd. If the latter level is exceeded,then a sanitary wastewater treatment facility would be required by Suffolk County. While the above calculations would conform to existing law,they completely ignore the added runoff due to the excessive irrigation proposed for the development,which at 43,500 gpd during the irrigation season is nearly twice the volume of sewage generated. The irrigation runoff will undoubtedly contain pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers,which will enter the groundwater and then flow into our creeks and the Peconic Bays. From a sewage standpoint,runoff is classified as wastewater—so irrigation should be included in the calculations of wastewater generation. --+ The Town of Southold should require the developer to calculate the expected increase in Nitrogen input to groundwater and the local bodies of water(i.e. Wickham Creek) -with and without a sewage treatment plant in place. These calculations need to include the irrigation water,with its inherent load of fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides. --+ While the Town of Southold has been prohibited by the Stipulation agreement to require the developer to build a sewage treatment plant to handle the large volume of sewage that would be generated by the proposed development, Suffolk County has the authority, and the moral obligation,to require this. Site Landscaping and Lighting The lighting proposed for the development would include street lights along roads and in parking areas, over front porches and the front and back of each house, at the clubhouse,pool and tennis courts. The DEIS states that: "There will be no spillover of light onto neighboring properties." (!) 4 Well,this is patently impossible. No streetlights currently exist in the Highland Rd./Crown Land Lane neighborhood, except at Main Rd. As a resident of this neighborhood, I greatly value the relative absence of light pollution—it is one of the reasons I bought a house in this neighborhood. I highly value being able to look at the stars at night;this is how I was able to teach my son the names of planets and constellations,which are now clearly visible on most nights. The proposed `Heritage' development,with its extensive system of streetlights and other lighting fixtures will undoubtedly introduce a high level of light pollution to Cutchogue. —+ The impacts of the proposed `Heritage' development on ambient light levels in surrounding neighborhoods of Cutchogue need to be modeled and assessed in detail. Further mitigation of light pollution resulting from the proposed development should be required by the Town. Construction and Operation As stated in the DEIS: "Construction activities, consistent with the Town Code,would not occur before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. It is not expected that construction would occur on Sundays." —► This wording is unacceptable; it gives the developer full license to work 7 days a week if needed. Start of construction at 7 AM, for 5-7 years, is also not acceptable. I urge the Town to mandate a later starting date, i.e. 8 AM—at least on weekends. Proposed Mitigation The DEIS states that"The following measures would be implemented to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation due to construction activity: - Limits of clearing and grading would be established and construction fencing would be installed along the limits. Existing vegetation to remain would be protected and remain undisturbed during construction." BUT, it is already stated(pg. xi of the Executive Summary, Grading and Drainage)that"Development of the proposed project would necessitate the entire site be cleared." This would be the first thing to be done!!! --+For many reasons (outlined below)the Town should require the developer to save as much of the existing vegetation as is possible. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitization-Soils The DEIS discusses"Addressing of impacted soils [specifically arsenic and mercury] (due to past agricultural use)found throughout the subject property"—but on pg ix of the DEIS Executive Summary, under Grading and Drainage—it is stated that"No material is anticipated to be imported or exported off the site." So—how does this address the impacted soils of the site?? —>How will burial of sediments, as described on pg xiv of DEIS accomplish this? 5 The DEIS acknowledges potential wind erosion once soils are disturbed. --+How can assurances be made that no dispersal of soil and associated toxins via the wind will occur to surrounding neighborhoods to the west and south and to the adjacent organic farm to the east? We get a large amount of sediment on our windowsills via aerosols now—it will very likely be much worse during the construction phase. --* The Town should require that the developer project the quantities of toxins that can be expected to be mobilized from the sediment into the air and groundwater during the excavation and construction phases of the development. The developer should also be required to evaluate the potential impacts of said mobilization of toxins on the health and safety of the construction workers, local residents and school children who attend Our Lady of Mercy school,which is located next to the proposed entrance to the condominium complex. Groundwater As cited in the DEIS, the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook prepared as part of the US EPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program lists the following recommendations related to Land Use and Stormwater Runoff: "Limit the removal of natural vegetation and the creation of lawn areas." "Minimize nitrate loadings to groundwater and surface waters by requiring natural vegetative controls to limit lawn areas,thereby decreasing fertilizer use." "Minimize grade changes and site clearing." "Reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces insofar as possible." "Reduce excessive use of irrigation water..." The proposed construction activities and site plan grossly violate all of these recommendations: - The site would be completely cleared of all vegetation prior to construction. - Lawn areas would comprise nearly 10 acres of the developed property. - Nitrate loading to groundwater would not be limited because wastewater would not be treated. - As detailed in the DEIS (pg. 52), impermeable surfaces represented by roads and sidewalks of the proposed development would equal—8 acres; including other impervious structures(e.g. rooftops:pg. 84)the total acreage of impermeable surfaces equals 15.17 acres (-33%of the property)! - Irrigation is clearly excessive as it will be at a level that is more than twice the level of sewage generation As cited in the DEIS, goals of the proposed development that are relevant to the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(2011)are: "All County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinking water MCL's,USEPA health advisories and New York State guidance levels." The DEIS states that residents of the proposed condominium complex would have access to safe drinking water because it will be pumped in by the SCWA. What is not addressed is the potential impact to drinking water for existing residents that live adjacent to the subject property; nine of whom have been identified as using well water. 6 The Town of Southold should require that an assessment be made of the quantities and levels of toxins(including nitrites,pesticides,herbicides and pharmaceuticals that are most likely to be expected to enter groundwater from the condominium complex,via residents and property maintenance. This is the only fair way to evaluate whether the health and well-being of local residents will be put at risk due to the construction and occupation of the proposed Heritage development. Depth to groundwater on the project site was only investigated at a handful of sites. But,I recall that in discussions at planning department meetings, and in an earlier version of the DEIS. that depth to groundwater in some locations on the property was identified as being 10 ft or less. The Town of Southold should require that further testing be done at more sites on the subject property, particularly adjacent to surrounding neighborhoods,to investigate actual depths to groundwater. Since numerous local residents rely on wells to get their drinking water, and in alignment with the stated goal of the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(2011): "All County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinking water MCL's, USEPA health advisories and New York State guidance levels.",more needs to be done to assure the safety and welfare of these families. Subsurface Conditions No mention is made of the purported presence of a former gas station at the SE comer of the property proposed for the Heritage development,i.e.next to the current R/V park. In looking at the map of locations where samples were taken to assess the levels of toxins and heavy metals in soil, which is provided in Appendix D of the DEIS, it is apparent this area was not sampled. --+ The potential presence of toxins in the soil that may be associated with this former gas station, and their potential for dispersal,need to be assessed by a qualified,independent agency such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). Surface Water It is stated on pp. xviii and xxii of the Executive summary, and several more times in the DEIS (e.g. pg. 88)that: "There are no surface waters or wetlands present at or adjacent to the subject property." This does not appear to be true. The characteristic(and unmistakable)chorus calls of the spring peeper(Pseudacris crucifer)have been heard emanating from the property where the development is located, annually, for many years— including 2015. As spring peepers are amphibians,they require water in which to lay their eggs (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/frogs.pdf). This means that there must be some type of wetlands or seasonal wetlands nearby—which may very well be present on the property proposed for development. Spring peepers lay their eggs in wetlands during the spring. Surveys done by the developer to look for wetlands were done on October 9, 2014: this is not the time of year when seasonal wetlands would likely be encountered. If wetlands/seasonal wetlands are found on the subject property, it is my understanding that Southold Town code would require a 100 foot setback radius around these wetlands or seasonal wetlands. —�The Town of Southold needs to require independent surveys to look for seasonal wetlands;these need to be done by qualified, impartial personnel (such as staff of the NYSDEQ. —+ Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of these seasonal wetlands, I urge the Town to prohibit the developer and his assigns from tampering with the property until such time that proper surveys are completed. The eastern box turtle, Terrapene carolina, is a species of special concern in New York state;this species has been seen by residents of Schoolhouse Road, including as recently as 2015, crossing the road near the point of the planned entrance to the Heritage. In the DEIS,the property is described as prime habitat for eastern box turtles, but the developer doesn't seem to have any plans to look for them, concluding that these animals will just die during construction. "Box turtles live in open woodlands,pastures, and marshy meadows. They are often found near streams and ponds. (https://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Eastemboxturtle.cfin) "Eastern box turtles prefer deciduous forests and mixed forests. The eastern box turtle is known to appreciate a moderately moist forest floor with good drainage. Sometimes eastern box turtles are encountered in non-forested areas, such as grasslands and pastures. Just as in the forests,the turtles want the floor to be moderately moist in these environments and seek out areas with wet leaves or wet dirt. When the weather is warm, eastern box turtles cool off by bathing in puddles and shallow streams. (h !p://www.boxturtles.com/eastem-box-turtle/) --+The above information about the local occurrence of box turtles in the vicinity of the property, and the above habitat requirements of box turtles, also suggest the possibility of wetland habitats; further investigation is certainly warranted. Vegetation and Wildlife pg. xix of the DEIS Executive Summary states that: "Implementation of the proposed project would result in the replacement of the three existing ecological communities with anthropogenic(created or altered by humans)habitats, including landscaping,buildings and pavement. More specifically, following redevelopment,the subject property would support five terrestrial communities, including mowed lawn,mowed lawn with trees,unpaved road/path,urban structure exterior and paved road/path." The implication of these sentences is that the condominium complex will provide more habitats for wildlife than the undisturbed land. This statement, and the characterization of paved and unpaved roads and paths, and urban structure exterior as "terrestrial communities", is blatantly incorrect. Ecological communities are defined as assemblages of biological species. pg xxi of the DEIS Executive Summary states that: "It is anticipated that the post-development subject property would continue to support a similar wildlife assemblage to existing conditions,though at reduced densities for most species. Based upon the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations are anticipated as a result of the proposed project." 8 The implication that the site's biodiversity, after high density development, will remain at an equivalent level to existing(undisturbed)conditions is completely unfounded. Replacement of existing vegetation(25 species of trees, 25 species of shrubs and vines, 69 species of herbaceous plants: pp. 69- 71 of the DEIS)with landscaping and non-native ornamentals is not desirable from an ecological standpoint.Natural ecosystems take time to develop. This is exemplified by the much greater ecological value and high biodiversity of old-growth forests versus rows of trees planted for timber production. Removal of all natural vegetation and replacement with"landscaping"does not mean that the area will serve the same ecological function to native animal and plant species. It is more likely that the opposite will occur. When an organism's habitat is destroyed the animals either leave and/or die. The statement that existing species will only be temporarily disturbed by having to relocate to other suitable habitats nearby,but will return to use the landscaped portions of the development is, at best, highly speculative. A 75 ft wide buffer is not equivalent habitat to a 46 acre tract of fields and woods. Some species have very specific habitat requirements(food, shelter, etc.)and so would not be expected to return to a high-density housing development, even if they survived the destruction of their ecosystem. The DEIS (pg. 68) states that"As the soil management plan requires the stripping and handling of material from every portion of the site in order to address soils impacts associated with former agricultural uses, it would not be possible to utilize and/or relocate the majority of existing vegetation on the subject property." —+ The Town of Southold required the developer to inventory those trees on the property that were >6"diameter; 200 such trees were identified in Fall 2015 on the property,as noted on pg. 68 of the DEIS. The Town should further require the developer to save as many of the existing trees on the property, especially those that are located along the borders of the property next to existing neighborhoods(i.e.the West and South borders)to serve as habitat for any remaining wildlife and to provide screening. Here's the reasoning behind this: Over the last 8 years,the developer has removed many hundreds of red cedar and other tree species;this has been documented by the Town as the developer was cited (and fined)for removing trees after having been directed not to do so. These trees were dug live and balled with existing soil—so, logically,these must have been relocated to other sites(and likely sold). If these trees, and their associated soil, were deemed safe enough to relocate before then there is no reason whatsoever to contend that the soil associated with the remaining trees is not safe enough to relocate on the property(or leave in place). It is stated in the DEIS that"Based upon the 2014 field inspection,potential summer roosting habitat and foraging habitat for the federally-threatened northern long-eared bat is supported within the wooded portions of the subject property.However, as detailed previously,the overall habitat quality of these wooded habitats has been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances and colonization by non- native/invasive plant species. Accordingly, given the restricted extent and disturbed nature of the on- site woodlands,the site presents limited and marginal habitat potential for the northern long-eared bat." First, bats have been seen on the property(pg. 75 of the DEIS) and we regularly see bats of approximately the same size as northern long-eared bats in summer in our neighborhood at Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue-which is—200 yds from the property proposed for the condominium complex. 9 It is certainly possible that these may be the threatened long-eared bat; given that the 46 acre tract is the largest contiguous undisturbed habitat it may be likely that these bats are utilizing this property for roosting. Second,there is no substantive basis for the conclusion that the overall habitat quality of the wooded habitats on the property is degraded to the point that long-eared bats would be less likely to utilize these woodlands.No evidence is presented in the DEIS that supposed colonization of the property by non-native plant species would affect the ability of bats to roost, nor is there any evidence that long- eared bats only roost in native vegetation and not in non-native trees. The conclusions of the DEIS are purely speculative. But that is not even the most important point here: the most important fact is that bats have been seen at and nearby to the subject property. -->As northern long-eared bats are a federally threatened species,protected under the US Endangered Species Act; surely, further work needs to be done to determine if this species is utilizing the subject property. The DEIS states that, "consultations with the USFWS would be necessary to determine potential species impacts or development restrictions associated with northern long-eared bat." This is absolutely necessary—but this cannot just be a nod to a possible conversation. I urge the Planning Board and Planning Dept to authorize an independent assessment by the US Fish&Wildlife Service to determine if these bats are using the property. They should also be the lead agency that determines whether the relevant habitat on the property slated for development needs to be protected, and to what extent. —+ Also, since the first step of the proposed Heritage plan is to level and completely remove all of the vegetation on the 46 acre tract, I urge the Planning Board to put a freeze on the further removal of trees or disturbance of other habitats by the developer. As noted above,hundreds,perhaps thousands, of trees have already been removed by the developer in the last several years;this may very well be why the site is characterized in the DEIS as having been exposed to anthropogenic disturbance!! --+ Also, as assessment of the vegetation and wildlife at the site has only been done in the Fall,the Town should require a thorough series of comprehensive assessments of the existing natural resources (including vegetation and animal species)on the subject property during the most meaningful and pertinent times of theme, including: early-mid spring(when wildflowers bloom but before leaves emerge on trees and bushes);mid-late spring(i.e. mid-May to mid-June)when many native birds are nesting and when migratory songbirds travel through our area; and summer-fall when different species of plants and animals(including bats,as mentioned above) are clearly evident. This is a much better way to determine if there are any species and/or habitats of special significance. These surveys need to be done by qualified, impartial personnel(such as staff of the NYSDEQ. —> See above sections under`Surface Water' for discussion of spring peepers and eastern box turtles. As wildlife that survives the construction phase would migrate offsite, as detailed in the DEIS,the potential certainly exists for the dispersal of disease vectors such as ticks- which on Long Island are most commonly associated with deer, cottontail rabbits and white-footed mice; all of these species are found on the subject property. 10 In early summer 2007, we found a Lone Star tick in our backyard on Crown Land Lane for the first time in our 8 years as residents. This sighting may well have coincided with the first appearance of deer on our property during this same time period. I believe these deer were displaced by the removal of large numbers of trees from the proposed `Heritage' property during the prior year. This disruption to their native habitat likely has caused them to disperse to a wider area. This process will only get worse if the proposed `Heritage' project goes forward. -+I suggest that the Town require the developer to assess the potential for dispersal of tick vectors from the subject property resulting from the clearing of all of the vegetation so that the safety and well- being of local residents can be assured. Transportation-Traffic Conditions "To be conservative, a standard Condominium/Townhouse trip generation rate was used." Is this conservatively high or low?If impacts to local traffic patterns are being evaluated,it would certainly be most appropriate to use a conservatively high rate of traffic volume. The new(2014)traffic study,which is detailed in Appendix G of the DEIS,was done on one weekday and one weekend day in October. The DEIS states that this time of year was done to represent a period of maximal traffic conditions,but how much can really be learned by looking at something once? One of the very first rules that is taught in scientific analysis is to do sampling at multiple times(i.e. replication) in order to get a better idea of what is really going on. --), The DEIS projects vehicle trips from the proposed condominium complex based on the number of units; does this take into account the actual number of automobiles that would be parked in the proposed complex(>250)? The DEIS projects the number of trips to/from the proposed complex,but to more fairly evaluate the increase in traffic volume generated,percentage increases need to be shown. Also,why weren't data collected for Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane?As a resident of this neighborhood, I am familiar with the volume of traffic to/from these streets and I can personally state that the numbers shown for Cases Lane are well below those seen for Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane. The DEIS states that an impact was shown at three intersections: Main Rd and North St., CR 48 and Depot Lane, Main Rd and Depot Lane. But the DEIS states on pg. xxiii of the Executive Summary"In addition,the delay change for these intersections with a decrease in LOS [Level of Service] would not be noticeable to drivers."Pg. xxiv: "Any increases in delay at the study intersections are deemed insignificant."By whom?A decrease in level of service means that the time it takes to navigate an intersection takes longer, due to more traffic-so no driver will notice this?What? --+ I suggest that the Town require the developer to assess the impacts of increased traffic volume from the proposed development in percentages; also,the percent change in wait times to make turns, particularly left turns, should also be evaluated. Furthermore,traffic flows to/from Highland Rd and Crown Land Lane should be evaluated in the same manner(i.e. percent change in traffic flow and wait time for turning). -Will increased traffic volume necessitate new traffic lights being installed in Cutchogue village? 11 - If so, will the taxpayers or the developer be responsible for the cost of new traffic lights? Land Use,Zoning and Plans It is stated on pg xxv of the DEIS Executive Summary: "Likewise,businesses in the Cutchogue hamlet center are expected to benefit from establishment of new housing in that community." This implicit assumption is not a given. If traffic backs up markedly on Main Rd as motorists travel into downtown Cutchogue(which it often does already on weekends),motorists may choose to avoid Cutchogue altogether and travel on North Road(CR 48)—in which case there may even be a reduction in commerce conducted at Main Rd businesses in Cutchogue. —+ This needs to be evaluated more thoroughly in a more comprehensive traffic study. As stated in the DEIS: "The proposed residential condominium use would be consistent with surrounding development,which includes other higher-density residential subdivisions(i.e., along Highland Road) and a mix of both higher-density commercial and residential uses in the hamlet center corridor along NY 25." --+ The proposed condominium complex is not consistent with any form of development on the North Fork. On Highland Rd,the housing density is 1 per acre; it is more than 5 per acre in the proposed condominium complex. This needs to be given considerable weight by the Town and Suffolk County. Zoning The DEIS states that"The proposed project would include 124 residential condominium units, subject to covenants and restrictions limiting occupancy of the units to person 55 years or older, a spouse of any age, children or grandchildren residing with a permissible occupant provided they are 19 years of age or older,and individuals residing with and providing support to a permissible occupant." This is very vague. The clause"providing support"is extremely broad: does this include physical, emotional and/or other forms of support?If so, children of school age are clearly not precluded from living in these condominiums. This can be the only logical explanation for the fact that the developer contacted Dr. Anne Smith, Superintendent of the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District, by mail on Sept, 24, 2014,to inquire about the capacity of local schools and whether they would be able to accommodate school age children from the development(Appendix C of the DEIS). --* If school age children live in the condominium complex and are allowed to attend our local schools, this would place an additional tax burden on the residents of Cutchogue and Mattituck who pay full taxes for schools,whereas the condominium owners would pay a much discounted rate— this is completerunfair! -+ To eliminate the possibility of school aged children living in the condominiums,without their parents paying the same level of taxes as other residents of the town,a specific provision should be included that prohibits any children from the proposed complex from attending local public schools -or—residents of the condominium complex should have to pay full taxes to the Town of Southold. 12 Relevant Comprehensive Plans As stated on pg xxix of the Executive Summary: "The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the operation or use of the Mattituck-Cutchogue bicycle and pedestrian route as the additional vehicular trips on Griffmg Street [sic: Avenue] and Schoolhouse Lane would not significantly increase the level of service on these roadways." This is a very subjective determination: it is purely an opinion of the developer which is not supported by any factual information. The condominium complex will generate much more traffic than currently emanates from the subject property. Purely from a probability standpoint,the likelihood of a greater risk to bicyclists and pedestrians from Heritage traffic is irrefutable. The question is not if,but what, the level of greater risk would be. Fire Protection and Ambulance Services On pg xxxi of the Executive Summary the argument is made that"...it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact on fire or ambulance service within the community." --�The Cutchogue Fire Department has expressed reservations about their ability to answer calls from the condominium complex, should it be built. This is a serious issue. If a greater level of fire protection is required,residents of the condominium complex should be required to bear any and all additional costs—not existing residents of the Town. Communitv Character On pg xxxiv of the Executive Summary it is stated that the condominium complex will not change the character of Cutchogue. These words ring hollow on the ears of people that live of Cutchogue.Nothing even close to this level of building density, or to the extent and duration of construction, exists here. If this one gets built, it doesn't seem likely that this will be the only one of its kind to rise from the undisturbed farm fields of the North Fork. (see section below on Growth-Inducement). Long-term Impacts It is stated on pg. 214 of the DEIS that"The visual character of the site would be modified. However, the site would be developed with a residential community contextual with the character in the surrounding community." —> This is absurd.Nothing remotely similar to the character of this development exists in the hamlet of Cutchogue. The proposed development represents a glaring example of overdevelopment. Alternatives No Action Alternative On pg A of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "If the No Action Alternative is implemented, there would be no construction-related impacts,but the ongoing lack of varied housing for seniors within an area zoned for higher density would persist." As described above,this perceived argument is countered by numerous references,throughout the DEIS,to the expected clientele of the proposed condominium complex: e.g.pg xxxi of the Executive Summary: "As such, and because the proposed project would likely serve a large seasonal population,..." 13 —► If these condominium units are to serve as seasonal residences for `snowbirds' how much are these units actually going to benefit local senior citizens who are looking to downsize from their current homes. It seems reasonable to conclude that much of the clientele of the proposed development will not come from the North Fork. Partial or Full Preservation On pg xl of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "In addition,the Preservation Alternative would not establish a cohesive,attractive and convenient residential development on an underutilized property. With appropriate density in conformance with Town zoning regulations, which would also achieve several goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan." Natural areas are often perceived by developers as `underutilized'. Perhaps it is a philosophical question as the whether a housing development is more attractive than a fallow farm field with native wildflowers and resident wildlife. —+But, in fact,the preservation of the site would undoubtedly achieve more goals of the Comprehensive Plan Southold 2020,than going through with the condominium construction, as outlined in the chapters on"Community Character", "Land Preservation"and"Natural Resources & Environmental Protection". Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment On pg xli of the Executive Summary it is stated that: "It has been suggested there is public concern related to the disposal of pharmaceuticals in the project sanitary system, and that an STP would address this issue. However, STP technology does not treat or remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater,and would not,therefore,address pharmaceutical disposal issues." —+ This is patently false. A 2013 paper in Scientific American concluded that"Only about half of the prescription drugs and other newly emerging contaminants in sewage are removed by treatment plants." m1 11'Q f.. g -(L- y�- qg t[!, tm it!); however,this means that a sewage treatment plant would remove half and therefore would help reduce the levels of drugs and toxins entering our drinking water and our creeks and bays. Residents of Cutchogue with whom I have spoken with are greatly concerned over this issue. pg xlii of the Executive Summary states that: "Concerns by the Town related to the impacts of nitrogen, potentially present in sanitary effluent..." Nitrogen is not potentiallx present in sewage effluent; it is present. Completing the quote from pg xlii of the Executive Summary: "Concerns by the Town related to the impacts of nitrogen,potentially present in sanitary effluent, led to the third alternative,which is to install one of the sewage treatment technologies outlined in the SCDHS General Guidance Memorandum #32 Conforming to the Commercial Standards Appendix A. These systems have been evaluated by the SCDHS and were found to treat wastewater flows up to 15,000 gpd,which is less than the estimated 22,500 gpd for the proposed project." 14 —> Then, why not use two? Growth Inducement The New York State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR)handbook states that an assessment of growth-inducement, an impact resulting from the approval of an activity(e.g. approval of a proposed development)must be made in an applicant's EIS. As defined in the SEQR handbook, "Some activities will encourage or lead to further increases in population or business activity. This type of secondary impact is called growth inducement. When conducting an environmental assessment, it is important to recognize activities which may induce growth because a consideration of the whole action must examine likely impacts of such growth, such as the need for additional sewer,water and other services; increased traffic congestion; or accelerated loss of open space. The DEIS concludes (pg. 217)that"...implementation of the proposed action is not expected to induce additional growth within the community". —> I believe that more needs to be done to determine whether this assertion is reasonable. If the Cutchogue Fire Department has reservations about their ability to service the increase in calls at the development,then this matter clearly needs to be investigated more thoroughly. It is also reasonable to suggest that approval of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project may induce growth in the Hamlet of Cutchogue (e.g. increase in number of businesses and development near to the subject property—such as development of existing land between the Cutchogue Post Office and the proposed entrance to the condominium complex) - as well as in the Town of Southold. The SEQR handbook states "The growth inducement section of an EIS should thus describe any further development which the proposed action may support or encourage, such as: i. attracting significant increases in local population by creating or relocating employment, or by providing support facilities or services (stores,public services, etc.), or ii. increasing the development potential of a local area, for example,by the extension of roads, sewers,water mains,or other utilities. If this development is approved, it would increase the population of Cutchogue by—10%and would represent the largest and amongst the highest density projects in the Town of Southold; it is certainly within reason to suggest that the extension of the water main from Depot Lane to the subject property may accelerate the likelihood that the current organic farmland due East of the subject property(on Depot Lane) is converted into a housing development—especially if the construction activity and subsequent occupancy of the property impacts the organic certification of the farm through mobilization of heavy metals and other toxins such as pesticides,herbicides and pharmaceuticals. It is also possible that approval of the Heritage project may accelerate the number of other large developments proposed and perhaps approved by the Town. This would be a clear-cut example of growth inducement. As quoted in the SEQR handbook"When discussing growth inducement in the EIS, it is important to quantify growth effects to the extent possible given available information, and to document sources of data and growth predictions." 15 -->This has not been done adequately in the DEIS; no data or growth predictions are provided. This needs to be done in order to more properly evaluate whether the project, if approved,would be expected to cause growth-inducement. In sum,there are many serious environmental and community impacts that would result if the proposed Heritage development goes forward as planned; as outlined above,these require more comprehensive investigation and careful consideration. I believe the risks of the proposed development far outweigh the potential benefits and thus,ultimately, I urge you to stop this development from going forward. Thank you for your consideration, Stephen Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue,NY 11935 stephen.tettelbach@wnail.com 631-682-2865 and Professor of Biology, Long Island University 720 Northern Blvd. Brookville,NY 11548 cc: Mr. Pierce Rafferty, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. William Cremers, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. James Rich, Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. Martin Sidor, Town of Southold Planning Board Ms. Heather Lanza, Director of Planning, Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Mark Terry, Principal Planner, Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Brian Cummings, Planner, Town of Southold Planning Department Ms. Alyxandra Sabatino,Planner, Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. Scott Russell, Supervisor, Town of Southold Mr. John Bredemeyer,President,Town of Southold Board of Trustees 56b�7 Michaelis, Jessica From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 8:24 AM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: FW:The Heritage Please print for the file (public comments). Thank you From: michael [mailto:evers89@hotmail.com] Sent:Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:29 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject:The Heritage Dear Heather, I am writing you in regards to The Heritage Project in the Hamlet of Cutchogue and my strong opposition to it. As you may or may not know, the Southold Town Planning Board is at this time considering a 120 to 140 unit, 55+condo complex in downtown Cutchogue. This project is of particular interest to me as I live with my family which includes 11 year old twin boys on Schoolhouse Rd in Cutchogue. Schoolhouse Rd according to the Heritage plan is to be the ONLY point of entrance and exit for this community during the construction of and the only active entrance/exit for residents following its completion. As a resident of Cutchogue I am outraged that such a project is even being considered for this area and as a father I am particularly concerned about the safety of my children. The construction period of this project is to take approximately 5 years to complete and go six days a week from sun up till sun down. That is nearly every day of my life for the next 5 years putting up with dozens of construction workers cars everyday, dozens of cement trucks, heavy machinery, supply trucks etc. going up and down this small back road. The very same road I walk my dog on, my children play on and myself and my neighbors live quietly on. There is a church and parochial school 300 yards from the construction site. There are athletic fields on-the road that are used 8-9 months out of the year for practices and games. More importantly there are families and children, my children,that live on the only road to be used during and after this project is to be built. The road is very narrow and has no sidewalks. What is going to happen to our home and our lives once this project is given the green light? The quality of our lives and the lives of our neighbors in the vicinity of this project will be irreparably changed for the worse and there does not seem to be any one in authority doing anything to stop it. I am not a naive person. I fully understand that landowners have the right to do what they wish with their property within reason. The Heritage of Cutchogue is most certainly Not within reason. A project of this size in the area where it is proposed is an incredible mistake. Downtown Cutchogue is already congested enough and to add a project of this scope to the mix is only asking for trouble. As it stands now it is nearly impossible on some days to exit onto Main Rd from any of our side streets. Add dozens of workers, equipment and eventually a possible 250 to 300 vehicle a day is insane. The DEIS the Heritage people submitted included a traffic study that was conducted over 2 days and it conveniently concluded that the Heritage will have no impact on traffic!!! The stupidity of this report does not deserve comment. Its as if you planned a dinner for 10 in your home and 100 showed up—think it might be a little congested?? a. The bottom line is The Heritage is just wrong for the hamlet of Cutchogue. It is far to big and will cause far to many problems for the citizens of our town. In a time when there is a cry for affordable housing for our young families, couldn't this property be used to house 30-40 local families as opposed to 130 different retirees from Nassau and Queens? The future of Cutchogue and the future of my family in this town is in your hands. Please listen to the good people of Cutchogue and stop the Heritage before the place we know and love is gone forever. Sent from my iPad Sincerely, Michael Evers 2 i 'M�a�iilirt:al�9'lart �i V-IaimOq uoaii d 280 Fairway Drive Cutchogue,NY 11935 December 14,2015 Donald Wilcenski Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr.Wilcenski, I read an article in the Suffolk Times announcing a public hearing addressing the site plans for the Heritage at Cutchogue for January 11,2016. I regret that I will not be able to attend,however I am hoping this letter be read into the public record. My wife and I and many of our friends have hoped this project would come to completion as we desire to live in such a community. Over the years there has been many compromises concerning this plan from both the town and the developer. It would appear that significant progress has been accomplished recently. Please remember this project is only requesting what is and was legally allowed when this property was purchased by the developer. I am aware of the emotional objection by many,but"I don't want it"is not a legal reason to interfere with the application. I applaud the board's efforts to keep the focus on meaningful themes such as the number and size of units, open space,traffic, and water quality. You and the Board have a difficult task in balancing what is legal and what is in the best interest of our community. As my wife and I have visited other areas we are disappointed to see such wonderful communities specifically developed for people in our position,but virtually none here in Southold town. There are many 55 and older people who live on the North Fork and would like to downsize to a simpler lifestyle and remain in the place we love. As I end this letter I simply want to thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours Michael Nickich fall(( 3 2.i�15 Submission to the Southold Town Planning Board ba owe'l re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Project Ri�iniogBoad From The Cutchogue Diner " August 31, 2015 I am the owner of"The Cutchogue Diner,"the famous local restaurant located on route 25 in the middle of Cutchogue. We are a landmark vintage diner that has been in business since at least 1941. I have owned the Diner 28 years. In 2006, apparently in preparation for the Heritage at Cutchogue development, four parking spaces were eliminated on the north side of route 25 between Griffing St. and Case's Lane. These spaces are right across the street from the Diner. After nearly three years of lobbying the Southold Transportation Commission and the NYS Dept. of Transportation, I was able to get these parking spaces restored. However it was explained to me at the time, that if and when a development might happen in the future, these spaces could be eliminated again. Now this proposed development is back and seeking approval from Southold Town. I am writing to urge the Town Planning Board and the NYS Dept. of Transportation to never take away these parking spaces because of this development project. The following is a list of the reasons: • For our business, the elimination of these crucial parking spaces means is that anyone traveling west through town can no longer pull over and park in order to patronize our restaurant. Only travelers coming from the east can pull in front of our diner and park legally. • During the three years that the NYSDOT took away these spaces our business decreased significantly. • As with most other small older businesses in town, we have no room for off-street parking, so parking in the street is the only option. For us, parking along both sides of the road is critical for business. • Significant consideration should be given to the fact that our business has thrived in Cutchogue for more than 70 years, well before any new development project. • The lack of the westbound parking also has dangerous consequences. When these spaces were eliminated, we saw many drivers traveling west do a U-turn in the middle of route 25 just to find a place to park on the east side of the street. • Eliminating these spaces appears to have no logical purpose. If a driver is turning out of Griffing Street onto route 25, the line of vision is quite clear from both directions. That is because there is already "No Standing allowed from here to corner" for about two car spaces west of Griffing Street. Therefore I respectfully ask that these parking spaces that are so crucial to our business never be eliminated because of the Heritage at Cutchogue Project. Thank you. John Touhey Owner of The Cutchogue Diner W 1 SCE l 14` �Y fax Lanza, Heather � Nvi6n�g Board From: Tom Palmer <kptap@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:23 PM To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Fwd: Heritage at Cutchogue Hearing 8/31/15 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: Tom Palmer<tapkp@icloud.com> To: kptap <kptap@aol.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 02:16 PM Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue Hearing 8/31/15 PO Box 218 Cutchogue,NY 11935-0218 8/31/15 To: Planning Board Town of Southold Re: Heritage at Cutchogue Hearing I am writing to you in regards to your meeting about"The Heritage at Cutchogue." I believe that if Southold is going to allow a new community to be developed, it should be designed in such a way as to allow everyone access to it. I therefore would like to know if there are any provisions in the current Heritage plans to address the needs of people over 55 who need ADA complaint structures now or in the future. It is clear that it would be much more cost effective to include ADA complaint structures into the current construction plans than to have someone modify and redesign a unit after its constructed. If the answer to my question is no, then I would strongly ask the Board to consider this idea as it moves forward with the "Heritage at Cutchogue." I look forward to hearing from you in regards to these matters. If you have any questions or need further information contact me at 631-298-8275 or Kptap ao,,,,.,com Sincerely, Mr. Thomas Palmer Sent from my iPad April 25,2015 Mr. Bryan Knipfing '� �� 1735 Clearview Avenue f ` Southold,NY 11971 , ,_..,,. Ms. Heather M.Lanza,AICPn � w Planning Director Town Hall Annex Building P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 To Ms.Lanza and the Planning Board, I would like to thank you for your service to the Town of Southold and your concern for the future of Southold. I am writing to express my opposition to the Heritage at Cutchogue project that is being considered by the Southold Planning Board. I believe that such a massive project of 130 units will have major adverse effects on our groundwater,the local environment,traffic, and the overall quant feeling of the hamlet of Cutchogue. This project is excessive and dangerous to the drinking water,local ecology of the area,and character of our town. Thank you for your consideration and I hope the planning board takes the time to do a full investigation into the impact of a project of this magnitude. Sincerely, Bryan Knipfing