The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHeritage Cutchogue DEIS Revised_10-15/ / � � / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / � � I / . , � � � � ' � � , , ./,/ , / � / � � f, . , i � . . . �, . i,� .,/ . � � . � .. � . .. / � .. � .. � � . /� il � � � � f' i� i ��, " , „ , ; i . r /. , ,/ ��, /,. i / i :,, , i / , �. / ii � i ii � /. �� / i „/ i , o .. , i i i, / � , i / / / / i i,,,, / ,/ , , . , i, / , , i ,/ , �� i. , _ , i,, _ , , , , �i , , // f _ , � � _ , � , , � , / , �, � , � , „ �, , i � �, , _ � , �. _ „ � i,. , � � �.� //, � �� i, � ,, ,� i , ,. . �/ � , _ i. , �. � / � o � , i � i � ��., � / � , i ,i, i , / � � �. �/ �/ . �. i o � i ,, i � i � i� i, , ,. i // , i r � i � �. ,/ � i / /, // / / /. /, / / / ./ �/ ii i</ , /, //% //, , / , / / / / / / , /,. w / /./, / � , / /, i i % �/ / / � / . , / / /,. // i/ � /, i // � / / / / i/ i � /. / /,/ „i /% � / /. , . /i / / i /,,i i, / f , i, . ,. ih , ,/ i i„�/ / /./ /, // / // / / / /, � /�,/, � /, ✓/ i o r f / / / / � � � , / „ , i, . /, � � / / / � i , � i, , /, , i / i i i i � , /, i // / � , jf � � � „i / , i „ , � i ,/ i , i �� , � i i / % i,�, , i � „ �� , i , i i / i / i / / /u ../,i / i / i / / i , � � %/ / / _ , ,, / / , /i , / _ i i,%, � / i� f � / / , �i , / � � /,/ / / i /i / / i �, / ✓ /.� � ,// � � /, , .// / _ /. / / i '� // � Y / / / � /,/ /%. /� / �/ / „/ / //� % si, / / /_ i/. , ,/ „ % /�/ . /O/ i / �i � Yi , /. � j /, , ,/ i � i � , � , , � i, � / / /, ii i _ /�/. ,� /i . / i . / , / � ,.l/ � /v„/ ii /, � / � / / /. / _ i� / i , / ,.i % // % � . � / . / i// /� / i , „ i / / / i, , , _ , / i / // / / . �. , � / // / i ., i / / /� �,� �� / i �, � / , /,// a / / ,�/, i,, i / , i., /„ ,/ � _ , ,� / / i � , i/ < � / � . /. � � , ,, / � <, ,,, � „� i ,i / ,� / / /� % � / � ��i ii / / � / � // � ii i/ � / � � / � / � a � i � i / / / . ii � /. � . / , � / i / i i ? _� �/ . i % i / � /. _ / / / / , // / / / . / �i� iii�/ ///,, �//o , / ii ��i ii� �i///. io i� � iii� �/i�i i� �/�i i, , _ i� i i ii/ � .� � i /i ii�� i/i _// � i .��ii ii i , /� / � �� /�/. // //� // /// / / / �i ,i�� i , / /� �/ /�// ,, �. /� _ � / � , � i , ,// /� �/ �� / , �/, , /, . ./ ,�/ �/// , . . , ./ ./ . �. , , . .F . � . / , . . / � , . /, . / , // � // / , , � / . � / / . /, / . . . i . . ./ . . _ / , /% . /. ./ , // . / , .// ,, /. / / , , . , /, /, % _ / � , , , , , , ,,,< , , ,,. �, , /. _ i i, , r � / i � ,/ � �i / / .. i , i /i� i /i ii / , . � � � , i i /.. �,i / „ ✓ / i .✓ ,/ , , � i � / , „ / � / /i, �i �,, , � / / i i _ � � i , , / i i / , � �i /., ✓/ a / / , �,/„i // ✓% i iva / ,/ , / /, / / /. / , /, . � i. / �% �, / i , /, ,. �, i, � � �. � �, � � , , i � �, , . ,� _ i� / / / � . i, / � / / , , % / _ �� i/ i�i �, / �, _ , , ,, , /,/ � ��ii/�i , i � i ,/ � i, . , ,� � , � � / /,i, i i � / � /� � , � / i ii / � / / � � / � / . ✓,, // � �� ,// / / / / � .�//,, „ < /// //,, ,, // / %/ // / / ii/./% � /,. / / /////�� a / % i /. / � , / / / % , ., / / / , , , � .� .. / / � , � / , //� .. � , ,.. � , ii i, .. �, ., , �,,, � , i / „ �,i,. . �. , � �� . ,i. ,i� ,, � /� �i. , a / /� . , , �. _ / ,� ., . � ,, � � , r� �� , , , � � � ,� � � � � � � � � , , , , � � f rt � r r � � f , . , � � � � � / i i i , i / r // � , i , / � i J / / � � f / � � i i i i i i � r i � � � J l f i r � �1 � �� , i � , , i 1 � � , � i � , � i � i i i l i � � , , i/ J � / � � � , ///, // , , , , , , , , , , , , , , � � f f , i , , � 1 , , , I , , I , / , , , , / , , � i � , i � � , , � , � �lu�� uim� iiioioi IUu�� uim��ioi� � io�i �Omi� II� � � ium � �� uiu �� iuiui�IIIIII ��uum mi�i IUu�� iliu��ioioi IIIIIII iium''��IIIIII �� I,� . . � � - � � � - �~',. ,- . � � -�I I� � � .,.�. � i �� III � � ` IIIII �IIIII � � � � I�I �� r� � �'�i � � DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: 45.99±acres located on the north side of the Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane intersection in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York APPLICANT: The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford NY, 11763 Contact: Jeffrey H.Rimland (631)207-5730 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Rd P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Contact: Donald Wilcenski,Chairman (631)765-1938 PREPARER&CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VHB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,P.C. 100 Motor Parkway,Suite 135 Hauppauge,New York 11788 Contacts: Kevin Walsh,Principal Angelo Laino,PE,Project Manager David M. Wortman, Director of Environmental Services (631)787-3400 With technical input from: Charles W.Kuehn,Architect P.O.Box 641 Northport,New York 11768 �� r� � �'�i � � DATE OF PREPARATION: October 2015 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)prepared in accordance with 6 NYCRR�617.9. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency. A copy of the DEIS is also available for review at the Cutchogue New Suffolk Free Library,located at 27550 Main Road, Cutchogue,New York 11935 and the document is available online at http://www.southoldtownny.gov. �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................i 1.0 Description of the Proposed Project......................................................................................1 1.1 Project Background,Need,Objectives and Benefits.................................................1 1.2 Location and Site Conditions...................................................................................11 1.3 Project Design and Layout.......................................................................................11 1.4 Construction and Operation.....................................................................................18 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required.............................................................................20 2.0 Natural Environmental Resources........................................................................................21 2.1 Soils.........................................................................................................................21 2.2 Water Resources.....................................................................................................31 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife............................................................................................62 3.0 Human Environmental Resources........................................................................................89 3.1 Transportation..........................................................................................................89 3.2 Land Use,Zoning and Plans..................................................................................130 3.3 Community Facilities and Services........................................................................178 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health.......189 3.5 Archaeological Resources.....................................................................................208 4.0 Other Required Sections......................................................................................................210 4.1 Use and Conservation of Energy...........................................................................210 4.2 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................212 4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided............................................................213 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.......................................215 4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects.......................................................................................216 5.0 Alternatives...........................................................................................................................218 5.1 No Action Alternative.............................................................................................219 5.2 Partial or Full Preservation.....................................................................................222 5.3 Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment.......................................................223 6.0 References............................................................................................................................225 List of Appendices Appendix A -- Engineering Plans Appendix B -- Stipulation of Settlement and Final Scope Appendix C -- Correspondence Appendix D -- Testing and Soil Management Plan Appendix E -- Water Resources Appendix F -- Natural Resources Appendix G -- Traffic Impact Study Appendix H -- Photographic Inventory Appendix I -- Taxes Appendix J -- Building Elevations and Floor Plans Appendix K -- Phase I Archaeological Investigations Appendix L -- GrassPave2 Brochure Table of Contents �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� List of Fiqures Figure1 -Site Location.............................................................................................................................2 Figure2-Excerpt of Tax Map...................................................................................................................3 Figure3-Soils........................................................................................................................................23 Figure 4-Depth to Groundwater.............................................................................................................34 Figure5-Hydrogeologic Zone................................................................................................................35 Figure 6-Ecological Communities..........................................................................................................63 Figure 7-Study Intersections..................................................................................................................93 Figure 8-Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................................95 Figure 9-Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................................96 Figure 10-Existing Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................................................97 Fiqure 10-1 -No-Build AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................................105 Fiqure 10-2-No-Build PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................................106 Fiqure 10-3-No-Build Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...............................................................107 Fiqure 10-4-Site-Generated AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..............................................................112 Fiqure 10-5-Site-Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..............................................................113 Fiqure 10-6 Site-Generated Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................114 Figure 11 -Build AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................115 Figure 12-Build PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................116 Figure 13-Build Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................117 Figure14-Existing Land Uses.............................................................................................................131 Figure15-Zoning Map Excerpt............................................................................................................135 Figure16-HALO Map..........................................................................................................................152 List of Tables Table 1 -Existing and Proposed Site Data..............................................................................................13 Table 2-Required and Proposed On-site Parking..................................................................................15 Table 3-Required Permits and Approvals..............................................................................................20 Table 4 -Soils at the Subject Property...................................................................................................22 Table 5-Agricultural Land Classifications of Soils On-Site....................................................................25 Table 6-Anticipated Water Demand......................................................................................................48 Table 7-Anticipated Sanitary Waste Generation...................................................................................49 Table 8-Total System Capacity-Required and Provided,by Drainage Area........................................53 Table 9-Accident Data Tabulation-Data from NYSDOT ALIS...........................................................102 Table 10-Accident Data Tabulation-Data from NYSDOT ALIS.........................................................103 Table11 -Trip Generation....................................................................................................................110 Table 12-Level of Service Summary-Signalized Intersection-AM Peak Hour.................................119 Table 13-Level of Service Summary-Signalized Intersection-PM Peak Hour.................................120 Table 14-Level of Service Summary-Signalized Intersection-Weekend Peak Hour........................121 Table 15-Level of Service Summary-Unsignalized Intersections-AM Peak Hour............................122 Table 16-Level of Service Summary-Unsignalized Intersections-PM Peak Hour............................123 Table 17-Level of Service Summary-Unsignalized Intersections-Weekend Peak Hour..................124 Table 18-Mitigation Level of Service Summary—Unsignalized Intersection-PM Peak Hour............129 Table 19-Mitigation Level of Service Summary—Unsignalized Intersection-Weekend Peak Hour..129 Table 20-Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Regulations of the HD Residence Zoning District..............133 Table 21 -Applicable Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for the HD Residence Zoning District 134 Table 22-Site Coverages: Existing and Post-Development.................................................................162 Table 23-Consistency with Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Zoning Regulations of the HD Residence Zoning District..............................................................................................165 Table 24-Existing 2014 Property Tax Revenues.................................................................................181 Table 25-Projected Tax Revenues for The Heritage at Cutchogue(High Estimate)...........................187 Table 26-Projected Tax Revenues for The Heritage at Cutchogue(Low Estimate)............................187 Table 27-Noise Levels of Common Sources.......................................................................................196 Table of Contents �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Executive Summary Introduction This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act[SEQRA])and the implementing regulations promulgated in 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations(NYCRR)Part 617 by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). This DEIS,which is an amendment of a DEIS for a previously-proposed project,evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the construction of a 124-unit condominium development(the proposed project, proposed action,or The Heritage at Cutchogue)on approximately 45.99 acres located at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold(the Town),Suffolk County,New York(the subject property or project site). The subject property is designated as Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102.00-01.00-33.003. There is a Stipulation of Settlement between the Town and the subject property owner(Nocro,Ltd.) and The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC(the applicant)that is the basis for the proposed action. This settlement has been agreed to in litigation brought by the subject property owner and the applicant after the applicant's site plan application,which had been pending before the Town since 2005,was rendered non-approvable by purported amendments by the Town to Chapter 280 of the Town of Southold Town Code(Town Code).The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the subject property may be developed and used in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid purported amendments to Chapter 280 of the Town Code, and further establishes specific development parameters,which are followed for the proposed action. The Town issued The Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(Final Scope),for the applicant's previously-proposed site plan. However,this amended DEIS has been prepared,in accordance with SEQRA,to evaluate the potential significant adverse impacts on the environment of the proposed action,which differs from the applicant's previously-submitted site plan. i Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based upon the Stipulation of Settlement,the proposed project includes the development of a 124-unit', age-restricted condominium complex with 72 1,599- square foot units,52 1,999-square foot units,and associated appurtenances. This Executive Summary is designed solely to provide an overview of the proposed action, a brief summary of the potential adverse impacts identified and mitigation measures proposed as well as alternatives considered.Review of the Executive Summary is not a substitute for the full evaluation of the proposed action performed in Sections 1.0 through 5.0 of this DEIS. Background and History For more than 24 years, since 1989,there have been numerous attempts by the property owner and the current applicant to develop the subject property in compliance with prevailing zoning(i.e.,zoning applicable to the subject property at the time of application submission).Provided below is the background and history of those application attempts that have led to the current proposed project. The subject property was historically farmed,for several decades, prior to the early- 1980s.In July 1983,the Town Board granted an application to change the zoning classification of the subject property from A Residential-Agricultural to M Light Multiple-Residence District—permitting various residential uses,including multi- family residential development.Farming at the subject property ceased in September 1983 when new owners purchased the site.In 1986,the subject property again changed owners,whose intention was to develop the vacant site with multi-family residential uses that would be economically feasible.The then new owners submitted a site plan application and related DEIS for the development of the subject property with 160 multi-family residential units.In accordance with SEQRA,the Town accepted the DEIS as complete in 1989;however,the SEQRA process was never concluded.In early 1989,the Town Board repealed the M Light Multiple-Residence District and established the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District and, as such, changed the zoning of the subject property.The stated purpose of the HD zoning district, as set forth in�280-20 of the Code of the Town of Southold(Town Code), was and remains to "permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck,Cutchogue,Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport." In June 2002,the owner of the subject property entered into an agreement with the current applicant,The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC to allow the applicant to seek development of the subject property with uses permitted in the HD zoning district that would be economically feasible.During that same year,the applicant submitted a site plan for a 202-unit mixed residential development.The Town Board failed to act on the application and subsequently issued a six-month moratorium in August 2002 on the acceptance,processing,review,and making of decisions on applications � ................................................................................................................... �While the Stipulation allows up to 130 units,changes to the site plan have resulted in the loss of six units. ii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� for major subdivisions,minor subdivisions, special exception use permits,and site plans containing dwelling units in the Town.The moratorium prohibited the Planning Board from accepting for review, continuing review of,holding a public hearing upon,or making any decision upon any application for a site plan containing dwelling units.The moratorium was extended several times through February 2005. The applicant submitted a petition to the Town Board in August 2004 for a waiver from the moratorium to proceed with its submission of a 202-unit mixed residential plan for the subject property.The waiver was not granted. In June 2005,the applicant again submitted a site plan application,but now for the development of 150 residential units ranging in size from 2,250 and 2,450 square feet (excluding garages)to 2,500 and 2,700 square feet(including garages),in buildings containing four residential units each,as well as accessory facilities.The development constituted an Unlisted Action in accordance with SEQRA.The site plan application proposed that wastewater discharge for the proposed development of the subject property be handled by means of a community sewage treatment plant (STP),to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) and/or the Suffolk County Sewer Agency.SEQRA was never initiated by the Town for this application. In March 2006,the Town Board amended the use restrictions for the HD zoning district to provide, among other things,that one-family detached dwellings,two- family dwellings, and multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings be permitted uses but that more than one one-family detached dwelling on a lot,more than one two-family dwelling on a lot,and multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings would all be subject to the residential site plan approval process established by Local Law No. 1 of 2005.Based on the amended uses as well as discussions the applicant had with the Town, a new site plan application was submitted that proposed 139 detached residential units with accessory facilities.This proposal included 111 single-family detached units ranging in size from 1,135 square feet to 3,110 square feet, 14 attached single family duplex units and 14 attached multifamily units,which would be offered as affordable, and all of which would be available only to persons at least 55 years of age.The site plan application also proposed the use of individual sanitary disposal facilities to handle the wastewater discharge from the proposed development in lieu of the previously-proposed community STP? In December 2006, the Planning Board initiated a coordinated SEQRA review for the 139-unit site plan application with involved agencies and indicated its desire to serve as lead agency for the environmental review pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617.In July 2007,the Planning Board classified the project as a Type I Action and issued a Positive Declaration requiring � ................................................................................................................... z According to correspondence from the Town Attorney dated March 29,2007,the permitted density,under Chapter 280 of the Town Code,of one unit per 10,000 square feet where there is"community water and sewer"is applicable to the subject property as the Health Department will not require an"actual sewer system"because covenants and restrictions will be filed restricting occupancy on the subject property to those age 55 and older iii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� that a DEIS be prepared.The Planning Board held a scoping hearing on August 20, 2007 and issued a Final Scope on September 10,2007. A DEIS was submitted to the Town on December 24,2007.Opponents of the proposed project voiced their concerns at numerous meetings beginning in January 2008.On March 10,2008,the Planning Board adopted a resolution determining that the DEIS submitted was not adequate and required revision.The applicant subsequently filed revised versions of the DEIS on May 30,2008 and again on September 25,2008,which were both deemed inadequate by the Planning Board in June and October 2008, respectively.After the applicant's fourth submission of the DEIS on January 16,2009,the Planning Board's consultants considered the DEIS complete and adequate for public review.In the interim,however,the Town Board in January 2009,purported to adopt local laws that affected the Town's zoning and site plan regulations in ways that would render the applicant's site plan non- approvable.In a letter dated February 18,2009,the Town's Planning Director advised that the new local laws relative to residential site plans would apply to the applicant's extant application, and as such,the application did not meet the new Town Code and required revisions.Without a revised site plan application,the Planning Board ceased the site plan review process as well as the SEQRA review process. Litigation was initiated by the applicant against the Town,Town Board, and Planning Board in May 2009 regarding the pending site plan application for multi- family development of the subject property and the local laws adopted by the Town Board in 2009 that made the application non-compliant.In 2014,the parties negotiated a Stipulation of Settlement that,among other things,requires the amendment of the foregoing site plan application to propose a modified development of the subject property and also requires amendment of the DEIS previously prepared in connection with the site plan application so as to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the modified development plan.The Stipulation of Settlement specifically(1)provides that the development and use of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid purported local laws,(2)provides that the applicant's amended site plan application shall be reviewed based on such pre-existing provisions and regulations,and(3) sets forth specific development parameters for the proposed project, as follows: > No more than 130 residential condominium units,each comprised of one or more stories. > No more than 245,000 square feet of"floor,area,livable," as defined in�280-4 of the Town Code,which excludes community facilities,garages,breezeways, unheated porches, cellars,heater rooms, and approved basements having a window area of less than 10 percent of the square foot area of the room. > At least 50 percent of the subject property to be set aside as open space > Limited occupancy of all residential units to persons of the age of 55 years or older;a spouse of any age provided the spouse of such person resides in the unit and is the age of 55 years or older;children or grandchildren residing with a permissible occupant who are 19 years of age or older;and individuals, iv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� regardless of age,residing with and providing physical support to a permissible occupant. > Development in accordance with the use, area, dimensional,parking, drainage, and other regulations applicable to the HD zoning district as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement. The proposed action,which is based on the Stipulation of Settlement,incorporates, as mitigation,two of the alternatives that were to be considered in accordance with the Final Scope for the 139-unit development--namely,the Alternative Design and Reduction in Units Alternatives. Since they have been incorporated in the design of the proposed action,these two alternatives are not discussed in this DEIS. The other three alternatives that were required by the Final Scope—No Action,Partial or Full Preservation of the Property, and Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment—are analyzed in Section 5.0 of this DEIS. Public Need and Municipality Objectives The proposed project would provide for the development of a permanent,high- quality development on a property consistent with the current HD zoning designation.It would provide a mix of housing to include 72-1,599-(livable)-square foot units and 52-1,999-(livable)-square foot units.To reduce perceived or potential impacts associated with traffic generation and community facilities and in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,the proposed project would include a covenant and restriction that would limit the occupancy of the development to those individuals that are 55 years and older.Moreover,it is expected that this resident population would largely be seasonal. As reflected in Town Code�280-1,the HD zoning district was implemented to provide mixed housing uses and higher residential density in appropriate areas. Specifically,as previously noted,the Town Code states:the purpose of the HD Residential District is to "permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck,Cutchogue,Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport." As such,the proposed project would provide for a development that meets the purpose and intent of the existing subject property zoning while offering a development type that is not readily available in the hamlet or the Town,but that would serve the growing senior population. In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,in lieu of providing such units within the development,the applicant would pay the Town a total of$2.0 million for park and recreation, affordable housing,professional,and other fees other than post- site plan building permit and inspection fees.As such, as part of the approval of the proposed action,the Town would issue a waiver of�280-137E of the Town Code. v Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The proposed project would provide senior citizens with a type of residential development that is not readily available in the Town while also adhering to the appropriate density for those areas proximate to major hamlet centers. Further,the amount payable by the applicant,per the Stipulation of Settlement, would provide the Town with the opportunity to develop affordable housing as well as open space and recreation areas where it deems suitable.Also the proposed project would provide significant tax revenues to the local school district without increasing the demand for services.Therefore,the proposed residential project would meet the Towri s overarching goals by developing an underutilized property with appropriate density near a hamlet center in conformance with Town zoning regulations, providing funds for affordable housing and open space and recreation areas, and generating new tax revenues without causing a significant increase in the need for services.Development of the proposed project would also allow for the clean-up of impacted soils found throughout the 45.99±subject property that were a result of its prior agricultural use. Moreover,the implementation of the proposed project would result in the final resolution of the pending litigation between the Town and the subject property owner and applicant that has been suspended due to the Stipulation of Settlement as long as all parties abide by the settlement.Specifically,the Stipulation of Settlement may be declared null and void under any of the following circumstances: > Any procedure or action that is required or contemplated by the settlement to be followed,taken or completed by the Town,Town Board,Planning Board,or by any other board, department, agency,official,employee,or consultant of the Town that is not actually followed,taken,or completed,or is not followed,taken, or completed within or during any time period provided by the settlement, unless such time period shall have been extended or modified by prior written agreement. > Any procedure, action,or requirement that the settlement either prohibits or contemplates will not be followed,taken,or imposed by the Town,Town Board, Planning Board,or by any other board, department, agency,official,employee, or consultant of the Town is actually followed,taken,or imposed. > Any site plan determination for the subject property requires treatment of sanitary waste or wastewater by means other than clustered sanitary disposal systems. > Any site plan determination for the subject property requires treatment of sanitary waste or wastewater from outside the subject property. > The subject property owner and/or applicant issue a"Notice of Rejection,"based on the Town's determination of the amended site plan application or the conditions of such determination. > The settlement and/or the Planning Board's site plan determination for the subject property is/are annulled or modified by any one or more judicial or administrative actions or proceedings. vi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Objectives of the Project Sponsor The proposed project is intended to create a quality community with various amenities in conformance with the bulk, area,and parking regulations and development standards of the designated zoning district for the subject property,while achieving an economically feasible and attractive development. Such development would address the need for housing for the senior population in a community where varied housing types for this population are not prevalent, and would provide the Town with a tax surplus without a significant increase in the provision of services. Benefits of the Project The proposed project fulfills the Town's vision for the subject property as expressed by the site's HD zoning designation.By conforming to the uses allowed within the designated zoning district,the proposed project would further the Town's commitment to providing a mix of housing not readily available throughout the Town,while focusing higher density development proximate to hamlet centers as the subject property borders the Cutchogue hamlet center.As set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement,the applicant must provide$2.0 million to the Town for park and recreation, affordable housing and other fees. This would result in a benefit to the overall Town and its residents by providing funds to improve or increase park and recreation areas and affordable housing projects.Provided below is a summary of the key benefits of the proposed project: > Development of higher density residential units adjacent to the Cutchogue hamlet center, consistent with the Towri s vision for the HD zoning district pursuant to�280-20 of the Town Code and as recognized in the 2005 Town of Southold Hamlet Study and draft 2020 Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan. > Provision of housing for the 55 years old and older population,which is not readily available within the hamlet or the Town. > Allocation of funds for use by the Town for park and recreation and affordable housing purposes. > Creation of approximately 238 full-time equivalent construction jobs,3 based upon project construction costs. > Development of housing units with Energ,y Star features. > Addressing of impacted soils(due to past agricultural use)found throughout the subject property. > Generation of substantial new tax revenues for the Town without a significant related increase in demand for services. > Final resolution of pending litigation between the Town and the subject property owner and applicant. � ................................................................................................................... 3 Full-time equivalents equal about 2,000 annual Iabor hours vii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Project Design and Layout Overall Site Layout The proposed project involves the construction of 124 age-restricted condominium units on the approximately 45.99-acre subject property.The 124 units would consist of 52 two-story units with a maximum of 1,999 square feet of livable floor area (identified as Unit Types A and C),which would be available in a total of three configurations,and 72 units with a maximum of 1,599 square feet of livable floor area (identified as Unit Type B),which would be available as one-or two-story structures. To be conservative,it was assumed that of the configurations proposed,only the larger footprint units would be constructed(i.e.,52 units at 1,999 square feet and 72 at 1,599 square feet). Unit Types B and C would be connected to a second adjoining unit by a common wall,while Unit Type A would be connected to a second adjoining unit by a covered breezeway.All units would include an approximately 20-foot by 15-foot porch as well as an attached twacar garage.The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 219,076 square feet of livable floor area,which is within the limit of 245,000 square feet of livable floor area set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. The two-story units would be a maximum of 30 feet in overall height while the one-story units would be 16 feet in height. The proposed project incorporates a variety of features and amenities,including: > A 6,189-square-foot clubhouse with a maximum height of 35 feet and an associated outdoor recreation area,including an outdoor pool and two outdoor tennis courts to be featured near the main entrance to the subject property. > A 100-square-foot manned reception booth, approximately 16 feet in height, at the entrance to the development. > 23±acres set aside for open space within the interior of the subject property as well as around the perimeter,in compliance with the Stipulation of Settlement. > A pervious nature trail(±0.98-mile)that meanders throughout the interior of the subject property as well as along the northern and eastern property boundary, and provides access to the clubhouse,outdoor recreation area and putting green. > 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 roadways, drainage features,open space areas,clubhouse,pool,tennis courts, putting green,nature trails, and landscaped areas would all be owned and maintained by a Home Owner's Association(HOA). viii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The following is a breakdown of the existing and proposed site data for the subject property.As shown in the table below,approximately 67 percent of the site would be maintained as pervious surfaces. Existin and Pro osed Site Data Parameter Existing Proposed Site Covera e acres Buildings 0 7.78± Other Impervious(roads/parking) 0 7.39± Pervious surfaces walkwa s 0 0.70± Open Space(including native 45.99 23.03± lantin s and turf rass Additional Landscaping around 0 7.79± buildings and within the right-of- ways adjacent to roadways Water Usa e allons er da d Potable Water 0 22,500 Sanitary Water 0 22,500 Landsca e Irri ation 0 43,500 durin irri ation season Other Residents 0 248± School-a ed children 0 0 Total Taxes $18,645.60 $839,417.20-$1,012,675 School District Taxes $12,130.06 $546,090.10-$658,804.80 Grading and Drainage 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.Non-impacted fill necessary for site development would be generated from on-site excavation of proposed open space areas,as well as construction of basements, sanitary systems and stormwater management facilities. No material is anticipated to be imported to or exported off the site. The proposed project would include an on-site drainage system designed in conformance with Town requirements to retain stormwater runoff generated by on- site impervious surfaces.Stormwater collection would be provided through drywells and on-site drainage reserve areas(DRAs). Based upon the capacity of the proposed drainage system,this project meets the requirements for the capture and recharge of stormwater runoff,based upon a 100-year storm event. ix Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Access, Road System and Parking Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access road from the southern portion of the subject property at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street.A manned reception booth would be located within the road at the entrance to the proposed project.The road would traverse the property in a centrally located loop,with two closed loops interior, and with a roundabout at the end of the northwestern portion of the subject property;medians with brick pavers would separate the road lanes in several locations within the westernmost portion of this roadway.In addition,emergency access roadways would be provided from Bridle Lane and Spur Road,located along the western boundary of the subject property. Crash gates would be provided at the entrance to these emergency access roads. A nature trail would be constructed of gravel and would be situated along the north and east sides of the property, as well as through the center of the site. This trail would provide pedestrian access around the site,including to and from the clubhouse and recreational areas,while limiting walking within the paved roadways. Parking for the units would be provided via the individual unit driveways and two- car garages for a total of 248 garage parking spaces.An additiona136 spaces would be provided for the clubhouse,tennis courts, and pool—an exceedance of Town standards. Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply Sanitary Disposal The subject property is located within Groundwater Management Zone IV, as defined by the SCDHS, and thus would be allowed 75 percent of the adjusted gross land area(in square feet)times 600 gpd divided by 40,000 SF of land area. This calculation yields an allowable population density equivalent of 22,540 gpd for the subject property(0.75 x 2,003,582 x 600/40,000).Based on SCDHS sanitary design flow factors,the anticipated sanitary wastewater generated by the site is approximately 22,500 gpd,which does not exceed the population density equivalent of 22,540 gpd for the subject property, and,therefore,would allow for the use of conventional septic systems.Thirty-seven clustered septic systems are proposed to be constructed on the subject property with each system serving two to four housing units. Water Supply There is currently an existing water main,owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA),located approximately 200 feet east of the subject property, and there have been previous connections to SCWA water mains in the vicinity of the project site.In accordance with the approved Stipulation of Settlement,the Town has agreed to allow public water to service the subject property. Therefore,it is the intent of the proposed project to extend the existing water main to the frontage of the x Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� subject property for subsequent connection of the project to public water.Water usage from the proposed project is estimated to be approximately 22,500 gpd. Irrigation of the fertilized landscaped portions of the site would require an additional 43,500 gpd, during irrigation season. Thus,the average daily potable water consumption and irrigation usage would be approximately 66,000 gpd, during irrigation season. Site Landscaping and Lighting The proposed project would provide approximately 23 acres of open space(or approximately 50 percent of the site)throughout the interior and along the perimeters of the subject property as well as 7.79±acres for landscaping associated with plantings around buildings and within right-of-ways adjacent to roadways.To provide screening from the neighboring properties, a fully vegetated berm of evergreen plantings,varying from three-to-five feet in height,will be provided along the northern,eastern and western property boundaries.Street trees comprised of native species would be installed along the internal roadway. The remainder of the open space areas would be established in non-fertilizer dependent vegetation(wood mulched, shrub landscape and/or native planting beds, meadow areas,perimeter tree/shrub planting buffers, and native grasses and plantings). Lighting would be provided for the proposed project in accordance with Town requirements.Pole mounted light fixtures would be provided along the roadways and in parking areas. Each residence unit would have light fixtures over the front porch,garage and back patios while lighting would be provided in the front and rear of the clubhouse, and recreational lighting for the pool deck and tennis courts. There will be no spillover of light onto neighboring properties. Construction and Operation Construction The construction phase is anticipated to progress in a manner typical for a project of the size and type proposed;no unique or unusual construction difficulties are anticipated.The proposed project is anticipated to be built in four phases with approximately 30 to 31 units built per phase and with each phase taking about 1 -11/z years. Phase 1 of the project construction would begin by implementing all erosion and sediment control measures as outlined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, all clearing,grubbing and earthwork related to soil management activities would be completed prior to construction of any infrastructure.Following earthwork activities,the proposed internal road base and xi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� all drainage,water,electric and gas subsurface utilities,would be constructed, followed by the model units(one each for A-1,A-2,B-1 and B-2)and an additiona130 housing units. Generally, construction of the units would begin at the southern part of the property and move northward. All pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping related to the completed units would be included in this phase.The clubhouse and other site amenities are anticipated to be constructed during this phase. Phases 2 and 3 would each include construction of an additiona131 units along with the related pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping.Phase 4 would include build-out of the remaining 31 units and all related infrastructure. Construction access to the site will be from the main entrance off Schoolhouse Lane. All construction staging, contractor parking, and material staging will take place on site in accordance with the approved SWPPP.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. Operation A HOA will be established for The Heritage at Cutchogue.This entity will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the commonly owned grounds, roadway and drainage systems, community facility buildings,pool, and other amenities.Approximately two full time employees would be required to staff the reception booth.The HOA would outsource maintenance,landscaping and garbage hauling. The Heritage at Cutchogue would be operated under an HOA agreement approved and filed in accordance with the laws of New York State.Annual fees charged to the residents as required under the HOA agreement would fund the operation. Permits and Approvals Required The following permits would be obtained as part of the construction and operation of the proposed project: xii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Re uired Permits and A rovals Government Entity/Agency Approval Required Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan Approval;waiver of§280-137E and F of the Town Code;waiver of fees;approval of subdivision or unit desi nation ma Town of Southold Buildin De artment Buildin Permit Suffolk Count De artment of Health Services Water Su I and Sanita Dischar e A rovals Suffolk Count Water Authorit Water Connection New York State Attorney General Approval of HOA and Offering Plan New York State Department of Environmental State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Conservation Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity and Discharges of Wastes to Groundwater Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Soils Anticipated Impacts Soils HaA and RdB soils comprise the majority of the subject property,while small portions of the property contain P1C,P1B and HaB soils.Soils at the subject property have slight and moderate limitations for streets and parking lots,homesites and sewage disposal fields,with approximately 62 percent of the subject property having a slight limitation.Any limitations presented by the soil types at the subject property would be overcome through additional site preparation and good engineering and best management practices, and thus,would not pose a significant adverse impact to on-site or adjacent soils. As part of the site design,the subject property would be cleared to accommodate proposed construction as well as to eliminate the potential exposure of future residents to contaminants from the past agricultural use of the subject property. Clearing and installation of utility and infrastructure improvements (e.g., drainage, building foundations,etc.)associated with the proposed project would result in soil disturbance across the subject property.The disturbance of soils can increase the potential for erosion,including wind erosion, and sedimentation-related impacts,on- and off-site,without proper controls.To reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation as a result of land disturbance activity,various control measures would be implemented prior to and during construction of the proposed project.In accordance with General Permit GP-0-15-002,prior to the commencement of construction activity at the subject property,a SWPPP,would be developed and submitted to both the Town and the NYSDEC. The proposed control measures would be consistent with the relevant portions of the NYSDECs New York Standards xiii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls (2005), and would be regularly inspected and maintained(e.g.,removal of accumulated sediment and debris from drainage structures,repair of damaged sediment barriers,etc.)to ensure proper function. With erosion and sediment control measures employed,no significant adverse soil erosion or sedimentation related impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project. Agricultural Soils 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. Subsurface Conditions Due to historical agricultural use at the subject property, sampling was performed to determine if there had been contamination of on-site soils resulting from pesticide use.N&P's Pesticide Report included soil sampling and analysis and concluded that a soil management plan should be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury upon development of the site.In order to address the presence of impacted soils at the site, a Soil Management Plan was developed to eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants by future residents at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue,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 is designed in accordance with SCDHS draft guidance, and will be submitted for review and approval to the Town of Southold prior to its implementation.Implementation of a Soil Management Plan in accordance with the prevailing SCDHS draft guidance would result in mitigation of potential additional exceedances that may be present. Proposed Mitigation No significant adverse soil impacts are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Notwithstanding this,the following measures have been incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potential soil impacts: xiv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The sanitary systems will be designed with soil permeability in mind, such that they can adequately accommodate sanitary waste from the proposed condominiums with no adverse impact to soils. In accordance with General Permit GP-0-15-002,prior to the commencement of construction activity at the subject property,a SWPPP,would be developed and submitted to both the Town and the NYSDEC; 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. > Sediment barriers(silt fence)would be installed in critical areas for erosion control purposes including the down-slope limit of all cleared/graded areas. No sediment from the site would be permitted to wash onto adjacent properties or roadways. > A stabilized construction entrance would be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto adjacent roadways. The construction entrance would be maintained until the site is permanently stabilized. > Clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed. Cleared areas and stockpiles would be kept stabilized through the use of temporary seeding as required. > A dust control and watering plan would be instituted to prevent surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. > Drainage inlets would be protected through the use of sediment barriers and traps as required. > Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures would remain in place until disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Paved areas and drainage system would be cleaned and flushed out as necessary to remove any silt and debris. The Soil Management Plan developed as part of this application,would be implemented prior to construction,to eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants by future residents of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. Water Resources Anticipated Impacts Groundwater The depth to groundwater illustrated by site-specific soil borings confirm the published data and surrounding well data for the subject property.Groundwater is between 25 to 35 feet bgs across a majority of the site,with the highest water table in xv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� the eastern and southeastern portion(15 to 20 feet bgs), and regional groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is expected to flow to the southeast,toward Wickham Creek and eventually Peconic Bay. Potable Water Usage As the subject property is currently undeveloped,this is no demand for potable water.Upon implementation of the proposed project,the SCWA water main will be extended approximately 200 feet west from beneath Schoolhouse Lane to the subject property,to provide potable water to the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue, as required by the Stipulation of Settlement.The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project is expected to use an estimated 22,500±gpd of potable water,or 8.2 million gallons annually,which represents approximately .01 percent of SCWA's total annual pumpage,plus an additiona143,500 gpd during irrigation season.As the proposed project would only use .01 percent of SCWA's entire water supply system, no significant adverse impacts associated with water usage are expected. With respect to the Evergreen Pump Station, an SCWA facility,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would not pose significant adverse water quantity or quality impacts to public water supplies in the area. Regarding water quality,while groundwater flow from the site is to the southeast,the Evergreen Pump Station is located to the northwest of the subject property.Furthermore,with respect to quantity,various water efficiency measures would be employed to reduce potable water demands,including the use of native,low-maintenance plant species, drip irrigation systems and limiting irrigation areas to reduce irrigation demand, as well as installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures within the residences at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. It is assumed that nine parcels in the vicinity of the subject property are currently served by private wells.As the proposed project would include the implementation of a Soil Management Plan to address impacted soils on the subject property,it is anticipated that the construction of the proposed project would have a positive impact on groundwater quality.Furthermore, as required by SCDHS,proposed sanitary leaching pools would be located at least 150 feet from any private wells and sanitary pipes and septic tanks would be located at least 100 feet from any private wells.Therefore,the proposed project would not pose significant adverse impact to private drinking water wells in the vicinity. Sanitary Waste Generation and Discharge In its existing condition as a vacant and undeveloped parcel,the subject property does not generate any sanitary waste.The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would utilize 37 clustered on-site septic systems to accommodate sanitary waste generated by the proposed development,each system serving two to four housing units,with one system serving the clubhouse. The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is expected to generate an estimated 22,500±gpd of sanitary waste.According to correspondence from the Town Attorney,dated March 29,2007,the permitted density,under xvi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Chapter 280 of the Town Code,of one unit per 10,000 square feet where there is "community water and sewer," is applicable to the subject property, as the SCDHS will not require an"actual sewer system" because covenants and restrictions will be filed restricting occupancy on the subject property to those age 55 and older. According to discussions with the SCDHS, clustered on-site septic systems are permitted in lieu of a sewage treatment plan(STP)due to the nature of the development(i.e.,meeting the required Population Density).Based on SCDHS design flow standards and the size of the subject property,the proposed development must have a population density equivalent not exceeding 22,540 gpd, to use individual sewage disposal systems.Furthermore,adequate separation distance would be provided between the base of the sanitary systems and groundwater to allow for the proper filtration of sanitary waste and the proposed clustered septic systems would comply with all prevailing SCDHS requirements. Therefore,the anticipated quantity of sanitary waste to be generated by The Heritage at Cutchogue would comply with the relevant sanitary density limitations of Article 6 of the SCSC.In addition,the proposed development would also require a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)permit for discharge of effluent to the ground through the clustered septic systems. Stormwater Runoff and Drainage The existing site recharges stormwater to surface and groundwater through natural leaching processes.Accordingly, stormwater that does not infiltrate or evapotranspire is permitted to pond at the site or run overland onto adjacent properties and roadways.Based upon the proposed amount of impervious and pervious surfaces on the site,the amount of runoff has been calculated.The analysis indicates that the proposed development requires 198,775±CF of storage, and 641,002±CF of storage is proposed to be provided on-site,in order to ensure that stormwater runoff is collected and recharged on-site.The proposed drainage systems that would serve the project area have been designed to volumetrically retain stormwater runoff occurring from a two-inch rainfall event. In addition to the Towri s drainage requirements,this proposed project is required to demonstrate that the peak runoff rate and overall runoff volume during a 100-year rain event would not increase as a result of the proposed development.A hydrologic analysis was performed for the post development runoff condition.Based upon this report,the proposed drainage system of drywells and DRAs has been designed to detain and recharge runoff during a 100-year storm event. Overall, as the proposed stormwater management plan includes proposed leaching pools and drainage retention areas capable of recharging runoff from a 100-year rain event, and as all stormwater would be handled on-site and in accordance with Town of Southold requirements,no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater generation and runoff would be expected. As the proposed project involves soil disturbance of one or more acres, coverage under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity(GP-0-15-002)would be obtained. Specifically, a SWPPP would be developed at the time the site plan is finalized,in accordance with the requirement of the GP-0-15-002 and Chapter 236 of the Town Code(Stormwater Management). xvii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� All erosion and sedimentation control measures would be installed and maintained in accordance with the Erosion&Sediment Control Plan and/or as indicated within the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls.In addition, the New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual),which provides standards and specifications for selection and design of stormwater management practices to comply with State stormwater management performance standards,would also be used in preparing the SWPPP.Implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures,as well as the use of best management practices, as also discussed in these publications,would assist in ensuring that the proposed development would minimize impact to groundwater and surface water resources. Furthermore,the proposed project would be consistent with the recommendations of the Nonpoint Source Mana�ement Handbook(the Handbook)and the Lon�Island Se�ment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Pro�ram (NURP Study). Surface Water There are no surface waters or wetlands present at or adjacent to the subject property.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact upon such resources. Proposed Mitigation 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: ➢ Use of native,low-maintenance plant species to reduce irrigation demand ➢ Use of drip irrigation systems and limiting irrigation areas ➢ Installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures. > Adequate separation distance(a minimum of two feet)will be provided between the base of leaching structures(drywells/leaching pools,sanitary systems)and groundwater to allow for the proper filtration of stormwater and sanitary waste. > The proposed project would adhere to the relevant requirements and recommendations of SCSC Articles 6, 7 and 12,the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan,the NURP Study,the 208 Study,the Nonpoint Source Manaxement Handbook, and other relevant water resources studies. > Coverage would be obtained under SPDES GP-0-15-002,and erosion and sedimentation controls and stormwater management would be implemented in accordance with a SWPPP(to also be reviewed by the Town in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code),in satisfaction of all relevant requirements. > The proposed stormwater management system would be designed to accommodate, and recharge on-site, stormwater runoff generated during a two- inch rainfall event. xviii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The proposed site design incorporates permeable materials for interior trails and walkways to allow for greater stormwater recharge throughout the site. Vegetation and Wildlife Anticipated Impacts Habitats and Vegetation The subject property currently supports Successional Shrubland and Successional Old Field communities, and several areas of Successional Southern Hardwoods habitat,that have developed since the cessation of historic agricultural activities at the site in the early 1980s.The proposed project involves the removal of the existing on-site vegetation. Since no species(either flora or fauna)were identified as rare, threatened or endangered by the NYSDECs Natural Heritage Program(NYNHP), the removal of this habitat would not have a significant impact on same. Thus,no mitigation is required for such species. 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. Following implementation of the proposed project,open space in the form of lawn/landscaped habitats(i.e.,Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees)would occupy 23±-acres,or approximately 50 percent of the subject property, in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement. In addition, another 8.17±acres would be used for plantings around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways.The two lawn communities would occur primarily within the large blocks of open space proposed for the subject property interior, as well as within the vegetated buffers to be established along the site perimeter. Additional vegetated areas would occur within the yard areas of the individual residential units.The Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees communities would be planted with a species assemblage comprised of predominantly native turf grasses,trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants. The majority of the vegetation included in the planting plan for the proposed project are native species included on the Town Planning Board "Recommended Native Plants" (RNP)list. These species have been supplemented with minimal quantities of additional native and non-native plantings designed to create an attractive, durable and manageable residential environment over the long term. It is important to note that none of the non-native plant species included in the planting plan are considered invasive,nor do any of the plantings appear on the Suffolk County Do Not xix Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Sell/Transfer List of Tnvasive Species4 or are included in the New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Species legislation(6 NYCRR Part 575),which goes into effect on March 14,2015. The supplemental tree species include both evergreen and deciduous shade trees, as well as flowering ornamentals. Many of the non-native shrubs supplementing the RNP list have been introduced to better assure slower growth and lower mature heights than the native shrubs on the RNP list(many of which are also included in the planting plan),in order to create a quality long-term visual effect without the need for premature pruning. The Unpaved Road/Path community would be represented by the nature trail proposed for the subject property and would comprise about 0.54 acres.Internal roadways,buildings and other paved or impervious surfaces would occupy 15.17±- acres or 31±percent of the subject property.This unvegetated cover type/land use would be represented by the Urban Structure Exterior and Paved Road/Path and communities. Following implementation of the proposed project,it is anticipated that the subject property would function ecologically as a location of developed and vegetated anthropogenic ecological communities. Wildlife 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. Nevertheless,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. The subject property is currently most suited to those wildlife species adapted to successional habitats,including those observed during the site inspection. In addition,given the residential development and agricultural fields that adjoin the subject property and characterize the general surrounding area,the wildlife species assemblage at the subject property includes many species adapted to developed habitats, disturbed conditions and human presence.Following implementation of the proposed project,it is anticipated that the majority of the existing wildlife species would persist at the site,though at reduced densities due to the overall reduction in available vegetated habitat. Therefore,it is expected that the post-development species assemblage would include most of the avian species and many of the observed or expected mammals observed during the 2014 field inspection, as these species are expected to remain or re-colonize the site following development. � ................................................................................................................... ^Available online at:http:llwww.nvis.infoluser uploadslfileslSuffolk%20DNS%201ist.pdf. Accessed December 8,2014. xx Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� With respect to herpetofauna,those species known to tolerate suburban settings (e.g., eastern garter snake,Fowler's toad,etc.)may colonize the vegetated yard areas of the proposed residential units following implementation of the proposed action. 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. RarelProtected Species and Communities As suitable habitat to support the 10 species that appear on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federally Endangered and Threatened and Candidate Species List for Suffolk County does not exist at the subject property,these species would not be expected to occur at the site. 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 However, consultations with the USFWS would be necessary to determine potential species impacts or development restrictions associated with northern long-eared bat. According to NYNHP,historical records(i.e.,from 1979 or earlier)exist for the following rare and protected wildlife species southern sprite(circa 1953),velvety bush clover(1919)and bushy rockrose(1921).Although potentially suitable habitat for both velvety bush clover and bushy rockrose occurs within portions of the subject property,neither plant was identified during the field inspection,which occurred during the time of the year when these species would have been most easily identified through their characteristic fruiting structures.As such,no significant adverse impact to populations of these species is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The eastern box turtle was documented at the subject property during the 2009 ecological assessment, and habitat for this reptile currently exists at the site. Due to their territorial behavior and low mobility,individuals of this species(if still present at the site)may suffer direct elimination during clearing of the subject property. In addition, as a result of the proposed project,potential habitat for this species would be reduced and restricted primarily to the vegetated buffer areas of the subject property. As a New York Species of Special Concern, consultations with NYSDEC would be necessary to determine if any potential development restrictions exist for eastern box turtle at the subject property. xxi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Wetlands There are no New York State-or federally-regulated wetlands mapped at or adjacent to the subject property. Furthermore,no surface waters or other wetland communities were observed at or adjacent to the subject property during the October 9,2014 field inspection.As such,no impacts to wetlands would result from implementation of the proposed action. Proposed Mitigation The following ecological mitigation measures are proposed: > Vegetated open space habitats would be established over 23±-acres (approximately 50 percent)of the subject property,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement with an additional 7.79±acres for plantings around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways. > 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. > Vegetated buffers comprised of many RNP-listed trees and shrubs would be established around the entire site perimeter. > The aforementioned vegetated buffers would also serve as potential eastern box turtle habitat situated adjacent to existing off-site habitats for this species. Transportation Anticipated Impacts Future Traffic Conditions The analysis of future conditions,with and without the proposed project("Build" and "No-Build" conditions,respectively),was performed to evaluate the effect of the proposed project on future traffic conditions in the study area. To be conservative,a standard Condominium/Townhouse trip generation rate was used.Based upon this rate,,the 124 condominiums are projected to generate 61 trips during the a.m.peak hour, 72 trips during the p.m.peak hour and 79 trips during the Saturday midday hour.It should be noted that a Senior Housing trip generation rate, also appropriate for this development,would result in nearly 50 percent less traffic during the peak hours. xxii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Traffic Operations Analysis To assess quality of traffic flow in the area,roadway capacity analyses were conducted with respect to the Existing condition and No-Build and future Build conditions.These capacity analyses provide an indication of the adequacy of the roadway facilities to serve the anticipated traffic demands. Level of Service(LOS)analyses were conducted for the Existing,No-Build and Build conditions for each of the eight key intersections,including one signalized and seven unsignalized intersections. After a review of the capacity analysis table,it was found that the Build condition results at most study intersections are consistent with the No Build condition results. The following three unsignalized intersections were found to show an impact in the Build condition when compared to the No Build condition. > NY 25 and North Street southbound approach, a.m. and weekend peak hours > CR 48 and Depot Lane northbound and southbound approaches,weekend peak hour > NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach,weekend peak hour All the critical approaches in the No-Build and Build conditions would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during all periods analyzed with the exception of the southbound NY 25 and Depot Lane approach during the p.m.peak hour and weekend peak hour. In addition,the delay change for those intersections with a decrease in LOS would not be noticeable to drivers.While the southbound approach for NY 25 and Depot Lane would not cause an impact in the Build condition as compared to the No Build condition,potential measures to improve the LOS for this intersection have been evaluated and are discussed under Proposed Mitigation. The Site Access proposed to be aligned to Griffing Street along Schoolhouse Lane would operate well during the Build condition, as existing traffic volumes are low. Off-Street Parking and Circulation The proposed project would provide 284 parking spaces,two spaces over what is required by the Town Code. The configuration of the parking layout, drive aisles, site access point and internal site roadways would provide for adequate on-site vehicular circulation.Parking is proposed to be unregulated within the subject development.In addition to the two- car garages provided for each residential unit,there is driveway space available for an additional two cars per unit.Additional on-site parking is located in parking areas adjacent to the clubhouse. Pedestrian accommodation on-site includes a series of trails which traverse the subject property. Off-site pedestrian accommodation is currently only provided in xxiii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� the business district and on main roadways.In keeping with the existing, adjacent, low-volume,residential roadways of the area,no off-site sidewalk is proposed to be constructed for this project. Proposed Mitigation Based on a review of the traffic analysis,no mitigation would be required for this project.Any increases in delay at the study intersections are deemed insignificant.In addition, any increases in delay are accounting for the busiest hour of the day;delays throughout the remainder of the day at all the intersections would be even less significant.The largest increase in delay for any single approach would be the southbound approach at NY 25 and Depot Lane. Although no mitigation would be required,if requested by the Town, a potential improvement for the affected intersection has been developed and could be implemented. This measure would improve the level of service on the southbound approach of the unsignalized intersection of NY 25 and Depot Lane during the p.m.peak hour and weekend peak hour. The intersection was reanalyzed with a minor roadway geometry change— widening Depot Lane by four feet to allow for the creation of one exclusive southbound right-turn and one exclusive left-turn lane at NY 25.The four foot widening,with taper to meet the existing roadway width,would not extend beyond 80 feet from the intersection, coinciding with the limits of the corner gas station property.By slightly widening the roadway to allow for a short exclusive right-turn lane,the southbound approach LOS can be improved from a LOS F to a LOS E in the p.m.peak hour and from LOS F to a LOS D in the weekend peak hour.It should also be noted that this potential improvement would also improve the No Build condition in the weekend peak hour(from LOS E to LOS D).The widening can be achieved within the existing public right-of-way as the Depot Lane width is shown as 50 feet wide on record plans.No property acquisition or dedications would be required for this improvement.The existing Depot Lane roadway section is 30 feet wide and the resulting pavement width would be a maximum of 34 feet wide over a length of 80 feet,to accommodate two approach lanes at NY 25.The need for this potential improvement would be determined by the Town of Southold. Land Use,Zoning and Plans Anticipated Impacts Land Use Implementation of the proposed project would result in a use change of the subject property from a vacant and undeveloped land to a residential condominium development. The subject property is proposed to be developed with a land use that is permitted under the site's prevailing HD zoning. Upon implementation of the proposed action,the subject property would be developed with 124 age-restricted (55+)condominium units including,52 two-story units with a maximum of 1,999 square feet in livable floor area(identified as Unit Types A and C),which would xxiv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� provide three total configurations, and 72 units with a maximum of 1,599 square feet in livable floor area(identified as Unit Type B),which would be available as one-or two-story structures.The A and C units would have three bedrooms and would also include a study or home office. The B units would have two bedrooms.Unit Types B and C would be attached to an adjoining unit by a common wall while Unit Type A would be attached to an adjoining unit by a covered breezeway.All units would include an approximately 20-foot by 15-foot porch as well as an attached two-car garage. The two-story residential units would be a maximum of 30 feet in height, and the one-story units would be 16 feet in height. The use of the subject property for no more than 130 residential units(i.e., 124)of one or two stories conforms to the development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. In addition,The Heritage at Cutchogue would provide amenities for its residents, including a 6,189-square foot clubhouse, a pool,two tennis courts,a manned reception booth and 50 percent open space,in conformance with the development parameters specified in Stipulation of Settlement. The proposed project would add a total of 15.17±acres of impervious coverage(from buildings and other impervious surfaces),0.70±acres of pervious surfaces and 7.79± acres of landscaping around buildings and within right-of-ways adjacent to roadways while maintaining 50 percent of the site(approximately 23 acres)as open space in accordance with the development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. Within the context of the area surrounding the subject property,the proposed residential community is strategically situated to take advantage of the benefits afforded by its location within walking distance to and from the hamlet center. Likewise,businesses in the Cutchogue hamlet center are expected to benefit from establishment of new housing in that community. 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.Further,the proposed project would provide a type of housing that is not readily available in the Town and would serve the aging population,while also being consistent with the Town's goal to develop higher- density communities in and around hamlet centers.As such,the proposed project would not pose a significant adverse impact on land use in the area surrounding the subject property. Zoning Paragraph 38 of the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B),which has been"so ordered"by the New York State Supreme Court, provides,in pertinent part,that "[t]his stipulation,upon its'so-ordering,' shall constitute a judgment of the Court that'special facts'exist,which entitle the Petitioners/Plaintiffs,except as otherwise provided in this stipulation,to develop and use the Subject Property in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid Local Law 1-2009,2-2009, and 3-2009, and xxv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� the amended Site Plan Application shall be reviewed based on such preexisting provisions and regulations." In addition,Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation of Settlement sets forth specific parameters for the proposed development of the subject property. 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 20091ocal laws, and(2)the aforesaid development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.Therefore,to the extent that the proposed development does not comply with open space,total building area,or other requirements that were established by the aforesaid 2009 local laws, such requirements are not applicable to the proposed development. With respect to the uses proposed for The Heritage at Cutchogue development, according to Town Code�280-22(A)(3),multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings are allowed in the HD zoning district, subject to residential site plan approval.In addition, accessory uses are allowed in the HD zoning district, subject to Planning Board approval.The Heritage at Cutchogue includes several amenities for its residents,which are classified as accessory uses,including the clubhouse,the reception booth,two tennis courts, a pool and a putting green.While Section 280-137 of the Town Code sets forth specific standards for residential site plans, several of these standards are not applicable to the proposed development based on the foregoing provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement.Moreover,the Stipulation of Settlement sets forth several development parameters for the proposed development.The proposed development is consistent,in the following respects, with the said development parameters: > 130, a�e-restricted for 55+,residential condominium units; 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.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with this requirement. > 245,000 square feet "livable floor area,"as defined by the Town Zonin�Code,exclusive of accessory uses; The total livable floor area of the proposed project, calculated in accordance with the definition in Town Code�280-4,is 219,076 square feet and,thus,would be consistent with this requirement. > 50%of the subject property set aside for open space with related setbacks, as shown on the "Conceptual Development Plan"(Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement); 23±acres of open space,or 50 percent of the 45.99+acre subject property,plus an additiona17.79±acres of landscaped areas around buildings and within the right- of-ways adjacent to roadways,will be provided by the proposed development and,thus,the proposed project would be consistent with this requirement. > $2 million fee paid by the applicant for all park,recreation area, affordable housin�, professional and other fees associated with the development;and In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,the applicant will pay the Town a total of$2.0 million for all park and recreation areas, affordable housing, xxvi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� professional,and other fees other than post-site plan building permit and inspection fees.As such,the proposed development will comply with this provision. > Development in accordance with the use, area, dimensional,parkin�, draina�e and other re�ulations applicable to the Town's HD zonin�district, as provided by the Stipulation of Settlement. The Heritage at Cutchogue project would be consistent with the use, area,bulk, dimensional regulations and parking requirements of the HD zoning district and as provided by the Stipulation of Settlement. Therefore,the proposed project would comply with the foregoing specific Town Code requirements for the HD zoning district and the foregoing additional development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement.Moreover,to the extent that the project does not comply with open space,total building area,or other Town Code�280-137 standards for residential site plans, such standards are, pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement,not applicable to the proposed development. Based on the foregoing,the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts with respect to zoning, and would,in fact,further the intent of the Town's HD zoning district, as described above. Relevant Comprehensive Plans The following plans were identified by the Final Scope for consistency analyses with the proposed project: > Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994) > Seaview Trails of the North Fork(1994) > Peconic Estuary Pro�ram (1995) > Economic Development Plan(1997) > Community Preservation Project Plan(1998) > Town Water Supply Mana�ement�Watershed Protection Strate�y(2000) > North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment(2002) > Southold ComprehensiveTmplementation Strate�y and GETS (2003) > Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Pro�ram (2005) > Town of Southold Hamlet Study(2005) > Lon�Tsland North Shore Herita�e Area Mana�ement Plan(2005) > Town of Southold Housin�Needs Assessment(2005) > Community Preservation Project Plan(2006 Update) > Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan 2020 The proposed project would be consistent with most aspects of all identified plans, based on the project providing the following: > Currently,the subject property is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, and,therefore,the proposed project would not involve the conversion of xxvii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� agricultural land and would have no impact on other agricultural lands in the Town. > The Town of Southold has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation, and thus,the proposed project would not involve development of land of which the Town has been actively pursuing preservation. > The proposed development involves situating the dwelling units such that the site design would provide open space and a nature trail,with a vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the site in keeping with the rural hamlet character. > The proposed landscaping at the entrance to the community, at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,would provide an attractive visual feature at the northern edge of the hamlet center. > Although the development of The Heritage at Cutchogue would require the removal of 45.99+acres of vegetation from the site,no significant or protected ecological communities or species have been identified on the site.In addition, 23+acres of open space would be incorporated into the site design,including native plantings, as noted above, and lawn areas,in conformance with the development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. > A nature trail, a clubhouse,pool,putting green and outdoor courts would be created as part of The Heritage at Cutchogue site layout,which would provide recreational opportunities to residents of the development. > In keeping with the Towri s rural,pedestrian-oriented village quality,The Heritage at Cutchogue would be located within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center, and is expected to attract homeowners,who would patronize local businesses. > The development would occur within a HALO Zone identified in the Southold Hamlet Study and would fit in with the character of the community as the hamlet center has a higher density of residential and commercial uses. > Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to the availability of affordable housing by providing up to$2.0 million to the Town for use for affordable housing projects. > The proposed project would expand the range of housing opportunities by providing age-restricted condominiums in an area currently lacking such housing types. > The proposed project would employ various water efficiency measures to reduce potable water demands,including the use of native,low-maintenance plant species, and the limiting of irrigation areas to reduce irrigation demand,the use of drip irrigation systems,and the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures within the proposed residences. > The sanitary systems have been designed to adequately manage all sanitary wastewater generated by the site within Article 6limitations and in conformance with SCDHS standards and requirements, such that groundwater quality would be protected. > Landscape design for The Heritage at Cutchogue that includes native plant species to reduce dependence on fertilizer and pesticides,resulting in the reduction of nitrogen and other chemicals entering the Peconic Estuary. xxviii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Site design that includes the provision that 50 percent of the property would remain as open space,which would reduce runoff and the quantity of nitrogen entering groundwater and surface water. > Walkways and the nature trail on-site would be constructed of permeable materials,which would allow for increased filtration of stormwater on the subject property and reduce runoff and the potential for contamination. > Stormwater would be managed through collection and recharging on-site,via the installation of drywells and creation of DRAs, such that stormwater runoff would not be expected to adversely affect surface water or groundwater resources. > The Heritage at Cutchogue is proposing to incorporate various energ,y conservation methods into the design of its residential units,including Energ,y Star-rated kitchen appliances and bath fixtures.In addition, all insulation, windows, doors,boilers and HVAC components would meet Energ,y Star standards. > Heating by natural gas,eliminating the need for underground storage tanks, containing potentially toxic or hazardous materials on the subject property > All utilities would be installed underground, as recommended. > The main access to The Heritage at Cutchogue development would be from the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Avenue,with emergency access from Bridle Lane and Spur Road;therefore,there would be no access along an arterial and access to side roads would be preserved. > 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 Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane would not significantly increase the level of service on these roadways. > Archaeological investigations of the subject property have concluded that the subject property did not warrant further study with respect to such resources. Moreover,the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts upon archaeological resources. > The Heritage at Cutchogue would be developed with traditional architectural elements and extensive landscaping on-site,which would provide a pleasing aesthetic for the residents and immediate neighbors, and a buffer with natural vegetation would be planted around the property perimeter. > The proposed development is anticipated to provide between approximately $839,417and$1,012,675 in annual property tax revenue, and the proposed development of the subject site would provide 238±construction jobs, as well as a number of permanent jobs. Proposed Mitigation The proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to land use and zoning, such that no mitigation measures would be necessary. In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts,the following measures would be employed: xxix Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The proposed development would be within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center,encouraging pedestrian and economic activity in the area > The proposed development of the subject property as a 55+residential community would fulfill a housing need that has been identified in various plans and studies. > The applicant would provide up to$2.0 million to the Town to provide opportunities for affordable housing in the Town > Approximately 50 percent of the subject property would remain as open space > A vegetated buffer would be planted around the perimeter of the subject property to screen the community from neighboring properties and a three-to five-foot vegetated berm would be located along the northern,eastern and western site boundaries. > Appropriate landscaping and lighting would be provided throughout the development to enhance aesthetics,be compatible with existing community character,and,in the case of exterior lighting,provide a more secure environment. Community Facilities and Services Anticipated Impacts Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Police Department.Correspondence from the Police Department noted the Griffing Street and Depot Lane intersections with NY 25 and the Depot Lane intersection with CR 48 can be difficult intersections.A traffic impact analysis was performed for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development and indicated that it would not pose a significant adverse impact on traffic within the proposed project vicinity.The letter also stated that the Police Department would anticipate an increase in calls for service from the added residents at The Heritage at Cutchogue. However,it should be noted that the proposed development would provide between $163,463 and$197,202 in property taxes to the Town, annually,which should help to off-set the potential costs in providing additional police protection to the proposed development.Moreover,as the proposed project would likely include a large percentage of seasonal residents,it is anticipated that the demand on the Police Department would decrease for a portion of the year. In addition,the proposed project provides a gated entrance,with manned reception booth,that would restrict access to the community, and exterior lighting would be provided throughout the subject property to allow for adequate visibility and increase site security Furthermore,the units would be furnished with home security systems that would alert emergency services providers to conditions requiring their presence at the site. xxx Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based on the above information,it is not anticipated that the proposed development would pose a significant adverse impact on police protection of the Police Department. Fire Protection and Ambulance Services The subject property is within the service area of the Cutchogue Fire Department. The Cutchogue Fire Department is expected to receive between approximately $42,895 and$51,749 annually from the proposed development.This additional tax revenue is expected to assist in off-setting the cost of the provision of additional fire protection and ambulance services to the proposed development. Furthermore,the proposed buildings would be constructed to the latest New York State Building and Fire Code and the clubhouse would also be sprinklered. All access drives would be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting equipment. In addition to the main driveway,there would be emergency access-ways to Bridle Lane and Spur Road,which would contain grass areas with a load bearing sub-surface.The condominium units would be comparable to buildings found elsewhere in the Town and would not represent new types or sizes of structures that present specific training or special tactical/equipment considerations. As such, and because the proposed project would likely serve a large seasonal population,it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact on fire or ambulance service within the community. Public School Districts The subject property is served by the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District(UFSD).The Stipulation of Settlement specifies that the occupancy of the residential units must be limited to those 55 years of age or older and that only children or grandchildren who are 19 years of age or older may reside with occupants of the condominiums.Therefore,The Heritage at Cutchogue would not generate any school-aged children, and all school property taxes generated would be surplus for the school district.The proposed project would generate between approximately$546,090 and$658,805 per year for the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD, therefore the school district would yield an increase of between approximately $533,960 and$646,675 in annual revenues over the existing condition without a related increase in service costs. Based on the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to public school districts. Utilities PSEG Long Island indicated that it would provide service to the proposed development in accordance with the tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required.In addition to electricity,the Heritage at Cutchogue would utilize natural gas for heating.As electric capacity is available to serve the site,it is expected that xxxi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� there would be no significant adverse impact to the utility providers.Furthermore, energ,y conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the proposed development to minimize potential impacts associated with energ,y use. The proposed development would include new water main connections to the public SCWA water supply, as required by the Stipulation of Settlement at Paragraph 26. Based on the proposed water usage of 22,500±gpd, approximately 0.01 percent of SCWA's annual pumpage, and an additiona143,500 gpd during irrigation season, it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact to SCWA's ability to serve the site or to the overall availability of water in the area. Projected Property Tax Revenues The property tax analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would result in an increase in property tax revenues ranging from approximately$839,417 to$1,012,675, depending on the ultimate market value of the units. The proposed development would generate over 50 times higher revenues to the various taxing jurisdictions serving the subject property as compared to the current condition.Therefore,the proposed project would have a positive impact on tax revenues collected by each taxing jurisdiction. Furthermore, as previously described,the cost of services to the taxing jurisdictions,including school,fire and police,would be outweighed by the anticipated tax revenue generated by the proposed project. In addition to the projected tax revenues,the proposed project would generate for the Town,it is anticipated that construction of the proposed development would create approximately 238 full-time equivalent(FTE) construction jobs and a number of permanent jobs. Proposed Mitigation > The proposed condominiums would have home security systems installed. > The community would be gated,with restricted access,which would enhance security at the site. > Two emergency site access drives would be provided at the western boundary of the subject property, adjacent to the Bridle Lane and Spur Road(unopened) public rights-of-way,for use by emergency responders. > The proposed buildings would be constructed to the latest New York State Building and Fire Code. > The clubhouse would be sprinklered. > All access drives would be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting and other emergency service equipment. > Exterior lighting would be provided throughout the subject property to allow adequate visibility and increase site security. > The proposed condominium units would not generate any school-aged children, but the school district would receive between approximately$546,090 and $658,805 in annual property taxes. xxxii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The proposed development would result in property tax revenues ranging from approximately$839,417 to$1,012,675,generating revenues to the various taxing jurisdictions serving the subject property over 50 times higher than under the current condition. Aesthetic Resources, Open SpacelCommunity Character and Public Health Anticipated Impacts Aesthetics Upon implementation of the proposed project,public views of the subject property from surrounding areas would be altered, as the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue condominium units would occupy approximately half of the 45.99±-acre site, and the site entrance at Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Lane would be opened up and expanded.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 would continue to be obscured and would be similar to the existing condition.As Bridle Lane and Spur Road would be emergency access roads,vegetation would be cleared from these areas and there would be limited views beyond the gates and into the interior of the subject property. With respect to height, all proposed buildings would adhere to the maximum height restriction of the HD zoning district,with the clubhouse as the tallest structure at 35±-feet in height. All of the residences would be between one and two stories, similar to the height of the existing residences in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition,the sizes of the proposed units would be similar in mass to the single- family residences in the area. The architectural design of the residential units would be harmonious with the vernacular style of the surrounding residences. The buildings would feature roof- lines with multiple peaks and dormers,and fa�ades in a mix of wood shingles and stone.Landscape plantings throughout the site and surrounding the community entry are also proposed to heighten the aesthetic quality of the proposed residential community. The proposed landscaping is expected to create an attractive environment for residents of the proposed development, and their visitors, as well as to help provide aesthetically-pleasant views of the subject property, although limited,from the surrounding areas in keeping with the existing community character. All proposed lighting fixtures would comply with�172 and�280-117 of the Town Code, and would be downward-facing and shielded as necessary to provide a secure xxxiii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� environment for the residents,while reducing the potential for glare or off-site light spill. Overall,no significant adverse aesthetic impacts are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed project. Open Space Resources The 50 percent open space area, as required by the Stipulation of Settlement,would be comprised of: > a vegetated buffer within the 75±-foot setback along the perimeter of the subject property. > a 5,174-foot±(0.98-mile)nature trail covered with permeable material. > street trees along the proposed main driveway. > landscaping and lawn areas, surrounding the condominium units and related amenities,as well as within the interior of the subject property. Overall,implementation of the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on open space,as it would not remove publicly-accessible open space,but would provide open space resources for the residents of the proposed community. Community Character Although the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue includes greater density than what currently exists in the immediate vicinity,the southern portion of the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains a relatively higher level of residential and commercial density,including several large single-family residential developments in the vicinity of the subject property.Moreover,the HD District,within which the subject property is located,was created to foster higher densities within appropriate areas(i.e.,hamlet centers and HALO zones).Therefore, the development of the subject property with condominium units would be characteristic of the density patterns that have already been established in this area and that are encouraged through the prevailing zoning. Developing the subject property into a multiple condominium-unit development would change the character of the subject property;however, such development would be in character with the residential nature of the surrounding area and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on- site and in close proximity to the hamlet center. Moreover, as the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would be within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center,it is expected that the proposed development would foster pedestrian activity in the area, thereby enhancing economic activity and the vitality of the hamlet center. xxxiv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Public Health Noise Construction activities may result in temporary increases of nearby sound levels due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project.The proposed development is expected to generate typical sound levels from construction activities,including foundation construction,truck movements,heavy equipment operations, and general construction activities.Heavy machinery, such as front end loaders,graders,bulldozers, and backhoes,would be used intermittently throughout the proposed project's construction. The noise generated would be similar to other construction projects in the Town,and all phases of construction would comply with the restrictions specified in the local noise ordinance, such as time of day, and level of noise permitted. Every reasonable attempt will be made to minimize construction noise impacts.Construction noise control can be accomplished by the use of equipment with their original noise controls and procedures.As construction noise impacts would be temporary, and construction would comply with all relevant provisions of the Town Code,the proposed project is not expected to pose significant adverse impacts to sensitive receptors during the construction period. The nearest sensitive noise receptors would be the approximately 14 residences and the RV camp that are located adjacent to the subject property boundary. While existing noises generated from the subject property are likely limited to sounds from wildlife,upon implementation of the proposed project,potential noises from the residential units at The Heritage at Cutchogue may include additional noises similar to those described as being generated currently in the community from residential uses(e.g.,landscape equipment,music,loud talking,etc.).Therefore,the proposed project would not be anticipated to generate significant adverse noise impacts,given the residential nature of the development, and thus,would not pose a significant adverse impact to sensitive noise receptors. Further,under post-development conditions,The Heritage at Cutchogue would also comply with the Towri s noise schedule in�180-6 of the Town Code. Thus,no impacts associated with noise generation from the proposed development are expected. Temporary Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts Air quality in the study area would not be substantially affected by project construction because of the temporary nature of site development construction and the confines of the construction area. Emissions from the operation of construction machinery(CO,NOx,PM,SOx, and VOC)are short-term and not expected to be significant. xxxv Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Construction Phasinq and Schedule Construction activities would comply with Chapter 240,Article X of the Town Code., Specifically,the applicant would supply the Town Engineering Office and Superintendent of Highways with a schedule of construction indicating the beginning and completion dates of phases of work.The development of The Heritage at Cutchogue would also comply with any requirements the Town Engineering Office may recommend,per�240-39,in order that the appropriate safeguards are in place during construction. As construction equipment loading/unloading,materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking would be located within the subject property,no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding roadways or properties are anticipated. Moreover,the applicant would coordinate with the appropriate utility companies, other applicable regulatory agencies (i.e.,SCDHS,Fire Commissioners,etc.)and the Town Engineering Office on the placement of water mains and hydrant connections, fire wells, placement of underground electric,telephone or television cables, placement of underground lines/main, and installation of all underground drainage structures.Finally,traffic flow on public streets and highways would not be restricted or endangered by construction operations, as required by Chapter 161, Article II of the Town Code. Proposed Mitigation No significant adverse impacts have been identified with respect to aesthetics,open space resources, community character and public health.However,to minimize potential impacts,the following features have been incorporated into the project design: > 23±acres,or 50 percent of the subject property,would be maintained as open space, and landscaped with native plant species and turf grass,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement with an additiona17.79±acres for plantings around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways. > Walkways and nature trails (±0.98-miles)would be incorporated to provide a recreational resources and to allow for pedestrian access throughout the site. > Location within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center would encourage residents to patronize local businesses and interact with the larger community. > A mixture of housing types would meet community needs of the 55+population. > A variety of architectural design and styles would be provided within the community to avoid uniform suburban sprawl. > A vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the subject property would assist in attenuating noise generated by the future residents. xxxvi Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > All proposed lighting fixtures would comply with�172 and�280-117 of the Town Code,and would be downward-facing and fitted with reflectors to reduce the potential for glare or off-site light spillage. > Implementation of a Soil Management Plan to address impacted soils at the subject property. Although no significant adverse impacts to public health during construction have been identified,the following measures would be taken to minimize and potential temporary impacts: > Construction equipment would be required to have installed and properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems. > Construction activities would be performed at the times permitted by the Town, in accordance with the noise ordinance in Chapter 180 of the Town Code. > During construction,emission controls for construction vehicles emissions would include, as appropriate,proper maintenance of all motor vehicles,machinery, and equipment associated with construction activities, such as,the maintenance of manufacturer's muffler equipment or other regulatory-required emissions control devices. > Appropriate methods of dust control would be determined by the surfaces affected(i.e.roadways or disturbed areas)and would include, as necessary,the application of water,the use of stone in construction entrances and roads, and temporary and permanent vegetative cover. > The project would be constructed in accordance with Chapters 161 and 240 of the Town Code. > During construction,potential adverse impacts would be mitigation through implementation of the Soil Management Plan. Archaeological Resources Anticipated Impacts Phase IA and Phase IB archaeological investigations were conducted for the subject property on August 8 and September 20,2007, and incorporated into a report, entitled Phase I Archaeolo�ical Tnvesti�ation for the proposed Herita�e at Cutcho�ue Subdivision Cutcho�ue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York,and dated October 2007,by Tracker Archaeolog,y Services,Inc.The purpose of the investigation was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. At the culmination of the Phase IA Investigations by Tracker Archaeology Services, Inc.,the consultant determined that based upon the prehistoric sites and Indian trails located in the vicinity: > The study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. xxxvii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The subject property had a moderate potential for native American Historic sites. > The subject property had a low potential for European-American sites. The Phase IB Investigation found: > Isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered during the excavation of 767 shovel tests. > No further work is recommended with respect to archaeological investigations at the subject property. Based upon the foregoing, as the archaeological consultants did not recommend further investigation of the site,it is not anticipated that the proposed project would have any significant adverse impacts with respect to archaeological resources. Proposed Mitigation Based upon the results of Phase IA and Phase IB Investigations of the site, significant adverse impacts with respect to historic and archaeological resources are not anticipated.As such,no mitigation measures are proposed. Use and Conservation of Energy As the subject property is currently undeveloped,this are no existing demands for energ,y at the subject property. Correspondence from PSEG Long Island indicated that it"would provide service to the proposed development in accordance with the tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required." Therefore,the availability of electricity for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue has been confirmed by the service provider, such that no significant adverse impacts upon energ,y supplies are anticipated. Since natural gas would be provided by a private utility company,National Grid,it is not expected that the proposed project would cause capacity issues for the utility. The Heritage at Cutchogue is proposing to incorporate various energ,y conservation measures into the design of its residential units including the following EPA Energ,y Star features: > Energy Star-rated kitchen appliances > Energy Star-rated bath fixtures > window and doors meeting Energ,y Star guidelines > boilers meeting Energ,y Star guidelines > air conditioning systems meeting Energ,y Star guidelines In addition,as the proposed residences are within walking distance of the hamlet center,fewer vehicles trips(and less energ,y use)by community residents to patronize local businesses are expected. xxxviii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based upon the foregoing,implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to create a significant impact related to energ,y use. Cumulative Impacts The Final Scope calls for consideration of potential impacts due to implementation of the proposed project in combination with other pending projects in the surrounding area.Based upon telephone communication with Ms.Heather Lanza,Planning Director for the Town of Southold Planning Department on September 30,2014,there are no relevant planned or potential new developments located within the study area (500-foot radius)of the subject property. Therefore,no significant adverse cumulative impacts have been identified. Alternatives The conceptual design and development parameters for the proposed project, as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, incorporate various design elements into the proposed project, as mitigation,that the Final Scope required to be analyzed as alternatives. Accordingly,two alternatives set forth in the Final Scope--the Alternative Design and Reduction in Units Alternatives (which included clustering of units to create meaningful open space and maximize vegetative buffers and reducing the number of units)--are no longer applicable to the current proposed project and are omitted from discussion in this DEIS as they have actually been incorporated in the proposed project.The other three alternatives that were set forth in the Final Scope—No Action,Partial or Full Preservation of the Property, and Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment—are analyzed in Section 5.0 of this DEIS. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative involves leaving the subject property in its present state. Under this alternative,the subject property would remain vacant and undeveloped, consisting of early-mid-successional growth vegetation with areas of invasive plant species,with the periodic removal of trees for overall site maintenance and/or personal use by the property owner. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would forego the various beneficial impacts of the proposed project discussed throughout this DEIS. Most notably,there would be no provision of a residential development at this location for the senior population,which is not readily available in the Town;the substantial increase in property tax revenues expected to result from implementation of the proposed project would not be realized,and there would not be up to$2.0 million contributed to the Town,which would help to create affordable housing opportunities that are sorely needed in the Town. In addition,the No Action Alternative would not establish a cohesive, attractive and convenient residential development on an xxxix Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� underutilized property,with appropriate density in conformance with Town zoning regulations,which also achieves several goals of the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.Moreover,the No Action Alternative would not result in the remediation of the contaminants at the subject property due to past agricultural use. This alternative would also not resolve pending litigation among the Town and the subject property owner and applicant that has been suspended as a result of the Stipulation of Settlement, and would be resolved if development proceeds as contemplated in the settlement. 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. It is also important to note that this alternative would not meet the objectives of the applicant,which is to develop the site with a permanent,high-quality residential development consistent with the current HD zoning designation,while being economically feasible. The No Action Alternative is inconsistent with the applicant's right to develop, does not meet the objectives of the applicant, does not provide housing options to an underserved population and is not viewed to be a feasible alternative by the applicant.Nevertheless, despite this alternative not being feasible,SEQRA requires that this option be evaluated in the DEIS. Partial or Full Preservation The Partial or Full Preservation Alternative is similar to the No Action Alternative in that it involves leaving the subject property undeveloped,but the Preservation Alternative depends on the purchase of all or part of the subject property by the Town or some other entity for preservation purposes.Due to the current elevated levels of arsenic and mercury found at the subject property from the former agricultural use,public access to the site would be prohibited unless the Town or some other entity remediated the property so that it would be suitable for passive recreational use. As with the No Action Alternative,preservation of the subject property would forego an opportunity for high-quality senior housing options,as well as the provision of up to$2.0 million to the Town,which would help create opportunities for affordable housing.Preservation of the entire subject property would not result in substantial tax revenues for the Town, as is the case with the proposed project and the subject property would not be remediated per regulatory standards. 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 achieves several goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan. It is also important to note that the Preservation Alternative would not meet the objective of the applicant,which is to develop the site with a permanent,high-quality xl Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� residential development consistent with the current HD zoning designation that would be economically feasible. Moreover,the Town has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation, despite the fact that this alternative was identified in the Final Scope issued in 2007,over seven years ago.As such, and because of the elevated levels of contaminants found at the subject property,which would prohibit public use of the site without remediation,the Preservation Alternative is not viewed to be a feasible alternative by the applicant. Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment Although the proposed clustered sanitary system design meets the population density requirements set forth in Article 6 of the SCSC, and is therefore permitted, four wastewater treatment design alternatives were analyzed as a part of this DEIS. The first alternative is the construction of an on—site sewage treatment plant(STP). Constructing an STP would result in a more densely clustered development, as there would be significant setbacks required between the STP and the proposed units, as well as the neighboring private wells. Further clustering of the units would diminish the quality of the development for residents. Moreover, adding an STP facility to the project would decrease the quantity of open space provided on site,thereby preventing the project from meeting the 50-percent open space requirement. Additionally,the costs of constructing and maintaining an STP(estimated at several million dollars for construction alone),would be prohibitive,in relation to the size of the project, and render the project financially infeasible. It has been suggested that there is public concern related to disposal of pharmaceuticals in the project sanitary system, and that an STP would address this issue. However,STP technolog,y does not treat or remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater,and would not,therefore,address pharmaceutical disposal issues. The second alternative to the proposed sanitary treatment systems is the use of larger clustered sanitary systems,which would service more than two to four units. These systems would be located in large open areas, at distances greater than 500 feet from some of the units. Such larger clusters are depicted on Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement. Constructing such larger clustered systems is not,however,feasible from an engineering standpoint. First,SCDHS standards require the service lines for the systems to be sloped a minimum of two percent. To achieve this slope over 500 feet would require the service lines to be ten feet(or more)below the surface,which at best,would put the leaching pools within the minimum required separation from groundwater, and, at worst,would place the leaching pools in the groundwater. Regardless of whether the leaching pools met the groundwater separation requirements, several hundred pools would be required to provide the design storage necessary to service 124 units. Finally,the larger systems shown in E�ibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement are shown within large open areas that have always been intended for use as Drainage Reserve Areas to handle stormwater runoff. The xli Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� larger clustered systems would thus significantly reduce the area available to detain stormwater runoff. The proposed action provides the minimum amount of leaching pools by maximizing effluent storage depth and providing,in most cases,more than the minimum required separation from groundwater,thereby enhancing filtration of the effluent. 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 Conformin�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. Potential approval of 30,000 gpd flow rates is not likely for some time. Regardless,required setbacks would hinder the development in its current configuration, as well as reduce open space beyond the minimum requirement outlined in the Stipulation of Settlement. The fourth alternative that was explored is related to a Pilot Program for single- family residences in the Suffolk County Reclaim our Water Initiative, currently being performed by the SCDHS for single-family treatment units that are anticipated to take the place of a standard septic tank,while treating effluent similarly to a STP. As noted,this is not currently an approved option by the SCDHS, although, after discussion with the SCDHS wastewater department,it is anticipated that certain units will be approved for use in early 2016. As such,the applicant considers these units a tentative alternative that can be further investigated,once the SCDHS completes its pilot study. It is noted that the applicant is willing to consider installation of these units,provided they fit into the current project scope, and the installation and maintenance costs are not prohibitive. xlii Executive Summary �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � Description of the Proposed Proj ect 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits This Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law(the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act[SEQRA]) and the implementing regulations promulgated in 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations(NYCRR) Part 617 by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The DEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the construction of a 124-unit condominium development(the proposed project, proposed action,or The Heritage at Cutchogue)on approximately 45.99 acres located at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold(the Town),Suffolk County,New York(the subject property or project site), see Figure 1. The subject property is designated as Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-102.00-01.00-33.003 (see Figure 2). As described in detail below under Section 1.1.1,there is a Stipulation of Settlement between the Town and the subject property owner(Nocro,Ltd.)and The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC(the applicant)that is the basis for the proposed action. This settlement has been agreed to in litigation brought by the subject property owner and the applicant after the applicant's site plan application,which had been pending before the Town since 2005,was rendered non-approvable by purported amendments by the Town to Chapter 280 of the Town of Southold Town Code (Town Code).The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the subject property may be developed and used in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid purported amendments to Chapter 280 of the Town Code,and further establishes specific development parameters,which are followed for the proposed action. 1 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �a d � .., �� .� �ui�)tl i' i tl �� 's,� �° u� '�� . I �6 n � � v i' la` M � i �� , �C�� '�� I�d� ,� � V ��i�� µyi. i ,.+ 1 � �'�a r �i� � �� i��I I � ° ,�V��n°AG� r;/b� i i si'��'� � �� li " � �0 9i� � (`�,0%//r�� „ /"/%; / r i e � ��, , �'��'�'% �� 'e a � .. �� i `^a� � , m "^� '�✓% � � � ; � . J, i� o � r �� '-1 `°�< i �,� a eq� J / J 'i°h,Qye Y �N�� a I n�e o � �� , � � "�r., ( 1 n I�Iq �/��(� �� "1�!? ✓fyDi t�yS� � " � ' ..e7/ f 4 � � �F ' V' r�/��'�i J�- � "F � � � ' ��' ��U, �e� �..,, l � `�� i5,.�� ,� ��'r�� y /l � �a� � � l Y �'e � � ��ii%j? �, � , � � � �� ,,. �;. ��,h � ,v� �,z>,•ii� SryBer a Q' �.;,,� q1 IV��p�I�yd F l G �Y�,�i � � H e.. ./� � � . � ��i '� �;�, �ma.� °''a '�n il'�' �� i � m Illi � u� � ,�� Oy `9S % I��I� �� N � . � r ye' �`dv � � w f"� li" � �� Ih� ,4Y�w� '" �<a �/�� ,r��%iI �%lr�. ��1�� IIw I �,°��i ��' i��: c ��' N� � �� ir n a �I` l R�aa �hG�// °�4>a. i o ap 1 � � �!V ��1/� � d� y� ^' ' Y`, � � � � �,,. , r;� �`� � � � � � � � PLUM ISL°AND 1�;I� '� � �� e,�, .�, ,,. F ,(ny:��'�GARDINERSIS. � � ��y'r � , � � �, " � o SHELTERISLA1ND J (�� I��f/ F SOUTHOLD 2"5�,/�� /�.`; �. JJ/�- � �. �� 6G /��(� �,".,��EASTHNMPTON� �/i�� ,� ' ��'^ ,� ; RIVERHEAD� I/ Ip/ �,f�" � 1 �// ��/�l d (. //�� /'�� / . �+s4° ,✓y � , / M' �% //��j/I� ' � ..�.,. :�." � µ.. P '. * ROOKHAVEN SOUTHQMPTON � ��f/��J� `, } HI�NNECOCK BNY :i �/�/,/�/,/I . I �Z�;" The Heritage at Cutchogue Figure 1—Site Location n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane " Le end "��h��"3e� x' �•�s 1 inch=386 feet g PC liamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold - vFee� �s�b�e�ProPerry souxec mi3 Nrs�q�i o nwama�.y w � � Suffolk County,NY 11935 5� o �a5 z�o 5ao ' c�c�no9�e H�miei ceocer so�oa�ry oNvsics zois.z�zami c ��no„�d��y VI�IH Ref.29305.U0 �6 uu uu°� ehapeHlebaeedon$ouNroldl�InmletStuJy, 20(I5. � .r_ ..._ —=-- ...� _ M1 _. --- _ _ --- � . _ _ � --. � ,�� ,�� — , � � r �a�=�.�. �� a � � �� , ,�� ;A«� .�n ^��.��" 6� ,^�.e,��, � �.�..� � ~� �a., .s�a�a\ - �a fd'� �' �'k .��'p o-^$s 'ee o � .�'O:� ^,R.. �� I Y?� M e e�_�p W9W�� m i, �n(z 9 4 i Ili F r "�"'J '�v ` i .,.znm� ^�;e*`� 9, . , �,a m � � _ �„ "�c P I k � �t O R� � g ian ��q �I yu° 5� 19a,U s='r°$re, Tnb , �� ,�a� /�,. � � C' AS.WcI 4 d �?� ��' iw ,�V ry � B 9 rt° yw � 3 ,r n awlol m S m�� •'� ti� �(a S on(cl � « �q(� '2� '�.p� �Y� ,pl anuweuesrv� e \ y 8 �. � ♦ tiry tr� t, �o msra�c- � g A �`i. �,��w.a�,n, ��o� ,,,� � � "':w�� - � �'e�,� a '� � ,sA � sya � o� � A,A a o �v� z�'un �I m � ��•pv�£ .� �� s�' �� s '"�'�� .��E.,w.a,.�a„� � �,� n ., .�' '�� tg^" � �. i "' " -e� �yyo , ` g Ro � � ?ia,� ', ,o,m.ozas � s.,. ' y�� o� ¢-� '�"'+"*"�., /s.a�� az:n¢� � „� � o� . �e � n/ �� , �< � ., �� ,� �/ e� M.,� „ '2 �o„�,:. � �t n�«,.m„T,�, 'a� ' � �,�� .�E�. ,,� �� . .. �. � �„ �€'� i,�i � z�g �, s� � � �,s.�� ,� - wR + ' �'', '" �.xo � P��.No. a,s ` ` �oq> � �� a�sb��o � � ,� � �� a �y� ,p ho r � ' ,� ,o�o,�,A q �, .� � � , � , � F w ,� � � ��, e , � �� w �� ,., ___ 4 ,�, . The Heritage at Cutchogue Figuxe 2—Tax Map Excerpt n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �L Le end ��h�1 F e x � s� I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold g �rm,r �,�. a e�u.e,ea Suffolk County,NY 11935 S �Subjed Properry ��o o,s�ioi�scxPrnrt.� VI�IH Ref.29305.U0 �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The Town issued The Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(Final Scope),for the applicant's previously-proposed site plan. However,this amended DEIS has been prepared,in accordance with SEQRA,to evaluate the potential significant adverse impacts on the environment of the proposed action,which differs from the applicant's previously-submitted site plan. Based upon the Stipulation of Settlement,the proposed project includes the development of a 124-unit,age-restricted condominium complex with 72 1,599- square foot units,52 1,999-square foot units,and associated appurtenances. This Executive Summary is designed solely to provide an overview of the proposed action, a brief summary of the potential adverse impacts identified and mitigation measures proposed as well as alternatives considered.Review of the Executive Summary is not a substitute for the full evaluation of the proposed action performed in Sections 1.0 through 5.0 of this DEIS. In addition to the clubhouse,other amenities included as part of the proposed project include an outdoor pool,two tennis courts, a nature trail, and open space areas within the interior and around the perimeter of the subject property. The proposed buildings would be connected to the public water supply provided by Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA) and sanitary waste would be collected via clustered septic systems installed within the property. Stormwater collection would be provided through drywells and on-site drainage reserve areas(DRAs). DRAs are large shallow depressions in open areas that provide capacity for storage of stormwater runoff during moderate to heavy rain events. 1.1.1 Background and History For more than 24 years, since 1989,there have been numerous attempts by the property owner and the current applicant to develop the subject property in compliance with prevailing zoning(i.e.,zoning applicable to the subject property at the time of application submission). Provided below is the background and history of those application attempts that have led to the current proposed project. The subject property was historically farmed,for several decades, prior to the early- 1980s. In July 1983,the Town Board granted an application to change the zoning classification of the subject property from A Residential-Agricultural to M Light Multiple-Residence District—permitting various residential uses,including multi- family residential development. Farming at the subject property ceased in September 1983 when new owners purchased the site. In 1986,the subject property again changed owners,whose intention was to develop the vacant site with multi- family residential uses that would be economically feasible. The then new owners submitted a site plan application and related DEIS for the development of the subject property with 160 multi-family residential units. In accordance with SEQRA,the 4 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Town accepted the DEIS as complete in 1989;however,the SEQRA process was never concluded. In early 1989,the Town Board repealed the M Light Multiple- Residence District,established the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District, and changed the zoning of the subject property to Hamlet(HD)Residential. The stated purpose of the HD zoning district,as set forth in�280-20 of the Code of the Town of Southold(Town Code),was and remains to "permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck,Cutchogue,Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport." In June 2002,the owner of the subject property entered into an agreement with the current applicant,The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC,to allow the applicant to seek development of the subject property with uses permitted in the HD zoning district that would be economically feasible. During that same year, the applicant submitted a site plan for a 202-unit mixed residential development. The Town Board failed to act on the application and subsequently imposed a six-month moratorium,in August 2002,on the acceptance,processing,review, and making of decisions on applications for major subdivisions,minor subdivisions, special exception use permits,and site plans containing dwelling units in the Town.The moratorium prohibited the Planning Board from accepting for review, continuing review of,holding a public hearing upon,or making any decision upon any application for a site plan containing dwelling units. The moratorium was extended several times through February 2005. The applicant submitted a petition to the Town Board in August 2004 for a waiver from the moratorium to proceed with its submission of a 202-unit mixed residential plan for the subject property. The waiver was not granted. In June 2005,the applicant again submitted a site plan application,but now for the development of 150 residential units ranging in size from 2,250 and 2,450 square feet (excluding garages)to 2,500 and 2,700 square feet(including garages),in buildings containing four residential units each,as well as accessory facilities. The development constituted an Unlisted Action in accordance with SEQRA. The site plan application proposed that wastewater discharge for the proposed development of the subject property be handled by means of a community sewage treatment plant (STP),to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) and/or the Suffolk County Sewer Agency. SEQRA was never initiated by the Town for this application. In March 2006,the Town Board amended the use restrictions for the HD zoning district to provide, among other things,that one-family detached dwellings,two- family dwellings, and multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings be permitted uses but that more than one one-family detached dwelling on a lot,more than one two-family dwelling on a lot,and multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings would all be subject to the residential site plan approval process established by Local Law No. 1 of 2005. Based on the amended uses as well as discussions the applicant had with the Town, a new site plan application was 5 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� submitted that proposed 139 detached residential units with accessory facilities. This proposal included 111 single-family detached units ranging in size from 1,135 square feet to 3,110 square feet, 14 attached single-family duplex units and 14 attached multifamily units,which would be offered as affordable, and all of which would be available only to persons at least 55 years of age. The site plan application also proposed the use of individual sanitary disposal facilities to handle the wastewater discharge from the proposed development in lieu of the previously-proposed community STP.S In December 2006, the Planning Board initiated a coordinated SEQRA review for the 139-unit site plan application with involved agencies and indicated its desire to serve as lead agency for the environmental review pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617. In July 2007,the Planning Board classified the project as a Type I Action and issued a Positive Declaration requiring that a DEIS be prepared. The Planning Board held a scoping hearing on August 20, 2007 and issued a Final Scope on September 10,2007. A DEIS was submitted to the Town on December 24,2007. Opponents of the proposed project voiced their concerns at numerous meetings beginning in January 2008. On March 10,2008,the Planning Board adopted a resolution determining that the DEIS submitted was not adequate and required revision. The applicant subsequently filed revised versions of the DEIS on May 30,2008 and again on September 25,2008,which were both deemed inadequate by the Planning Board in June and October 2008,respectively. After the applicant's fourth submission of the DEIS on January 16,2009,the Planning Board's consultants considered the DEIS complete and adequate for public review. In the interim,however,the Town Board, in January 2009,purported to adopt local laws that affected the Town's zoning and site plan regulations in ways that would render the applicant's site plan non- approvable. In a letter dated February 18,2009,the Town's Planning Director advised that the new local laws relative to residential site plans would apply to the applicant's extant application, and as such,the application did not meet the new Town Code and required revisions. Without a revised site plan application,the Planning Board ceased the site plan review process as well as the SEQRA review process. Litigation was initiated by the applicant against the Town,Town Board, and Planning Board in May 2009 regarding the pending site plan application for multi- family development of the subject property and the local laws adopted by the Town Board in 2009 that,if valid,made the application non-approvable. In 2014,the parties negotiated a Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B)that, among other things,requires the amendment of the foregoing site plan application to propose a � ................................................................................................................... 5 According to correspondence from the Town Attorney dated March 29,2007(Induded in Appendix C),the permitted density,under Chapter 280 of the Town Code,of one unit per 1 Q000 square feet where there is"community water and sewer"is applicable to the subject property as the Health Department will not require an"actual sewer system"because covenants and restrictions will be filed restricting occupancy on the subject property to those age 55 and older. 6 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� modified development of the subject property and also requires amendment of the DEIS previously prepared in connection with the site plan application so as to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the modified development plan. The Stipulation of Settlement specifically(1)provides that the development and use of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid purported local laws, (2)provides that the applicant's amended site plan application shall be reviewed based on such pre-existing provisions and regulations, and(3)sets forth specific development parameters for the proposed project, as follows: > No more than 130 residential condominium units,each comprised of one or more stories. > No more than 245,000 square feet of"floor area,livable," as defined in�280-4 of the Town Code,which excludes community facilities,garages,breezeways, unheated porches, cellars,heater rooms, and approved basements having a window area of less than 10 percent of the square foot area of the room. > At least 50 percent of the subject property to be set aside as open space. > Limited occupancy of all residential units to persons of the age of 55 years or older;a spouse of any age provided the spouse of such person resides in the unit and is the age of 55 years or older;children or grandchildren residing with a permissible occupant who are 19 years of age or older;and individuals, regardless of age,residing with and providing physical support to a permissible occupant. > Development in accordance with the use, area, dimensional,parking, drainage, and other regulations applicable to the HD zoning district as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement. As the proposed action has been formulated and submitted pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B),and the conceptual design of the proposed project provided in the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B),various elements of the proposed project now incorporate, as mitigation, alternatives that were to be considered in accordance with the Final Scope for the previously- proposed 139-unit development.Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and, as such,two alternatives that would have previously been considered—Alternative Design and Reduction in Units Alternative—are omitted as they are now part of the proposed project design.These design elements include clustering of units to create meaningful open space and maximize vegetative buffers and reducing the number of units from 139 to 124. The applicant respectfully submits that any further reduction of such unit count would render the development infeasible.The other three alternatives that were required by the Final Scope—No Action,Partial or Full Preservation of the Property and Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment—are analyzed in Section 5.0 of this DEIS. 7 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives The proposed project would provide for the development of a permanent,high- quality development on a property consistent with the current HD zoning designation. The proposed project would provide a mix of housing to include 72 1,599(livable)-square-foot units and 52 1,999(livable)-square-foot units(see the Layout and Materials Plan provided in Appendix A). To reduce perceived or potential impacts associated with traffic generation and community facilities and in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,the proposed project would include a covenant and restriction that would limit the occupancy of the development to those individuals that are 55 years and older(as explained in Section 1.1.1 above). Moreover,it is expected that the proposed development would largely serve a seasonal population of residents 55 years and older. As reflected in Town Code�280-1,the HD zoning district was implemented to provide mixed housing types and higher residential density in appropriate areas. Specifically,as previously noted,the Town Code states that the purpose of the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District is to "permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck,Cutchogue,Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport." As such,the proposed project would provide for a development that meets the purpose and intent of the existing subject property zoning while offering a development type that is not readily available in the hamlet or the Town,but that would serve the growing senior population. Sections 280-137E and 240-10B(2)(c)of the Town Code require that all residential site plans within the HD zoning district involving the creation of five or more lots set aside 10 percent of the lot yield as moderate-income family dwelling units (MIFDUs) or obtain a waiver of such set-aside by payment of a sum to the Town of Southold Housing Fund. In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,in lieu of providing such MIFDUs within the development,the applicant would pay the Town a total of $2.0 million for park and recreation, affordable housing,professional,and other fees other than post-site plan building permit and inspection fees,and the Town would issue a waiver of�280-137E. As previously mentioned,the proposed project would provide senior citizens with a type of residential development that is not readily available in the Town while also adhering to the appropriate density for those areas proximate to major hamlet centers. Further,the amount payable by the applicant,per the Stipulation of Settlement,would provide the Town with the opportunity to develop affordable housing as well as open space and recreation areas where it deems suitable. Also, as explained in greater detail in Section 3.3.2 of this DEIS,the proposed project would provide significant tax revenues to the local school district without increasing the demand for services. 8 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Therefore,the proposed residential project would meet the Towri s overarching goals by developing an underutilized property with appropriate density near a hamlet center,in conformance with Town zoning regulations,providing funds for affordable housing and open space and recreation areas, and generating new tax revenues without causing a significant increase in the need for services. Development of the proposed project would also allow for the clean-up of impacted soils found throughout the 45.99±subject property that were a result of its prior agricultural use (see Section 2.1.1 for a detailed description of the specific contaminants found on- site). Moreover,the implementation of the proposed project would result in the final resolution of the pending litigation between the Town and the subject property owner and applicant that has been suspended due to the Stipulation of Settlement as long as all parties abide by the settlement.Specifically,the Stipulation of Settlement may be declared null and void under any of the following circumstances: > Any procedure or action that is required or contemplated by the settlement to be followed,taken or completed by the Town,Town Board,Planning Board,or by any other board, department, agency,official,employee,or consultant of the Town is not actually followed,taken,or completed,or is not followed,taken,or completed within or during any time period provided by the settlement,unless such time period shall have been extended or modified by prior written agreement. > Any procedure, action,or requirement that the settlement either prohibits or contemplates will not be followed,taken,or imposed by the Town,Town Board, Planning Board,or any other board, department, agency,official,employee,or consultant of the Town is actually followed,taken,or imposed. > Any site plan determination for the subject property requires treatment of sanitary waste or wastewater by means other than clustered sanitary disposal systems. > Any site plan determination for the subject property requires treatment of sanitary waste or wastewater from outside the subject property. > The subject property owner and/or applicant issue a"Notice of Rejection,"based on the Town's determination of the amended site plan application or the conditions of such determination. > The settlement and/or the Planning Board's site plan determination for the subject property is/are annulled or modified by any one or more judicial or administrative actions or proceedings. 1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor The proposed project is intended to create a quality community,with various amenities,in conformance with the bulk, area, and parking regulations and development standards of the designated zoning district for the subject property, 9 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� while achieving an economically feasible and attractive development. Such development would address the need for housing for the senior population in a community where varied housing types for this population are not prevalent, and would also provide the Town with a tax surplus without a significant increase in the provision of services. The benefits provided by the proposed development are discussed in Section 1.1.4,below. 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project As discussed in more detail in Sections 1.1.2 and 3.2 of this DEIS,the proposed project fulfills the Towri s vision for the subject property as expressed by the site's HD zoning designation. By conforming to the uses allowed within the designated zoning district,the proposed project would further the Towri s commitment to providing a mix of housing not readily available throughout the Town,while focusing higher density development proximate to hamlet centers,as the subject property borders the Cutchogue hamlet center. As set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement,the applicant will provide$2.0 million to the Town for park and recreation, affordable housing,and other fees. This would result in a benefit to the overall Town and its residents by providing funds to improve or increase park and recreation areas and affordable housing projects. Provided below is a summary of the key benefits of the proposed project: > Development of higher-density residential units adjacent to the Cutchogue hamlet center, consistent with the Towri s vision for the HD zoning district, pursuant to�280-20 of the Town Code and as recognized in the 2005 Town of Southold Hamlet Study and draft 2020 Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan, as discussed in Section 3.2.1. > Provision of housing for the 55 years old and older population,which is not readily available within the hamlet or the Town. > Allocation of funds for use by the Town for park and recreation and affordable housing purposes. > Creation of approximately 238 full-time equivalent construction jobs,b based upon project construction costs, as discussed in Section 3.3.2. > Development of housing units with Energ,y Star features. > Addressing of impacted soils(due to past agricultural use)found throughout the subject property, as discussed in Section 2.1.1. > Generation of substantial new tax revenues for the Town without a significant related increase in demand for services,as discussed in Section 3.3.2. > Final resolution of pending litigation between the Town and the subject property owner and applicant. � ................................................................................................................... 6 Full-time equivalents equal about 2,000 annual Iabor hours 10 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 1.2 Location and Site Conditions As shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Section 1.1,the subject property is located at the northwest intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York(Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel: 1000-102-01-33.3). The subject property is an approximately 45.99-acre parcel of undeveloped land that was farmed for decades prior to 1983,but currently supports early-through mid-successional habitats,including areas of successional woodland habitat. In addition,the site is traversed by a network of unpaved trails, as seen on the aerial photograph provided as Figure 1. The current property owner periodically removes select trees,largely cedar,to maintain the health of the overall site or to use for personal reasons. 1.3 Project Design and Layout 1.3.1 Overall Site Layout The proposed project involves the construction of 124 age-restricted condominium units on the approximately 45.99-acre subject property. The 124 units would consist of 52 two-story units with a maximum of 1,999 square feet of livable floor area (identified as Unit Types A-1,A-2 and C),which would provide a total of three configurations,and 72 units with a maximum of 1,599 square feet of livable floor area (identified as Unit Type B),which would be available as one-or two-story structures. All A and C Units would have three bedrooms(one on the first floor and two on the second floor)(see Appendix A). Both A Units and Unit C-1 offer a first-floor study or home office. The A Units would have a larger footprint than the C Units due to more livable space located on the first floor(i.e., 1,592 square feet[A-1] and 1,590 square feet[A-2] compared to 1,506 square feet[C]). Unit Type B-1 would be a ranch-style home with two bedrooms on the first floor while Unit Type B-2would be two stories with the second bedroom located on the second floor. Unit Type B-1 would have a larger footprint than Unit Type B-2(i.e., 1,594 square feet compared to 1,330 square feet). To be conservative,the Layout and Materials Plan, as shown in Appendix A, assumes that only the larger footprint units would be constructed(i.e.,52 units at 1,999 square feet and 72 units at 1,599 square feet). Unit Types B and C would be connected to a second adjoining unit by a common wall,while Unit Type A would be connected to a second adjoining unit by a covered breezeway.All units would include an approximately 20-foot by 15-foot porch as well as an attached twacar garage. The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 219,076 square feet of livable floor area,which is within the limit of 245,000 square feet of livable floor area set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, as 11 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� described in Section 1.1 (see Appendix B). The two-story units would be a maximum of 30 feet in overall height while the one-story units would be 16 feet in height. The proposed project incorporates a variety of features and amenities,including: > A 6,189-square-foot clubhouse with a maximum height of 35 feet and an associated outdoor recreation area,including an outdoor pool and two outdoor tennis courts to be featured near the main entrance to the subject property. > A 100-square-foot manned reception booth, approximately 16 feet in height, at the entrance to the development. > 23±acres set aside for open space within the interior of the subject property as well as around the perimeter,in compliance with the Stipulation of Settlement. > A pervious nature trail(±0.98-miles)that meanders throughout the interior of the subject property as well as along the northern and eastern property boundary, and provides access to the clubhouse,outdoor recreation area and putting green. > 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 roadways, drainage features,open space areas,clubhouse,pool,tennis courts, nature trails,and landscaped areas would all be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association(HOA). Based upon the Layout and Materials Plan provided in Appendix A,the following is a breakdown of the existing and proposed site data for the subject property. As shown in Table 1,approximately 67 percent of the site would be maintained as pervious surfaces. 12 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 1 - Existin and Proposed Site Data Parameter Existing Proposed Site Coverage(acres) Buildings 0 7.78± Other Impervious(roads/parking) 0 7.39± Open Space(including native 45.99± 23.03± plantings,turf grass and pervious walkways) Additional Landscaping around 0 7.79± buildings and within the rights-of- way adjacent to roadways Water Usage(gallons per day[gpd]) Potable Water 0 22,500 Sanitary Water 0 22,500 Landscape Irrigation 0 43,500(during irrigation season) Other Residents 0 248± School-aged children 0 0 Total Taxes $18,645.60 $839,417.20-$1,012,675 School District Taxes $12,130.06 $546,090.10-$658,804.80 1.3.2 Grading and Drainage Development of the proposed project would necessitate the entire site(±45.99 acres) be cleared.Grading operations associated with site construction activities would primarily be necessary to address the residual arsenic and mercury-impacted soils, which are typically found on sites that have been used for agricultural activities, as well as to provide adequate area for building footprints,building basements and grades for proposed roadways. Grading would also be required throughout the site to direct stormwater runoff to drainage retention areas and to ensure proper functioning of the drainage system. Section 2.1.3 below details the proposed soil management activities that 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. Soil management would involve isolation of soils as part of the initial stages of the grading plan to ensure that either non-impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are covered with at least one foot of clean soil. This would involve the scraping of the top layer of impacted soils,the depth of which varies on the site(see Appendix D),burying this material beneath a minimum of one foot of clean soil at various locations of open space across the subject property, and mixing 13 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� the impacted soils with clean sandy material for use as fill within the berm areas,in accordance with SCDHS guidance. Non-impacted fill necessary for site development would be generated from on-site excavation of proposed open space areas,as well as construction of basements, sanitary systems, drywells and DRAs. No material is anticipated to be imported to or exported off the site. The proposed project would include an on-site drainage system, designed in conformance with both Town and State requirements to retain stormwater runoff generated by on-site impervious surfaces. The Town requirement is to provide capacity for storing a two-inch rainfall;however,in accordance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements(SWPPP)(see Section 2.2.2 of this document),the system is sized and designed to accommodate capacity for a 100- year storm event,utilizing a system of drywells and drainage retention areas located within the interior of the subject property. The Grading and Drainage Plan in Appendix A provides details of the drainage system and drainage calculations, which demonstrate that the proposed system is designed to accommodate a total of 641,002±cubic feet(CF)of stormwater storage,in excess of the Towri s storage requirement(194,832±CF). An analysis was completed using Hydro CAD software in order to demonstrate that the proposed project captures and recharges virtually all runoff during a 100-year rain event and,therefore, does not result in an increase in stormwater discharged off site. The HOA would be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage facilities, internal roadways, and common areas. 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking Access to the site is proposed from a single dual-access road from the southern portion of the subject property at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street(see the Layout and Materials Plan provided in Appendix A). A manned reception booth would be located within the road at the entrance to the proposed project. The road would traverse the property in a centrally-located loop with a roundabout at the end of the northwestern portion of the subject property;medians with brick pavers would separate the road lanes in several locations within the westernmost portion of this roadway. In addition,emergency access roadways would be provided from Bridle Lane and Spur Road,located along the western boundary of the subject property, see Appendix A for the Layout and Materials Plan. These emergency access roads would be grassed areas with a load bearing subsurface to accommodate heavy emergency vehicles. Crash gates would be provided at the entrance to these emergency access roads. 14 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� As shown on the Layout and Materials Plan provided in Appendix A,the residential units would be located on either side of the central loop road throughout the entire development and would be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the roadway. The typical internal road pavement would be 25 feet in width. The proposed roadway would increase to a maximum width of approximately 54 feet at the entrance drive to accommodate the reception booth and additional entrance lane.Also,the road would be widened to approximately 45 feet in three locations along the western portion of the road to create flush decorative paver islands for aesthetic purposes. The design of the central loop road,with inner loops,is intended to provide a rural aspect to the development by creating a meandering roadway rather than a linear grid of roads and buildings. This design would also serve to provide for slower vehicular traffic speeds through the development. The roadway would provide ample access to vehicles such as garbage trucks,moving vans,and emergency vehicles. An emergency truck-turning radius map has been prepared to evaluate the proposed internal roadway with respect to adequacy of turning radius for emergency service vehicles. A copy of the map showing sufficient turning radii is provided in Appendix A. The internal roads would be privately owned and maintained by the HOA. A nature trail would be constructed of gravel and would be situated along the north and east sides of the property, as well as through the center of the site. This trail would provide pedestrian access around the site,including to and from the clubhouse and recreational areas,while limiting walking within the paved roadways. As shown in Table 2 below,pursuant to the Town Code,282 parking spaces are required for the proposed project. Parking for the units would be provided via the individual unit driveways and two-car garages,for a total of 248garage parking spaces. The clubhouse,tennis courts, and pool require a total of 21 parking spaces per the Town Code,including one handicapped space. The proposed project would provide 36 total spaces,including two handicapped spaces adjacent to the proposed clubhouse,pool and tennis courts. In total,284 parking spaces are proposed,which exceeds Town standards. Table 2- Required and Proposed On-site Parkin Re uired Parkin Pro osed Parkin 124 Dwelling Units 2 spaces/2-bedroom unit x 124 (2 spaces/driveway)x 124units units=248 spaces plus 0.25 =248 spaces space per additional bedroom x 52 units= 13=261 spaces Clubhouse 1 Space/300 SF x 6,189 SF= 36 21 Spaces 15 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply Sanitary Disposal Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code(SCSC)addresses sewage facility requirements for realty subdivisions to limit the loading of nitrogen in various groundwater management zones as established by SCDHS. As required under SCSC Article 6,the Population Density Equivalent must be established for the subject property to determine the type of sewage disposal system required for the type and size of project proposed. This equivalent(or total allowable flow)is then compared to the design sewage flow for the proposed project. If the project's design sewage flow exceeds the population density equivalent, an on-site Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)is required. If the project's design sewage flow is less than the site's population density equivalent, conventional septic systems may be used,provided individual systems comply with the current design standards and no existing community sewerage system is available or accessible. The subject property is located within Groundwater Management Zone IV, as defined by the SCDHS, and thus,would be allowed 75 percent of the adjusted gross land area(in square feet)times 600 gpd divided by 40,000 SF of land area. This calculation yields an allowable population density equivalent of 22,540 gpd for the subject property(0.75 x 2,003,582 square feet x 600/40,000). Based on SCDHS sanitary design flow factors(see Table 1),the anticipated sanitary wastewater generated by the site is approximately 22,500 gpd,which does not exceed the population density equivalent, and,therefore,would allow for the use of conventional septic systems. As such,thirty-seven clustered septic systems are proposed to be constructed on the subject property,with each system serving two to four housing units(i.e.,36)and one system for the clubhouse. See the Utility Plan located in Appendix A of this document for the Sanitary Density and Flow Calculations,as well as the proposed clustered septic system layout and construction details. There is currently an existing water main,owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA),located approximately 200 feet east of the subject property and there have been previous connections to SCWA water mains in the vicinity of the project site. In accordance with the approved Stipulation of Settlement, the Town has agreed to allow public water to service the subject property. Therefore,it is the intent of the proposed project to extend the existing water main to the frontage of the subject property for subsequent connection of the project to public water. Water usage from the proposed project is estimated to be approximately 22,500 gpd. Irrigation of the fertilized landscaped portions of the site would require an additional 43,500 gpd(based on a total area of 442,573 SF [10.1±acres] that will require irrigation and using 0.1 gallon/day per square foot for turf areas, and .08 gallon/day 16 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� per square foot for shrub beds). Therefore, during irrigation season,water demand would be 66,000 gpd. 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting The subject property is currently undeveloped land that supports early-through mid- successional habitats,including several areas of successional woodland habitat, which are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this DEIS Due to the nature of the existing site and the need for mitigation in accordance with the Soil Management Plan,the entire site would need to be cleared of existing vegetation. The project Landscape Plan as well as the Open Space Plan are included in Appendix A of this document. As shown on the Open Space Plan,the proposed project would provide approximately 23 acres of open space(or 50±percent of the site)throughout the interior and along the perimeters of the subject property as well as 7.79±acres for landscaping associated with plantings around buildings and within rights-of-way adjacent to roadways. To provide screening from the neighboring properties,a fully- vegetated berm of evergreen plantings,varying from three-to-five feet in height,will be provided along the northern,eastern and western property boundaries. Street trees, comprised of native species(varieties of red maple,red oak and sweetgum, as well as native pin oak,which currently occurs at the subject property),would be installed along the internal roadway. In addition, decorative shrubs would be incorporated within the interior of the subject property-- specifically around the units and clubhouse. Approximately 7.79±acres(16.9±percent of the subject property),primarily around the proposed units and clubhouse,would be landscaped with fertilizer-/irrigation- dependent turf and foundation plantings. Fertilizer usage is estimated at 2.30 pounds of nitrogen-bearing fertilizer per 1,000 SF of area, and irrigation is assumed to be 0.1 gallon/day per square foot for turf areas, and .08 gallon/day per square foot for shrub beds,once plantings are established. The remainder of the open space areas would be established in non-fertilizer dependent vegetation(e.g.,perimeter tree/shrub planting buffers,native grasses and plantings). Lighting would be provided for the proposed project in accordance with Town requirements. Pole-mounted light fixtures would be provided along the roadways and in parking areas. Each residence unit would have light fixtures over the front porch,garage and back patios,while lighting would be provided in the front and rear of the clubhouse and recreational lighting would be provided for the pool deck and tennis courts. The Layout and Materials Plan and Lighting Plan,included in Appendix A of this DEIS,provides details of the proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric analysis of the subject property. As shown,maximum photometric 17 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� levels at the subject property boundaries are 0.0,indicating that all lights will be screened, as necessary, to ensure there will be no spillover of light onto neighboring properties. All pole-mounted lighting fixtures would not exceed 14 feet in height, as required by the Town Code. However,the Town Code does allow for recreational lighting to exceed the 14-foot maximum height,but requires that such light be reasonably screened from view and compatible with the existing or potential uses of neighboring properties and that no outdoor recreational facility be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. The proposed Lighting Plan,provided in Appendix A, depicts these conditions and the development would adhere to the timing restrictions. The proposed project includes open space,which will be set aside throughout the interior of the subject property as well as around the perimeter. Open space would include landscaped areas and nature trails. As the proposed project is a private, gated community,open space would only be accessible to the residents and their guests. 1.4 Construction and Operation 1.4.1 Construction The construction phase is anticipated to progress in a manner typical for a project of the size and type proposed;no unique or unusual construction difficulties are anticipated. The proposed project is anticipated to be built in four phases,with approximately 30 to 31 units built per phase and with each phase taking about 1-to- 11/z years. The clubhouse and other site amenities are anticipated to be constructed during the first phase. Prior to construction commencement,the applicant would prepare a SWPPP for approval by the Town and in accordance with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)Program, so as to obtain coverage under General Permit GP 0-15-002,for the discharge of stormwater during construction activities. See Section 2.2.2 of this document for additional information regarding the SWPPP. In addition,upon operation,the proposed project would also require a SPDES permit for discharge of sewage effluent to groundwater. Phase 1 of the project construction would begin by implementing all erosion and sediment control measures as outlined in the SWPPP. Additionally, all clearing, grubbing and earthwork related to soil management activities would be completed prior to construction of any infrastructure. This includes construction of the necessary berms to provide screening of construction activities from neighboring properties. 18 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Following earthwork activities,the proposed internal road base and all drainage, water,electric and gas subsurface utilities,would be constructed,followed by the model units(one each for units A-1,A-2,B-1 and B-2)and an additiona130 housing units. Generally, construction of the units would begin at the southern part of the property and move northward. All pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping related to the completed units would be included in this phase.Phase 1 would also include construction of the clubhouse and all related recreational amenities,i.e.the pool,tennis courts and infrastructure. Phases 2 and 3 would each include construction of an additiona131 units,along with the related pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping. Phase 4 would include build-out of the remaining 31 units and all related infrastructure. Each phase would be constructed just north of the previously-constructed units. Construction access to the site will be from the main entrance off Schoolhouse Lane. All construction staging, contractor parking, and material staging will take place on site in accordance with the approved SWPPP. The project's General Contractor will be required to maintain all erosion and sediment control measures throughout construction until work is complete and final stabilization is achieved. Impacts during the construction phase are commonly expected and are identified and discussed throughout this DEIS as appropriate.As detailed below,these impacts are short-term in nature,and would be variable throughout the construction period. 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. 1.4.2 Operation A Homeowners'Association(HOA)will be established for The Heritage at Cutchogue. This entity will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the commonly-owned grounds,roadway and drainage systems, community facility buildings,pool, and other amenities. Approximately two full-time employees would be required to staff the reception booth. The HOA would outsource maintenance, landscaping, and garbage hauling(which would likely involve weekly attention by approximately 10-15 workers from spring through fall and approximately five workers during winter months for snow and garbage removal). The Heritage at Cutchogue would be operated under an HOA agreement approved and filed in accordance with the laws of New York State. Annual fees charged to the residents, as required under the HOA agreement,would fund the operation. Facilities would be open year-round(with the exception of the outdoor pool,which is expected to be open from Memorial Day to Labor Day)to residents of the development and their guests. The community building would be available for residents'meetings and 19 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� small gatherings. There would be limited need for large trucks to enter the site(with the exception of activities like moving,furniture delivery,etc.). Garbage collection vehicles and box delivery trucks(Federal Express or similar)would be expected on a weekly basis similar to surrounding residential areas. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required The following permits would be obtained as part of the construction and operation of the proposed project: Table 3- Required Permits and Approvals Government Enti IA enc A roval Re uired Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan Approval;waiver of§280-137E and F of the Town Code;waiver of fees;approval of subdivision or unit designation map Town of Southold Building Department Building Permit Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Supply and Sanitary Discharge Approvals Suffolk County Water Authority Water Connection New York State Attorney General Approval of HOA and Offering Plan New York State Department of Environmental State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Conservation Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity and Discharge of Wastes to Groundwater 20 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � Natural Environmental Resources 2.1 soils 2.1.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS discusses the existing soil types found on the subject property, along with details on soil characteristics. Subsurface conditions at the subject property due to past activities of the site are also addressed. $OIIS Soil Survey of Suffolk County According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County,New York'(Soil Survey), soils are classified according to distinct characteristics and placed(according to these characteristics)into "series" and"mapping units." A"series" is a group of mapping units formed from particular disintegrated and partly weathered rocks that lie approximately parallel to the surface and are similar in arrangement and differentiating characteristics such as color, structure,reaction, consistency, mineralogical composition and chemical composition. "Mapping units" differ from each other according to slope, and may differ according to characteristics such as texture. According to the Soil Survey Geo�raphic(SSURGO)Database for Suffolk County,New York,the subject property is comprised of the following soil series:Haven,Plymouth and Riverhead. As shown on Table 4,the majority of the site is comprised of Haven � �Soil Survey of Suffolk County,New York,United States Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service(Washington,D.C.:United States Department of Agriculture,1975). 21 2.1 SO11S �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� loam,with 0 to two-percent slopes,followed by Riverhead sandy loam,with three to eight-percent slopes,with other soils comprising much smaller portions of the subject property. Table 4 also presents the potential engineering and planning limitations for each soil type on the subject property. Relevant excerpts from the Soil Survey relating to the soil series and the specific mapping units are presented below and depicted on Figure 3. Table 4 - Soils at the Sub'ect Propert Depth to Approximate Seasonal Approximate Erosion Permeability High Natural Symbol Soil Type Acres (o��j Percentage Hazard (incheslhour) Water Limitations of soils Fertility Table (feet) Streets Home- Sewage and sites Disposal Parking Fields Lots Haven loam, HaA 0 to 2 28 3 62 SL 0.63-2.0 >4 SL SL SL� Low percent slo es Riverhead sandy loam, RdB 3 to 8 13.8 30 M-SL 2.0-6.3 >4 M(A)2 SL SL� Low percent slo es Plymouth loamy sand, PIC 8 to 15 32 7 M-S >6.3 >4 S(A)3 M(A) M(A)� Low percent slo es Plymouth loamy sand, PIB 3 to 8 0.6 1 SL >6.3 >4 M(A)2 SL SL� Low percent slo es Haven loam, HaB 2 to 6 <0.1 <1 M-SL 0.63—2.0 >4 M(A)2 SL SL� Low percent slo es TOTAL 45.9 100% Source: Soil Survey of Suffolk County,New York,United States Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service(1975). Notes: Engineering and Planning Limitation Rating: SL=Slight-Few or no limitations or limitations can be overcome at little cost. M=Moderate-Limitations are harder to correct or not possible to correct entirely. S=Severe-Use severely limited by some characteristics difficult or costly to overcome. Reason for Limitations A=Slopes Qualifcations �=Possible pollution hazard to lakes,springs or shallow wells in these rapidly permeable soils. z =Slight for town or country roads 3 =Moderate for town or country roads 22 2.1 Soils / / ';,HaA '.� � :�,. � ., �.��o� � � �� . l%% � �� ., � ��. ,. , , „i ,r �; .., i i„,,,�/ ... ./, o �i, i� .,/i�' r i ,,, ., /,... ,� / / / i .l i ... � .., i � , „ /,.. � � ii�., ,�,/ � r , .,�� ( / / , . .i , ,� 1 i .:,, .:-/� ., / / 1 , , 1 - � .. i i , � /% / / i, �, / � / i , / /, i _ � ( i, .,.. �/, , / / , i . 1,,..., i„r ._„ ., i / ,� �� ., r J � , , ,i, ,..,. ,. 4 ( i i � i i r� / i �/ <,, � �/, � /, , ,, � � �, _ , ,� ��. � f / , � wi l / / i , � i I ` � / i „ - , ,_ i � i „ / i, I / f �1, / i /� , �, r � i � �,, � il, �/ � � I �� ., i f � // /l I � r „ i � f i, , �� , , � / l , / ) �i / / ,,.,, i , , ,,, 1 / � �i (� l� � „ ii. / 1 � � � / � �-, i / i /� F. „ ,,,, �. //r, i, ( / , /� i� /, ,/ f i/ �/ i � � 1/ f �i � /, ,, � ,r � � i/ , r � , , , � � , � ,,. .. / �/ . , J / i i/ I i/ / � , � . i �1 ii ,/ + f �' � � � „ v i„/i � r ., //, /i � l � „ /_ „f �/ i , , � �,/ � � i, / / i � � / i .i. i / v,. ,,,, , ,. ..,,. ., , , ...r. .. / � .� / �i,� ,, i , ..„ . � -i � .., . .. i , � , i . / ,�„ , . .,a,,,,,, .. , ,...N. ,i / � / ./ .,:,/ ��.RtlB r. . , ,... l V,.. /.. � .., -../ , i , , // / 1 , , , � / � , / , � ,� i, � � I i i � � r , � f /�i /� � /� � � � ,, i / l y i , / � / � „ PIC „ i .,, /, �,. .r I . S.. / i �. / i i, �, � l / �,. 8 i / � , � i ,� � ,.i / / , i ,, / a >i � �� i i , � r ,,, . „ / � i, i / v _ � / � / , , , , � ,/ ,, , � � r f� � / � � i � , � � � � / f . , � ,. f F 1 �, � �( �� , ,. ,.. ,, i.. /..,. . ..� .., ., ,.r � � ...., „, i � ,.,.. .... i ..,,, .,.., .� .,,I� , ., .�'�), _.� �. , .. , i,,., �� / � /,. � � �_ , �i , , i, ,. , , , � , , �, i , � w , r. 1 r` i , � � i, � �/ �� b `, � , , , � ii � a � � / , � � � ( � . , ,r� n �, y , . , / r,�/i l , � � , / ,PIA . � f ,,,� ... ..i... ...�.� . J, ,..../ . .. / � �� i , , ii � /. . �<.! .. ,i a�,.. � i .,s,. ...ii ..i...,.... � � .i, .... � . ...,, r /^. N�. .. r �,� , , . � , �. � , � i� .. ..,., i � /_ .. � , „ , ,� ., .. . /r'� . +1 ,i ,. .. ./ ..�. �� .. . ,i/ i � i ,.,�„ .. L. ... .,..,/ / „ .: ,... ,. ./ / ,/ /... /.. ....,, „..i ...1/,..... . ..i. ,r, .. ... . y .. ..../ ,.,...i . . ..,i� .. ..n .. i „ <..,..�r r ... /, ,.. .. .. �1 /. � .. ,.�....,,i ...� i........., , . 9 / ,. ,� .. ...,., .�...... . � . �� Y .,.r i. ......,, .. ...�� .. / . /.. / . , . „i.. . ../. /.., .i , �../� . ../ , ...... �i / � ....1 .. .er�/ .../... .... ,/ i.,.. � , . ,..,, . .. � l i .. . ..�...r.,/ . �. ,.. ,. , / .... . . . � .i I ///�/i... �.,.J . � / i ./,.:.. � / �/ � /, . � , � � , i , i � � ,., � P�� ,i� � / , � �„ � / ✓ _ , r �, , ?� � /, � i ./,,, �i , ,i. � , � �/ � ,. , ,%� 1 I , � I ✓ , i � i l :- / „ r, � / � i <, ��, i ,� / � � !,///� � , e , , � �. , �, o.� � I / �� _,, f . � „ „,, �� i /i i/ �i / c F, . � , � � � �, / I. � ��r / / / j � _ � / / / ' �y � I / / � /,. // � ,,,, � � /,,ii , � / ) � _,_ � i, 1 o. , , . ....,. , , J,.. .. / .../r . ,. , , � �� , � �. .. ., .� , �. ... . .. ,., , � � � // , „�� , �/ � � � , , , , , , � /� , , ,, y r,, , . , � / , , i � ,. // �, � , , „ ��, , .e ,� , i�, , r� �� i � �� ,, � / , ,, � ,� � , , �j� / I u , ;�i .:.. i, ,,� .l,,� ..//��,,, ...%� ,. . �/,,, .. �� x�/ e:.� � 1 � r� � „�,.�-,� ,-; .� / , � „ �,(/ .� ,�/�f �i � ../, � � �, , , � //, :� �� , „i / eG,/i,,../, ��/�/ � �/.,,:/�/�..,1, � .:./ / i� � �� ii �. ��.. /% ...i�,.��/ . /.,. �.. ,,., i//// 1 .%��,ir'/ , � ,...� l !/ , , � �, ��`i , �f:,/ . ,i� �/ I �,� ✓/i,,, r/ ..�.�. � %.,,../� �� / � ! � � � /� i ' ri/ �� , �/�/ ./../ F , � , r,.i�, „�j � , �� /, , I // ///� � �/ �,�, �r � , I/ /�, /�� 6 a r � � i � „ � �� h,. � o,,,�/i i d�, i /// �,.,,� � l/�/ /�/i � � / , / , l ,, , �I � , � ,� � � � , , �� , , , /, ,.. ,/,/ , i > , . / ,,� ,,...,.%/,, J� ,,,. �,,< � ��i, ,�� , „ i� � �, / ,�, � � ,�/�,, „ �/�� //� i ✓ I l i�.,,, , �, i l �i �, � �„ � r,.. ,, ��/� �., l 1 /� „ �r// ; � �. / , ��/ /R�j r f/,:� - %,; �� ....„ ,�/. .:�z/,�i I � '/ / ,,,,,,-,� I�/i 1,...,��;:.,,. i��r�o��aAi � l l (�/ ;%�� „ i/ � ,. ��/�/iri! .ii�..,.�i�� /!li/r�., l. „ � � =.a�iii //� , � ,.. 1 i ,�� ,ri �,�, ,�/. .��/�,,;,,,� /�� Ilf� �� ,��i /f t�//; �f: f / ,; �% % �i, .,,i/�/ � , ;, i, % ,,./, �1,� , � ��iii!��fi��i��,� , , / /% e%/////i F� -� ,r,,,,, �. � , � ioi��r/�,�r .� 1 �„�// ./ � � i, ,�� ,� , ii�,<,..; i�iaii�rd�,,,,,:;% r / ,.r ,I.IJ �;l'i'� ��:% I�� ,i .�// i , t� .,, / ,,,, �:" i .ii %/,,, i. , ...,,/�� ; �� li'. ,,.,,,,�,�j,f /i! ��y' / ��% �/ i „i// i i/ i�i „ �� ii/„�/,;, � �� j / i r i //, / , //�iirii//i� � l P iiii,� i %��/li� � �//�,.,// ,r;� ' � � 'r� �i�� , ,-;;;� /%��. iii ...� „ „,,, � ,,;.;� �I r//,,,,;��,l�.z.//,r i � /�, �� Rae r � , ,< „. ��, ,,:, vi�ii r, �r„% ��/� �if//� �� / ,,�/ � l ,� „ .,%�, �i / , �r,i/1��/i /,� / �i �� , „,,,, i��„� / , ,� , ,,,�i � / // , , � � ,� �i� � , � ��/ ,.� , ,; �/ ��/�i, . i � i // ,,,� � � ,��' , „ � ,,, ,! �, i ;. , ,,� /o,,, , / /, � i », i�� /; / i ,, i .., i, ,.��1 ,/,� ,,� � ii,� v,� /i. , . ,, , / //i�/, �, , „ �i , � i �/„/i� ,... 1- �� i...:��, , � .I .../, il,: . �, - , ; , ,/// ��..' ✓,. rao, � ..� ��i��/��/,.�,..! .� � ,.� � ; � e."/�. .� , / ,,, ,.�/ / �/ ...// �:HaB ..;� ..f� � ��i,il��:.�,:. I f / / � %�//� � //%/ /�//,�/, 1t l , r �� /lji �. HaA �/�f .:..�� d i �e/.f �� /� � ,< /.,//jj///-.;,� .. / �. n �� ii �� / ��/ ...� ' � , � i ,,,i � ;;;;; / �/.. „//l, /�� ,...�� i / �,� �/i✓.// „ �i..� .�� /,„/� �� ,gi/i/ /.. „ <.i I.. ,, i.� I i ,� �� .i / / � .� i� t�fi(�i� � � r � ,.�//i, iii ,;,:./ �, ,i , .! / .:� '�/ (/,,, � „ // ....� ( 1/� � ';✓.. i// .. /// ...... . �. , , l�� :, � , .i..i �j ./ ��I,/ ��/ � /, ../ � /�/ ��, ,,� � J �. �,�� / / .�..� � � ��, „ � � , '..� /// ,////./�„, ��.. � � ; .�/ ..� / �//,� "1 / //.;� �/,,,,�� ..�, i , (�� R �':f i ,i,�� / � 7h�Vni��C�� J� f %/. � �„ . ,/, i ��/. < R ,.. � /,/� �� i� ��(� i; �ii;/��i 1� /- �II .��j� i,:, � � �r �f � �i%//�/i�� %,,,,.,,s /ii � ,� , � �b'� �;:J� ,r//� i� �l/ / /, i i /, i /�� r, � n�� r / i o,�� u //, � 1, a , 1 i .,, / �� i„/ i ,�,�i. � / . �„ r,A i � � i // / / '�� i , ��..� ., / „ i / � i,., 1 1 //. .,,,, i � i��a , i , , i f, ir.. , / / , V„ -/ l „ �, / � � � , � o , , „ , / , , �� ,., �, f ,/ � � , , � I i, r/I � ,� ,�� % i, , ,� �� i , l� ai ,,.�l � , � �� , , / / 1 i , � i i� / , � g� � ii� / �i i� � / ,/ /,. � �, l� ,�,<� � ,1,i� r� , � �j %�, � 1 ,�>�/ 0 /i i i,�/ii �� ,(�� , !� ,,�,.,:a� �/,.,,r � /.� � i� � � ,/ // �,�i�, ,...o /:, /,,,i�� .r, i/�; �1 i , ,�(/�/ i � ;;;�, , „ �/ ; , � � l i ��,c.. � II�, �/ /'�/, � / i i „ / a, l � /i I� � � � r. � , /,,,,, / , I i I i�� l i �. , i, , �� f i , �� , � , � , t / / i i �, � ; � �� i � � i � I / 1 � , � i / i, � „ / , r ,, � � , . / / � i i � i �� I � �� i �i//�� // i /, r,li,. i, � .�� HaB ,..�/ i �i i /, i /�i� / „ , � //� /�... ,../i., .i� f" ..::. ..,/ �/�� f I .;.p�, ",� /� ,.> /� � � � , ..i/.. ��/ ,/�i/�� '�, . <., i , ��.. .� �, ..� PIB i ,,.„,/��/� , , ,�, �� - ,,,,, // , /,./ / ��-/ ./,.,i „ � ./ � .,,., // -, / , i / .i ,� 1 , L ,,,i�n / I, ✓u / 1 � :/i� . ✓ P /: ,,,,.i i� / �.. / � i� �i �, y � /�j � .� „� / 1 = ,,ii�// � r � r / q r � �� , . �1 r / , . y�,� � , �„ e , . , , , i / ;�/ , , � 1 1 ,, � ��, , � ,, �� , �� ,�� i � � ;,�, �� /, � , �� i i ,,,, „ / i�� J,� �, , ,, ii�� ,. l / �� / , / � ,,/�� „ ., , �� , / ,,,,,,. ,, /� � i �� ,, 1 ,< ,. //i ��/ , �/ � � . / � � � � � ,�. i � ,, ,,, �� /„ / ( i �/��, �. �, � , / // i / . , , / �/ , �,/ � ,, / � , , � ,. � ,,,. ,> i f/ � �/ � � s � Y,, � , ,�, , ,� i 0 � , � , � � o i� ,,� / , � . . /,�, � „ , ,,, , , / 1„ �,�,. ,, ��, r� � � n� � �, � � � �, , / , � , �� / � �� , � , ,,� � �', o / ,,, i,,. �� ' � , � �, ,, ,, i , � . , / / � �� l i � � �i r„ �/ �/ . �¢i a , i /i �/, / i� � /, � y / ///. / � �� I � /, � � i ,� „ � � /�.. ��7 / � ,,,,„,,,i / ,. „ � i r �,. �� , .o ....� / , ,/ �� /� f�,,, .� ��/' , .....,... � . � i,,,,,, ., � ,�i , � .,,,,. / ��.. / � � I � ,,;i �,,,, ;� .i,. /� �/.a f , .��„ i�j/ / /� /, //�,,:, (9,� ,�. ,.. ,,. ,,,.,. � � ✓ , .� / :::// , ,,,,//o , . .l 1 -„ / ,. i/..� i„ l ri ., i/ � � �, ., / . / ..,,,/ �� i . - � l i i ��,:.. � i ..�. ,,., ....,, , �i, i / �/� //„/� �//�,, //„y,D �' / ,/c � r��//„ ii ,,,� �,�� ,/��' %�, ,/� /,,,,, �„ � � r. / i �,,, � % � i� � i � / /� / ,,, �, ,,,, � � � / „ � � �, � < /�,�/ i„ l � ,m �'� <� � �(, � /�„ � / / i „�i r/ � ;::: ,,,,, � 4; d 7 / i/ ,, � „ �/ � / � � � � � / i � / / /� � . ,i i /i !� , i � � � %i�///�/.,,,,< � � r � � � �/ 9 � , r, i �/ , l��, / � iii i % , � „ / 1 l i�/., �//� /i„ /� �,. i i � r;��«i �oii, / ��. I � � //i i ��// „ // i/� Y� K %i.: / r o �i� , ( ; y �// i „ /iii/ ��N,i,,;,,�,- //, � ,i �� / , it� �� /��.. ✓ .:/% ,«� �`i„ l � ,,,�,,, � V � r: / � i t r . // � / ,, . /� ,� i A,,, ,/ �r i,/ � i, „ ,< �� ! i u „� /� _ �/ / � ,, �� ,,,/ i, � �, ! � 9 �� ./��;��, ��.,„, i t,� -. ,- o�, , i� , , ,r , i� r r , � �i ✓. ,,.� < J f ;. , i,. /:!i. „��%d „ ai� l�� , 1 �,. ; /, � � � ir�� / ////, „ �. �� l , �r i � r�� l<,a�i�, /�i,,r�/i /i�,/� , ,�� 1,: „f ii ,.,,i;/. II /�� „ , ir r ,///, � , l �1i, � f / ,,� ,,/, � � ie l� Y r,, /�� /,� i� �� / i, �� i��Ir, ,� /l/, /�i ii/�,� � d�+ / f// 4/ f p � �, 1 rl',, i�,,,,. ii %�� ,��j�0„ , ,r� !! i� i�..,. ,,;,,, ��,/// / �� i� , i � /�;,,// t://% %� <,�� /i S �� ,f:�� l , ' , ' / ✓ i ,., �--,��//i�, , � ,� /�, �i�, r� //, � �i, i / i„v�,�,�, ,i� f /�� ,/� �J � r"" �, � �� /� i�i ..� „ , �J ��,, � c„ r, `"�/'�¢�, ��, J, � , ,, � �l: � r ,�:��7 � ✓ a� �y ��!;� //,�� ' ..:, /' ,/� .�.�, � ic � , ,�l ..�/ ,,. �//� i/Y,; .i �, HaA. ,.;rf �n� , i� ;�/r,.i �/�/,, .,� ll� �� i . `� � �1, , �.,, �//., /��.;i:0 ilz i �//� .ii r.c/ I, �,i i'/,:� „��r„ / i! f� r Pia �� l (/ ��' iD, i I l or i//� i� � �� l, ;,,,�� ii ,,,<,,.,,,, 1a ��// � i u �":-�� .� / �///pi�.,%/�%/l f,!�f At�,� ,1),/;%/// , �.: ,��/ �c. , „ /j o� 1�� P� / ,' „�.. .i, � //�/-��'' f ., �o„s� r�i /.l IS ,"'U% 17- -.� � 1 �� f !i�/�..,� i,, � . �r� !��,,.��r/ ,i�� ,,;:< �/ 1/r,.`�' � !! i/1I� '., / r i /. � � � % -,;fi^ r:.�i�� "/�i�'l�. �/Y/ii)i � /�,1� .�.. ..;�� / „, ,�,,,iii �. N� ✓ ,I r.�,. � �� 1 / / ///,�� /�� . i ✓ A, dl � / �/ � r��_ � / �,//�!l�� 1 /1�,,�1 Y+i;;,� �li „��/ ri� i,, � „/, � J f i, � � 1 i ��j �////i � �i,i � i,�l , �i i,,.li,,,, wi W i i d /„ / /i / //�- :�. � � � �� /, /�� ,� �/�/(� / �, i'I i, d r � � I � l IIIIV i i �l(( ii , �I� I � � � � ,,.i % / �� .`. .;%� I � i� /�� /� �//, / �G�i ��„�� f' /'�c ' / % �, �:,. �„ � ' ,N , r, I� �./ /�j �� ,/'�IV„il i ! , ,i;;�" ,. �/� �, r %..,, / m� / ;, �� / /�, r , ,III // , rr� i � l� � ,i u ��//�,/, i / i, � �, lJJ i ��/// iiiM!� /i � � I J�/ � f� /r,i ��/��,/D�� , „{ij � /� � i�llllf ��/�/ ��-c/ /� �� ( �/�� i�� i �j��/�// ,�r�f�,,. �-, - � , ,,r /% i,. i� ,,,, , / � ' i i / r, '�,, ° i/.,/;// i, l�f " ,/� im i /� �/ � � ., � �,�i ,/i� r, �,'�d : „/l ,i�/. �l�/..,%d, l� i�,(�� %i �, '�� i // .i: � � J ��G,,,r�„,i/i�/y��//di , .�/�j�j r :::�i�/,� ��i ��,/1N,i � /� �l, � ,,,,,,,,,, , < � il ��/ 9� (/,� RdB /� r,�/� � /. , � �4M /� ,.� i?� /� .,:,�, i� �/ � r,��.,i.i i�lf I 4/)lY /�;� %/��, �( ;% � .. ,��, � ��i �, ,!,� ,�� ,�� / �j� ,r�� TI� �i �,///�1°�?% .,�!, // � i�,,;,, 1 � ,� � ,//..., l��%//,,,,,„ / � ,�� r %�I�. ,, l�/ ,,,/�/ / .�. �� i fi i%�.,.. Jr//�. :, //'� ,��,� 1 p/ G�. .�,��/ ,�. � -,�� m � l �////�.i� ��, �� / � ,�Y :i , /// „�� - iii,,.,,� � ,� 1� � �� i�//.��1,////��:9 �� r.��. ,�m� 1. ,� � /%l�i/ c,,,,.> � �� ii„ �� o i�% ti / � /�/ i� if%/ e � „� � l� r�'�t � �� ,./,. , .� � � � � , ,,, ,✓�n, �� l �,/ , , r,,., �� / � � r � � �� r ��,,,,. �� ,.,,, ., , // , 6 rl/� ,�� , ,�� „�lr .,,,, � ////�::, � , ,/,�� , � u � �i , :� // < ��/i , .� .r,,t ,� , �� m�`"�%��' t ; /, /�%/o,, ,,1�/� � ,� � �/� /� l 1 ,i�.,u � i�/,/,,.,/� 1� � i i �� /ii:// // ��i..,. „.,i�� ,J ,, , � � ,1 , / , �� / , e � �� /,;, ,�� ) � f ��, � � %„ ��r � i i �� 0 11 /�� e ., � �� il , �aAi�i.i n� � � .�S HaA ...��ii�� r � ..�f�l e ,� ��, � i / � .�.t .a o�/ ,. , ...� ��... .��. ..,,, , �/ , � � 1 . � �... ./// i. � � � / / �l i, � / / 1 � i t i , � � � y J � �d � k � � / � ,/ � � � � ��,,� //,� �,�� 1 .,�! c � i, ,� �,� ,, ��i �,,,iii �� /,r �� ,,,, � ,/� r,/ � l l I � �� .�il a / � i �a�� . i i �/� oi 1�� /�/ i �/ .,, .�? �� m ��"l/i,��.. s (�l�i,/�/4/ ii/l;'"- „ ii .,�iisY,ul�n. i ..I �� l i �,� �->. i �.. � /. i�.... . , ��i/� . � � �,/, ,.aii� /. -� ., ..o,,, � f,��i, i�� ,�� ,�l �� J � a� � i i J �i � �� / �...i 7 �� i �/� /��, � � � � �i � �� ....., � 1...�� a �,i..., , i � � / � l � J. Y�.,., �� /'�:.� u�� /.��, l. %.„� /� /� i- ,..2�9.. a.. i... �/��')✓��.�� , / � ,,ii,,, ��,�q` ,o��. � f !�� 1 �o ,, i�i, / a�/, ,� i�i 1 / � , i �1dS, r, ✓� ��//i � r , , i � , � � � ,/ , !�'�r� �� „ � 1� , 1�,,, � y � �i/ , � „ � � ,, � ��,,� �/, , l �,, ,, �, ��, � , , / /, �� ,, , , 1! �%,, d ,, �i, �� ,�i/ < i, i�, , , � ��,�� t �/�� /�, , � 1� �,� �� t / �,�� ,/n� y� � �/ , � � �� / � ,� ,., /i�.,,1,r �� /��%�,a �� , , i� �s( . /i �l /� � � � , , ��J � � � � �� , , �,, ✓ , ,,. .i r � , i . /� �� /, , „1 r � i, ��r �� %i �, ��; �� , , / / � . � i � , � � �� , / / �� ,i, � „ i 0 I r, 6,i�, ,� �,� ,�/," // / /, � �/ i,,. � � � . � �, // . i � � / �� )� �/ ,/ � r l , -., . � v � / 1 �/ � , 1� , , , , 1 � �/ , ,� ,�i�, �,,,�/� � I � � „ , ,�� ,, � , � , li� „��/ � �� t � �� /, � �- �'/ ��l � � � 1 �, �,� // � � n �� i ��, , � �,;; � / � r,� � ii�,� ;, c��. , �6 �, �, �� r� i i � / , ��l . ,� �/ ,��, ,� �pi � �; i�� 'i,i� / ��i 1�(�I�i i o�� ,� /, a i� �1 i % � � r,, � / �' i� J��l� � � (V,� Gi, r , � �� !tl ,% � / �� , � �, /� ��,��✓ � ,/�,��/2J�, y � � „9,�, � � /-,, (�,,%�� <�/ �%/ „ill��i��///i««��i�iii�� r� //;// 1�,��s� � � �,�j �� f�� ( /��, ��,,� �� f�1 ��I r„/� i�� ,i � i,./�/�i� f i�,�H '/i J%1 1➢1 ��,� �l� � � ��°�, o1�r/'ii'�; r, / . �� / //� Mo� �%�� I�� , J;l l � 'n �;epe 1�� %-, � '� � 'f� �r �� /�y ' W��i,y� � ��'i�� Le end %��,� , � ,,,;9 l;l�� ;��i�� pd;�� l 1��/„�r�� '�� ,!! �� S f ,��f, ��,1 �(i/, �� / io�� %�.�. �✓f�;��j//%�ii/li�ed�� /� 0� %� n �SubeciPro ert i' i �8��1�� llu �� I+� ��„� A�� q� ,, r,'// y�r��iJ��i��l� , Pic� /% J i c v Rae� f�i/�,��w �F(, � �,�Pf J �i � /l r�� /i,i�� r �'��r,r �� 19 �I.. � I r/i � .:.. �n �P'�� /-�I i 0 JJ � i i l .��(�y� �.� �d USDA NRCS Soils � li,. � / // � ,�� I,��f, . ��Y �;��, .� �� r � �r,/r�/� i �i, ,,,� l i j��,�i,/%/'///,I�/'�� 'io„ �(� � /i��G/ � �J' v,�,i�/l l� (�i ,�� i �,. ��/�� l �ia�f�". yrra�� l� „/.� ��.� /'�� f� .i� J/✓ �1�/ '! � �HaA-Haven loam,0-2% f Il�///J /1��,�� ,�1 ,,�� „p D, ��,�f � � �r ��il�,;'�yr�, Ir/v//n i � �./ i 1�� i�6 �, � //lJ � � ��;aJ Jl,, 'PmC3 ��'�i�//�� / ': 1% � ��a / '�.r ��f � �. ;�;J�,� ,��(�. �i ��/ �HaB-Haven loam,2-6% �i �,� �f�HaA�� f� ". 1�� f �I��/d//� i��v� %i��V� ,1 m14�° � I' �/1ii/�i//// I� i iS � �� I� �� V�Y !,ly/I , /i��f/�� 1" .yc �/�� j� , ( V / � �/�J J�� ..:�i�///� 1` �Y 1 ��% PIB-Plymouth loamy sand,3-8% �� / J /i � �/ // �G4� � �,��H�h� � , s,�j u�/�/1f// f �� %i� � / .,a: HaB ��1 �Jiij% '�� ; �a; i�f �%�� ""'�� PIA� ,�i J�� I ..��i ��'/' nay, PIC-Plymouth loamy sand,8- , ��a i „� �i/ �i� �� i� �i/ � �1�� il; oii� �15% r , ��/�i�ii.� � �i � � r/%�� /i �, J �% i ; U� ��..RdC� / 1 �fJ�.,�� /if/i�yi ��:HaB ��i��/�� r�i �/ �i�/��ir��Y� �l "Q � � He� f� 1,�14�/� �i RdB-Riverhead Sand Loam,3- � /��f�%�� /j� )/( �"'/�� ' �d/�r!'�/� � �f`� � /%/,; { Y � ��r � i��ii � (��O �� ii�� %�If�� f�; � �8� I �rpE �/ -� ;�,c,�� le� f�%�� -AJ/�, ,��°j�, �/i i/ � '�%�.i, i i The Heritage at Cutchogue Fi uxe 3—Soils n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Sheet and Schoolhouse Lane W�L �"�h��s�+�� x+ ...��.s I�IamletofCutchogue,TownofSouthold 2+nch=z6sfeet �rca,r �,�. a e�u.e,ea Suffolk Count NY 11935 �reef 90UACE 2013 NYS P�gg.a]Orti g��NYSITS }'� S 0 90 180 360 2UL3;S�15uapiGeo,qrapi�t(SSURGo)Dotab.�jor VI�IH Ref.29305.U0 5�Ik fm�iiAj,�Ya�k�llSDA�� l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Haven Series The Haven series consists of deep,well-drained medium-textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. These soils are present throughout Suffolk County(County),but most areas are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. Slopes range from 0 to 12 percent,but generally are one to six percent. The soil is used extensively for crops,and it is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County. Because of the nearly level slope and ease of excavation,most areas of this soil in the western part of the County are being used for housing developments and industrial parks. Riverhead Series The Riverhead series consists of deep,well-drained moderately coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur throughout the County in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gently-sloping areas on outwash plains. These soils range from nearly level to steep;however,they are generally nearly level to gently sloping. Similar to the Haven series,this soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the County, and it is used mainly for this purpose. Most areas in the western part of the County,however, are used for housing developments and as industrial sites. Plymouth Series The Plymouth series consists of deep,excessively-drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level to steep soils are featured throughout the County on broad,gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Plymouth soils with shallow slopes is fairly well suited to the crops commonly grown in the County. Some areas were formerly used for farming,but most such areas are in brush or are idle. In the western part of the County,this soil is used mainly for housing developments. Plymouth soils with steeper slopes(between eight and 15 percent) are not well suited to crops commonly grown in the County as most sites are wooded. Where extensive excavating is not needed, some areas of steep slopes are used for estate-type housing development. 24 2.1 Soils �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Soil Hydrological Characteristics The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)classifies soils by their hydrological capabilities. Part 630 of the National En�ineerin�Handbook(NEH)groups soil units by hydrological soil groups (HSG),which, according to the NEH, can be used to determine potential runoff from rainfall, considering various land uses. A review of the Hydrolo�ical Soil Groups for Suffolk County,New York indicates that HaA and HaB soil units are both classified as HSG B.According to the NEH: "Soils in this�roup have moderately low runoff potential when thorou�hly wet. Water transmission throu�h the soil is unimpeded." Soil units P1B,P1C and RdB are classified as HSG A.According to the NEH: "Soils in this gyroup have low runoff potential when tho�roughly wet. Water is transmitted fi�eely th�rough the soil." Agricultural Soils According to New York State Agriculture and Markets Law Article 25-AA,�304-A, "the commissioner of agriculture and markets shall establish and maintain an agricultural land classification system based upon soil productivity and capability."$ Soils are grouped according to their average crop yield production capabilities. The 2014 agricultural land classification groups for soils on the subject property are indicated in Table 5 below: Table 5-A ricultural Land Classifications of Soils On-Site Symbol Mapping Unit Slopes(%) Soil Group HaA Haven loam 0 to 2 1 HaB Haven loam 2 to 6 2 PIB PI mouth loam sand 3 to 8 6 PIC PI mouth loam sand 8 to 15 7 RdB Riverhead sand loam 3 to 8 4 Source:New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets,2014 New York Agricultural Land Classi�cation—Suffolk County,January,2014(accessed October 2014);available from http://www.aqriculture.nv.aov/AP/aqservices/soils/2014/suff14.pdf. Based on Tables 4 and 5,the subject property consists of approximately 28 acres(62 percent)of Soil Group 1,those soils capable of the highest crop yields. Approximately 14 acres,or 30 percent of the subject property, consist of highly productive agricultural soils, as classified as Soil Groups 2-4. Thus,while the majority of the site is comprised of productive agricultural soils,as noted in Section 1.1.1,the subject property has not been used for agricultural purposes for over 30 years. � ................................................................................................................... 8 25-AA NYCRR§304-A(accessed October 2014);available from http:llcodes.Ip.findlaw.cominvcodelAGMl25-AAI304-a. 25 2.1 SO11S �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Subsurface Conditions Due to historical agricultural use at the subject property, sampling was performed to determine if there had been contamination of on-site soils resulting from pesticide use.A Pesticide Report for the Herita�e @ Cutcho�ue(Pesticide Report)was prepared by Nelson&Pope(N&P)in 2007, and included soil sampling and analysis based upon SCDHS guidelines,which are based upon guidance from the New York State Department of Health Bureau of Toxic Substances Assessment(BTSA). Initial sampling was conducted on October 24,2007. Eighteen soil samples were collected from nine sampling locations at low points as well as areas throughout the property likely to have accumulated the highest contaminant levels,identified as PS- 1 through PS-9 (see Figure 1 in the Pesticide Report in Appendix D). Samples were collected from 0—three and three-six-inch intervals at the nine locations,and analyzed as follows: > Samples from 0-three-inch depths were analyzed for Pesticides and SCDH metals at PS-1,PS-2,PS-5,PS-6,and PS-8 > Samples from 0-three-inch depths were analyzed for arsenic at PS-3,PS-4,PS-7 and PS-9 > Samples from three—six-inch depths were analyzed for arsenic at all locations > Samples from three-six-inch depths were analyzed for mercury at PS-2,PS-5 and PS-8 Based on the results from the above-described testing, additional sampling was conducted on November 10,2007 at depths of nine-12 inches, 15-18 inches and 21-24 inches. All samples were analyzed for arsenic and mercury. The sampling results as provided in the Pesticide Report are as follows: > Five,0-three-inch interval samples contained elevated levels of pesticide compounds,but they did not exceed their respective United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)Soil Screening Levels(SSLs)or NYSDEC Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum(TAGM)4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives. > Five,0-three-inch samples were found to contain elevated levels of arsenic and mercury. ➢ Arsenic was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance value in four samples. ➢ Mercury was found to exceed its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective(RSCO)in three samples9. � ................................................................................................................... 9 Sampling results in the Pesticide Report contained in Appendix D indicate that Mercury was found to exceed its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives.Since the sampling was conducted in November 2007,the NYSDEC recommended objectives have been modified such that Mercury levels identified in the sampling are no Ionger considered elevated and are within acceptable parameters. 26 2.1 SO11S �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Three,three-six-inch samples contained levels of arsenic exceeding the SCDHS guidance value.'° > Three,three-six-inch samples contained levels of inercury exceeding the NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective(RSCO),but below the USEPA SSL. > Seven of the samples from November 10,2007 indicated the presence of inercury, but they were below the USEPA SSL and NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective(RSCO). > Six samples from November 10,2007 indicated the presence of arsenic and one of the six samples exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. It should be noted that since the time of preparation of N&P's Pesticide Report,the NYSDECs TAGM 4046: Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels RSCOs have been superseded by the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation(DER)Soil Cleanup Objectives(SCOs)provided in 6 NYCRR�375-6.8(a) or(b). As part of the Soil Management Plan,analysis associated with soil sampling will be compared to the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation(DER)Soil Cleanup Objectives(SCOs)provided in 6 NYCRR�375-6.8(a),which are the most conservative NYSDEC SCOs. However, as the SCDHS guidance value for arsenic is more conservative than the NYSDEC SCO identified NYCRR�375-6.8(a), arsenic concentrations will be compared to the SCDHS in guidance value of four parts per million(ppm). The NYSDEC SCOs and the SCDHS guidance for arsenic and mercury are as follows: • Arsenic o SCDHS concentration of 4 ppm o NYSDEC SCO concentration of 13 ppm • Mercury o SCDHS(previous NYSDEC TAGM)concentration of 0.1 ppm o NYSDEC SCO concentration of 0.18 ppm Based upon the above,the applicant will comply with current standards of a 4 ppm concentration of arsenic and a 0.18 concentration of inercury in all post mitigation endpoint samples collected at the site. A Soil Management Plan has been prepared to address the above-referenced sampling results (see Appendix D).This plan is further discussed in Section 2.1.2,to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic. � 10 The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Division of Enviornmental Quality Procedures for Municipalities to Evaluate the Need for Soil Sampling and Soil Management at Subdivisions or other Construction Projects with Potentially Contaminated Soils(draft February 2006),recommends that"a soil screening action level of 4 ppm be applied." 2� 2.1 SO11S �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts This section of the DEIS discusses the impacts to on-site soils,including the impact of the loss of agricultural soils. The Soil Management Plan will also be described, and proposed activities involving any necessary remediation of subsurface soils will be discussed. $OIIS HaA and RdB soils comprise the majority of the subject property,while small portions of the property contain P1C,P1B and HaB soils. As shown in Table 4, soils at the subject property have slight and moderate limitations for streets and parking lots, homesites and sewage disposal fields,with approximately 62 percent of the subject property having a slight limitation. Any limitations presented by the soil types at the subject property would be overcome through additional site preparation and good engineering and best management practices,and thus,would not pose a significant adverse impact to on-site or adjacent soils. As part of the site design,the subject property would be cleared to accommodate proposed construction as well as to eliminate the potential exposure of future residents to contaminants from the past agricultural use of the subject property. Clearing and installation of utility and infrastructure improvements (e.g., drainage, building foundations,etc.)associated with the proposed project would result in soil disturbance across the subject property. The disturbance of soils can increase the potential for erosion,including wind erosion, and sedimentation-related impacts,on- and off-site,without proper controls. To reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation as a result of land disturbance activity,various control measures would be implemented prior to and during construction of the proposed project. In accordance with General Permit GP-0-15-002,prior to the commencement of construction activity at the subject property,a SWPPP,would be developed and submitted to both the Town and the NYSDEC. As indicated on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in Appendix A,the proposed control measures,as discussed under Section 2.1.3,would be consistent with the relevant portions of the NYSDECs New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls (2005), and would be regularly inspected and maintained(e.g.,removal of accumulated sediment and debris from drainage structures,repair of damaged sediment barriers, etc.)to ensure proper function. With erosion and sediment control measures employed,no significant adverse soil erosion or sedimentation related impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project. 28 2.1 Soils �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Agricultural Soils As discussed above,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. Since many years have passed since the subject property was in active cultivation,it is expected that without implementation of the proposed action the site would continue in its current dormant state. As such,it is anticipated that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the use of agricultural soils. Subsurface Conditions As mentioned, due to historical agricultural use at the subject property, sampling was performed to determine if there had been contamination of on-site soils resulting from pesticide use. N&P's Pesticide Report(see Appendix D of this DEIS)included soil sampling and analysis and concluded that a soil management plan should be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury upon development of the site. In order to address the presence of impacted soils at the site, a Soil Management Plan was developed to eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants by on-site workers,future residents, and the surrounding properties, at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue,which includes scraping and stockpiling of the top layer of impacted soils,the depth of which varies on the site(see Appendix D), covering any such impacted soils that are stockpiled for more than 72 hours with polyethelene plastic, burial of the impacted soils beneath a minimum of one foot of clean soil at various locations of open space across the subject property, and,mixing of the impacted soils with clean sandy material for use as fill within the berm areas, all n accordance with SCDHS guidance. The Soil Management Plan is designed in accordance with SCDHS draft guidance, and will be submitted for review and approval to the Town of Southold prior to its implementation. As such,with implementation of the aforementioned soil management measures,no significant adverse impacts associated with subsurface conditions at the subject property are expected. 29 2.1 Soils �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation No significant adverse soil impacts are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Notwithstanding this,the following measures have been incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potential soil impacts: > The sanitary systems will be designed with soil permeability in mind, such that they can adequately accommodate sanitary waste from the proposed condominiums with no adverse impact to soils. > In accordance with General Permit GP-0-15-002,prior to the commencement of construction activity at the subject property,a SWPPP would be developed and submitted to both the Town and the NYSDEC. > 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 ➢ Sediment barriers(silt fence)would be installed in critical areas for erosion control purposes including the down-slope limit of all cleared/graded areas No sediment from the site would be permitted to wash onto adjacent properties or roadways ➢ A stabilized construction entrance would be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto adjacent roadways. The construction entrance would be maintained until the site is permanently stabilized. ➢ Clearing and grading would be scheduled to minimize the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed. Cleared areas and stockpiles would be kept stabilized through the use of temporary seeding as required. ➢ A dust control and watering plan would be instituted to prevent surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. ➢ Drainage inlets would be protected through the use of sediment barriers and traps as required. ➢ Sediment barriers and other erosion control measures would remain in place until disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Paved areas and drainage system would be cleaned and flushed out as necessary to remove any silt and debris. > The Soil Management Plan developed as part of this application would be implemented prior to construction to eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants by workers, and future residents of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue, as well as surrounding properties. > Upon completion of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue, a Site Management Plan will be developed and maintained by the Homeowner's Association(HOA), to ensure that the integrity of the site cap is maintained. 30 2.1 Soils �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 2.2 Water Resources 2.2.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS describes groundwater conditions,including depth to groundwater and groundwater quality beneath the subject property.The Groundwater Management Zone within which the subject property is located and site drainage characteristics are also identified. In addition,relevant plans and information concerning current potable water use and sanitary generation is provided. Groundwater Long Island is located over a designated sole source aquifer, which means that groundwater is the single source of water supply. Thus,land uses have the potential to impact the quality of the water supply. According to NYSDEC, "the aquifers underlying Long Island are among the most prolific in the Country. Almost all of Long Island's drinking water is from groundwater with surface water an insignificant contributor...The three most important Long Island aquifers are the Upper Glacial Aquifer,the Lloyd Aquifer, and the Magothy Aquifer." In the area of the subject property,the deeper Magothy and Lloyd Aquifers contain saltwater, and the Upper Glacial Aquifer is the only source of drinking water in the Town. Groundwater flow on Long Island is characterized by a groundwater divide, extending east-west along its length. To the north of the groundwater divide, horizontal groundwater flow is generally to the north;in areas south of the divide,it is toward the south. Based on a review of the United State Geological Survey(USGS) Water Table and Potentiometric Surface Altitudes in the Upper Glacial,Ma�othy, and Lloyd Aquifers beneath Lon�Island,New York,April-May 2010,regional groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is expected to flow to the southeast,toward Wickham Creek and eventually Peconic Bay. Groundwater underlying the subject property and the surrounding area is categorized by the NYSDEC as Class GA, a source of potable water supply. This classification requires quality standards to be the most stringent. 31 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Depth to Groundwater Review of the aforementioned water table data(see Figure 4)indicates that groundwater beneath the site ranges from approximately 15 to 35 feet below grade surface(bgs). Groundwater is between 25 to 35 feet bgs across a majority of the site, with the highest water table in the eastern and southeastern portion(15 to 20 feet bgs). There is a USGS monitoring well(#S 32390.1)approximately one-half mile west-northwest from the northern portion of the subject property,just west of Alvah's Lane and just north of the Long Island Railroad tracks. Yearly groundwater level measurements are taken at this location, and the most recent field data available for the well indicates that on Apri125,2014,groundwater was approximately 30 feet bgs,11 which is consistent with the published data. In addition,on-site soil borings were performed by Slacke Test Boring,Inc.in December 2006 for eight locations,to a depth of between 25 and 26 feet. Groundwater was encountered for boring locations 2 and 3 at 18+feet and 26+feet,respectively. Groundwater was not encountered at locations 1,4,5,6, 7 or 8, and therefore,groundwater at these locations is greater than 25 feet bgs (see Appendix D). Groundwater Quality Based upon routine drinking water potability results from an on-site test well installed March 22,2002 by Casola Well Drillers(see Appendix E),groundwater quality under the site can be characterized as being below regulatory limits for all parameters tested with the exception of iron. However,iron is naturally occurring in groundwater, and has no adverse health effects at the levels detected. As discussed below under the Potable Water Usa�e subsection,the subject property is undeveloped and is not currently connected to the public water supply. Additional information about groundwater in the area of the subject property can be found below under Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Mana�ement Plan. Based upon Town comments, a new on-site test well was installed on October 15, 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. Plans A review of the proposed project's consistency with relevant recommendations of the plans summarized below is provided in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS. The Long Island Cornprehensive Waste Treatrnent Managernent Plan(208 Study) � ��Groundwater for New York:Water Levels,Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey(accessed October 1,2014):available from http:ll nwis.waterdata.usps.povinvinwislpwlevels7. 32 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The Lon�Tsland Comprehensive Waste Treatment Mana�ement Plan(the 208 Study), published in 1978,12 divided Long Island into eight hydrogeologic zones and made recommendations pertaining to groundwater quality within each zone. The subject property is situated in Hydrogeologic Zone IV(see Figure 5). � 12 The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan,�ee Koppelman and Long Island Regional Planning Board(Hauppauge, NY:Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board,1978). 33 2.2 Water Resources m r "° � � �� u�^, ; � � �� "no'`� .,� .y�,Y� �� y"� � '"'�„�. t � � ��.. d l� �0^�(� ��0� f � ",f� � � � �� „ y �, �, ROa ��r'�1�,� � rf°��% '"^'� '� ;.�q` ae ......� l ��J :�� a�// �� a�',� � ,� �p II .' im �� r�!�o �� d� � �� ', rr��)`� /� v � �f � �� f�� , �,� i,�I�� ,� ,'�r�� fYi��UAIIIH O � v�," � �w ��"�� NR'�� /�//�� a � � urg i,� � '� �� ' j� i �� r /�� , �� w�� ; //'%�%/e,r�,'/ i i;��f� p�" r ! �� '�� , � /� �� !' ; � 1 r ; �i�� i ;� �i�� N� � � � � �e, ,;l �, i�'' °r�ilr r� e � (�%ir;� �l /o�.. ,? �/r� l °�e � l�� o m �7 '"'�i, / � 5 � �/� ' �p"� �r �� l �0li� //� i � r� h�� / r � � � � � �,q t � a , �aa F� ''�, �5- a Sa° f � er f � Legend 3a � Subjed Properry � � r``�fg, Depth to Groundwater(ft bgs) ,No°a j�„ '�r. High:35 � /. ��.1 ��E� f� gp i, .. i/ a�ll ' � -Low:16 � 1 �, j' �%>i � The Heritage at Cutchogue Figure�4-Depth to Gxoandwater n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane W�L '�,��.-�_� x s �..�s I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold �""�'-��t rca,r �,�. a ,ea SuffolkCount NY11935 �reet souacezoiarvrs�g�o,¢i g/y�nrcs�Ts, VI�I13 ReE 29305.U0 Y S 0 89.5 l95 350 ll�Gio�d Mo 1 p,�iid Lio d��uj 6vi��.th�n�� Ista�iid,NmYork elpnl-A1mr 2010�USGS,2flll. g �� ; �; �� „ �;,,,,� � � � � � � � �,.� � iii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJi�iiiiiiiii�� „ � �,;,. � „�ii„iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, �,, iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii � 7 ,� � ,,.,�� ' PcnRM16 „ ' . / � � /////////////////////////////////////////1/////// ;% ^� u�n�o�n �.�� c,,,,,,% ' // ,��ii//////////////////////////%////////////////f///////////�/////��///////////////////////////� � �/ '� M! „� , ,,,,.i', , ' I . 1: '� ,� , , iJ iii ; . g., ,i,.ii///%/////////////////// iiii . i.: „ Lil (-'Y 1 i, ,.. � , ' ii � � I „ / i ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / / � viiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii � � rrurr ,,, �'� �i r� r i , , „,; iiiiiiiii iiiiii, ,,, ;' �i,` ' ,,, . ,,,, . „' ,„,,.,�i , ,,,, ,,,„ � , � �� „ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii '� ,,, . . ; '. ,,,,,,,, .i �� ;;.' J 'r ,,,,,��{��//////////////////////////%„ '7, ��liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/�///�� / Mn�9e,r ,,,, , , , , , , � „- ,,,,, ,,, ; !,,, %,Legend �� ,,,� ;, ..C1 � 17,5 1 � ,,,,. 2 ini,,,, �Subject Property I i ,,, I�I �� Zone I Zone IV � Zone VII [ � � ,,, 0 0 75 1 5 3 Nm " �� Zone ll � Zone V � Zone Vlll[ i � , : ,,, ", f f'eJ Zane lu ��„� Zane Vi The Heritage at Cutchogue Figure 5—Hydrogeologic Zone n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane W� '�,Y h�F g+�==� x s �,�s I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold VP �rca,r �,�. a �u.e,ea Suffolk County,NY 11935 5 souxce.s��e��.,�rycrs VI�IH Ref.29305.00 vin.,e.cCCo�ss�ty of 5uffolk, 2014. �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� According to the 208 Study, Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern part of the South Fork of Long Island. Zone IV is characterized by the study as having degraded groundwater conditions, due to high nitrate levels from the area's agricultural history, and saltwater intrusion where pumpage is concentrated due to shallow groundwater. For Zone IV,the highest priority areawide recommendations relevant to the proposed project are as follows: > Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting,regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells > Optimize the timing of agricultural fertilizer applications > Optimize pumping patterns to minimize saltwater intrusion in public water supply wells > Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development(one dwelling unit/one or more acres),where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings > Prohibit the use of certain chemical cleaners in on-lot systems. The Long Island Cornprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (SGPA Plan) The Lon�Tsland Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan(SGPA Plan), dated July 27, 1992,13 designated nine Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs),which were defined as significant,largely undeveloped,or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. The subject property is not situated within the boundaries of an SGPA. Thus,no further discussion is provided. Suffolk County Cornprehensive Water Resources Managernent Plan(2011) The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Mana�ement Plan(Comprehensive Water Resources Plan),issued by SCDHS in January 2011,with a revised Executive Summary issued in January 2014,14 provides an extensive review of Suffolk County's groundwater quality and quantity issues and surface water impairments, as well as the programs that address them. The Comprehensive Water Resources Plan also includes goals and objectives designed to assure a viable,high quality groundwater resource for the future as follows. > All Suffolk County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinking water maximum contaminant levels(MCLs),USEPA health advisories and New York State guidance levels. � t3 The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan,Long Island Regional Planning Board(Hauppauge,NY:�ong Island Regional Planning Board,1992). �^Suffolk County Department of Health Services,Department of Environmental Quality,Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan,2011 and re-issued January 2014;available from http:llwww.suffolkcou ntvnv.povlDepartmentslHealthServiceslDocu mentsand Forms.aspx#dltop. 36 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > A community public water supply should be available to all Suffolk County residents. > Residential and commercial irrigation should be managed to reduce peak demands on water supply infrastructure. > Within three years,Suffolk County should adopt regulations to limit residential and commercial irrigation. The Comprehensive Water Resources Plan was reviewed to determine whether there are any reported limitations to drinking water quality or quantity in the vicinity of the subject property. According to the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan,the quality of the shallow aquifer in parts of the Town has been affected by agricultural contaminants, such as nitrates and pesticides. The subject property is not located within the specific areas of Cutchogue where results from private well sampling indicated that groundwater had been impacted by nitrates,pesticide and volatile organic compound(VOC)contamination. Groundwater quantity in the Town was also identified as an issue of potential concern, due to the limited depth of fresh groundwater in many areas. The Comprehensive Water Resources Plan recommends that,moving toward 2030, additional considerations with respect to conservation methods and possible transmission of water to the area from points west be made if all Town residents are to be connected to a public water supply in the future. Potable Water Usaqe As the subject property is currently undeveloped,there is no potable water usage. Further,the subject property is not currently connected to SCWA community water facilities. However,the subject property is located in SCWA Distribution Area 30. Further,the SCWA maintains the Evergreen Pump Station,located on Evergreen Drive,within The Woods subdivision,situated approximately 1,450 feet northwest of the subject property. This station is one of 17 wellfields in the hamlet of Cutchogue. In an effort to obtain information regarding quality of the public water supply in the vicinity of the subject property,VHB reviewed the 2014 water quality data for SCWA Distribution Area 30. There are 52 active wells in Distribution Area 30.According to information from the Suffolk County Water Authority 2014 Drinkin�Water Quality Report,15 the testing of drinking water within Distribution Area 30 did not indicate the presence of inorganic contaminants, synthetic organic contaminants,volatile organic contaminants,or unregulated contaminants beyond regulatory limits in any of the supply wells within the district. The USEPA also requires testing for total coliform bacteria in source waters and water after treatment. In the 2013 monitoring year,a well location in Distribution Area 30 tested positive for total coliform; however, additional samples taken from the well tested negative for total coliform, and no sanitary deficiencies were found. � 15 Suffolk County Water Authority,Suffolk County Water Authority 2014 Drinking Water Quality Report,2014(accessed August 2014);available from http:ll65.36213246Idwqr2014lwater-qualitv-report-2014-scwa v2.html. 37 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Overall,in 2013,the SCWA system served 1.2 million people in 26 Distribution Areas. To meet the water demand of its customers,SCWA pumped 70.5 billion gallons from 581 active wells. Private Wells Both public and private groundwater wells are located near and adjacent to the subject property. It was confirmed by SCWA(see Appendix C for correspondence from SCWA)that five residential parcels adjacent to the north and northwest of the subject property boundary and four residential parcels along the western subject property boundary are not connected to public water. As such,it is assumed that these parcels are connected to private wells. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Sanitary Waste Generation and Discharge As the subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped,there is no sanitary waste generated. A discussion of the prevailing Suffolk County regulations with respect to sanitary waste and the subject property follows below. Suffolk County Sanitary Code To protect groundwater quality in Suffolk County,SCDHS adopted Articles 6,7, and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code(SCSC)in 1980, 1985 and 1976,respectively. Article 6,entitled, Realty Subdivisions, Developments and Other Construction Projects, contains several provisions relevant to the subject property. Specifically,individual sewerage systems may be approved by the SCDHS provided the following conditions exist: > The construction project is located outside of Groundwater Management Zones III,V and VI,and the population density equivalent is equal to or less than that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet; Based on SCDHS design flow standards,16 the population density equivalent for Multiple Residential Projects can be calculated as follows for areas outside of Groundwater Management Zones III,V or VI: ((75%)x Adjusted Gross Land Area in square feet�SF])x 600�allons per day(�pd)/ 40,000 SF � 16 Suffolk County Department of Health Services.Standards forApproval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences.Table 1,Project Density Loading Rates&Design Sewage Flow Rates(revised December 1,2009). 38 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Therefore,based on SCDHS design flow standards and the size of the parcel,the population density equivalent for the subject property is 22,540 gpd, calculated as follows: ((75%)x 2,003,582 SF)x 600�po l 40,000 SF > The construction project,or any portion thereof,is not located within an existing sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater conditions are conducive to the proper functioning of individual or subsurface sewerage systems;and > The individual sewerage systems comply with the SCDHS Current Standards or State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR,Part 75. Article 7,Water Pollution Control,is intended to protect water resources "...from discharges of sewage,industrial and other wastes,toxic or hazardous materials and stormwater runoff," and sets forth restrictions and prohibitions for certain discharges of such materials. Article 7 sets forth additional restrictions on discharges within deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas, and enumerates those activities which are excluded from such restrictions (e.g., application of approved fertilizers or pesticides,deicing salts, discharge of sewage to municipal sewers,etc.). As previously discussed,the subject property is in Groundwater Management Zone IV,which is not considered to be a deep recharge area, according to the SCSC. However,the subject property is within a water supply sensitive area,which is as defined by Article 7,to the extent relevant, as: "A�roundwater area separated from a lar�er re�ional�roundwater system where salty �roundwater may occur within the Upper Glacial aquifer, and where deepenin�of private wells and/or the development of community water supplies may be limited;" and "A limited water bud�et area, not underlined by fresh Ma�othy, defined by published reports acceptable to the Commissioner." Relevant considerations in Article 7 include: > Section 760-706(A)indicates that,in deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas,it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any restricted toxic or hazardous materials or to discharge industrial wastes from any facility containing restricted toxic or hazardous materials to the groundwaters,to the surface of the ground,beneath the surface of the ground,to a municipal or communal sewage system,or to a disposal system(subject to certain exceptions); > Section 760-706(B)indicates that,in deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas,it shall be unlawful to use or store any restricted toxic or hazardous material on any premises(subject to certain exceptions);and > Section 760-711 indicates that existing disposal systems abandoned as a result of connection to municipal sewage systems or communal sewage systems or 39 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� different disposal systems or for other reasons shall be removed or permanently sealed in a manner acceptable to the Commissioner. Article 12,Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling Controls,relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. As the subject property is undeveloped and unoccupied,there are no toxic or hazardous materials being stored or used on-site. An evaluation of the project's consistency with the relevant provisions set forth in the SCSC is included in Section 2.2.2 of this document. Stormwater Runoff and Drainage Stormwater runoff is generated by precipitation events and is divided into three components:surface runoff,interflow and base flow. Surface runoff is that portion of the stormwater that remains after a precipitation event and is not captured by depression storage or ponding,does not infiltrate the surface and is not evapotranspired from the earth's surface. Interflow is that portion of stormwater that infiltrates the surface into the soil zone and moves in a horizontal direction until reaching a surface water body. Finally,the base flow is that portion which infiltrates the surface and soil profile to reach groundwater.�� In the NYSDEC manual,Reducin�the l�mpacts of Stormwater Runoff From New Development,the concept of stormwater management is such that there is qualitative control as a system of vegetative and structural measures that can be used "to control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by man-made changes to the land" and "to control or treat pollutants carried by surface runoff" (page 5). The goal of stormwater management is to prevent substantial alteration of the"quantity and quality of stormwater run-off from any specific development... from predevelopment conditions" (page 6). The existing site recharges stormwater to surface and groundwater through natural leaching processes. Accordingly,stormwater that does not infiltrate or evapotranspire is permitted to pond at the site or run overland onto adjacent properties and roadways. The proposed project's consistency with the below policy documents is provided in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS. � ................................................................................................................... ��Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runofffrom New Development,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 40 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Chapter 236 of the Town of Southold Code: Stormwater Management Chapter 236 of the Town Code contains requirements with respect to stormwater management for land development activities. General Town requirements for all stormwater discharges include the installation of drainage control structures that contain and recharge all runoff generated by development, maintenance of private roads, streets, driveways,parking lots and walkways,elimination of unauthorized connections to Town drainage control systems and public rights-of-way, maintenance and protection of natural drainage patterns,maintenance and protection of natural watersheds and elimination of stormwater that is generated by the proposed development from discharging to adjacent properties. Specific relevant provisions of this Chapter follow: > Land-disturbing activities that add impervious surfaces shall provide temporary construction controls and shall be required to contain a two-inch rainfall on site. > Stormwater management practices that are designed and constructed in accordance with NYSDECs New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual and New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control meet Town standards(see below for a brief summary of the aforementioned technical guides). > Any land development activity shall not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards such that there shall be no substantial increase in turbidity of surface waters,there shall be no increase in suspended, colloidal or settleable solids that will impair the waters and there shall be no residue from oil and floating substances,nor visible oil film nor globules of grease. > Stormwater runoff from land development activities disturbing five or more acres shall include water quantity and quality controls(post-construction stormwater runoff controls). > Stormwater runoff from land development activities disturbing five or more acres shall comply with the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for construction activity(GP-0-15-002)and complete a stormwater assessment form to assist in determining compliance with Chapter 236. > The SWPPP submitted to the Building Department shall include all those materials as required by Section 236-20(C). New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control The New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Standards and Specifications)is a guidance document provided by the NYSDEC "to reduce the impact of soil loss from construction sites to receiving water bodies and adjacent properties" (page 1.1). Included in the Standards and Specifications are sections regarding Erosion Control Planning and Site Management, as well as 41 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Vegetative,Bio-Technical and Structural Measures for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to the Standards and Specifications "...is presumed to be in compliance with the SPDES general permit for construction activities" (page 1.1). New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual The New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual(NYS Stormwater Manual) provides "standards for the design of Stormwater Management Practices(SMPs)to protect the waters of the State of New York from the adverse impacts of urban stormwater runoff" (page iii). The NYS Stormwater Manual includes chapters on Impacts of New Development;Stormwater Management Planning;Unified Stormwater Sizing Criteria;Green Infrastructure Practices,Performance Criteria; SMP Selection;Stormwater Management Design Examples,Redevelopment Projects; and Enhanced Phosphorus Removal Supplement. New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program The USEPA Phase I Rule was issued in 1990,and regulates stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities. As defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14),industrial activities include construction activities(e.g., clearing,grading,excavation activities) that result in the disturbance of five acres or more of land area. The Phase I Rule requires such activities to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit coverage for stormwater discharges(or coverage under an NPDES- approved State permit). It is noted that the USEPA Phase II stormwater rule was implemented to regulate(among other things) construction activities disturbing less than five acres,but greater than one acre of land. NYSDEC administers New York's NPDES-approved SPDES program,which includes a General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity(GP-0-15-002). This General Permit applies to the following construction activities when stormwater runoff may discharge to Waters of New York State(including Waters of the United States): > Construction activities involving soil disturbances of one or more acres; including disturbances of less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one or more acres of land. > Construction activities involving soil disturbances of less than one acre where the Department has determined that a SPDES permit is required for stormwater discharges based on the potential for contribution to a violation of a water quality standard or for significant contribution of pollutants to surface waters of the State. Projects covered under the SPDES GP-0-15-002 are required to develop and implement a SWPPP that meets criteria set forth by NYSDEC. All SWPPPs must 42 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� include practices consistent with the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Many construction sites must also comply with the New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual to address post-construction stormwater discharges. Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP Study) The Lon�Tsland Se�ment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Pro�ram (NURP Study) recognized that years of study,including various 208 studies,have provided conclusive evidence that in many areas pollutant loading contributed by non-point sources exceed those contributed by point sources,with urban runoff being the most significant non-point source. With regard to stormwater runoff,the NURP Study made the following findings concerning groundwater and surface water: Groundwater > Most of the runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain that falls directly on impervious surfaces,except during storms of high intensity,high volume and/or long duration. > In general, with the exception of lead and chloride,the concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality. > Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. Although the NURP Study findings concerning chromium are not conclusive, data from a spill at Farmingdale indicate attenuation. Chloride is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on nitrogen is undetermined. > Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through soil. Surface Water > Any control of chemical constituents in runoff requires awareness of the year- round presence. The use of highway deicing salts in winter explains the high chloride concentrations found in runoff during that season. > Stormwater is a major source of coliform loading to Long Island bays. Some of the bays in Suffolk County contain areas where impaired water quality exists for reasons other than stormwater runoff(e.g.,localized duck farm discharges). > The evidence accumulated in the NURP Study strongly supports the belief that fecal coliform loads are derived from non-human sources. Estimates indicate that the dog population could be a major source of the fecal coliform load in stormwater runoff. 43 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Nonpoint Source Management Handbook The Nonpoint Source Mana�ement Handbook(the Handbook),which was prepared as part of USEPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program,is divided into several elements: Land Use,Stormwater Runoff,On-site Systems,Highway Deicing,Fertilizer,Animal Waste,Wells-Water Supply,Boat Pollution, and Site Plan Review and Ordinances. The Handbook makes a variety of recommendations for counties,municipalities, engineers, and others,to use in the controlling of non-point sources of groundwater contamination. Relevant recommendations from this are listed below: Land Use > Concentrate high density or commercial/industrial land uses in existing high density or commercial/industrial areas or in areas located downgradient and within existing contaminant plumes. > 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. Stormwater Runoff > Minimize grade changes and site clearing. > Reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces insofar as possible. The Handbook lists several recommendations relevant to the general design of a stormwater management system. A list of those recommendations follows: > Use swales and shallow depressions to collect stormwater on-site,wherever possible. > Use natural vegetation as an important nonstructural alternative in the control of stormwater runoff and erosion/sedimentation. > Use man made swales and other types of drainage channels to carry and recharge stormwater. > Use a biofiltration system to detain runoff and reduce contaminant loadings. > Use an in-line storage system for the collection of stormwater runoff from parking lots and roadways. > Use permeable paving for patios and walkways to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff by increasing infiltration to the ground below,thus allowing for recharge of the aquifer. > Use downspouts to collect and convey runoff from roofs to leaching pools. The Handbook lists several recommendations relevant to stormwater management during site development. A list of those recommendations follows: > Provide temporary on-site areas to receive stormwater runoff flows that are generated by construction and other site development activities. 44 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Do not allow increased sediment resulting from the construction or operational phase of site development to leave the site or to be discharged into stream corridors,marine or freshwater wetlands. > Minimize the amount of soil area exposed to rainfall and the period of exposure. Cover or plant exposed soils as soon as possible. > Do not allow the dumping or filling of excess soil or other materials generated from site development into swales and surface waters. > Stabilize exposed slopes during and after construction,by using temporary and/or permanent, structural or nonstructural stabilization measures. On-Site Systems > Follow County Health Department guidelines. Fertilizer > Retain as much of the natural vegetation of the site as possible. Minimize grade changes and site clearing. > Use native plants for the planting of areas that have been disturbed by grading. Consider the use of alternative types of groundcover and other plant materials to avoid or reduce lawn area and the consequent need for fertilizer applications, extensive watering and maintenance. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Surface Water Based upon a review of the NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetland Maps and the National Wetland Inventory,there are no surface water bodies,including tidal and freshwater wetlands,located on or adjacent to the subject property. The nearest natural surface water body is Wickham Creek,located approximately 0.6-mile west- southwest of the subject property. See a more detailed discussion of surface water and wetlands in Section 2.3.1,below. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Map, pane136103C0163H,was reviewed as to whether the subject property is located within any special flood hazard areas. The subject property is situated outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts This section of the DEIS identifies potential impacts to water resources with regard to water consumption, sanitary flow, drainage,etc. Analyses of the proposed project's compliance with applicable regulations and policies are also presented. In addition, details of the proposed on-site sanitary systems are provided. 45 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Groundwater Groundwater Quality Plans The Long Island Cornprehensive Waste Treatrnent Managernent Plan(208 Study) As indicated in Section 2.2.1,the subject property is within Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Among the highest priority areawide alternatives recommended in the 208 Study for Zone IV,those relevant to the proposed project are analyzed below: > Reduce excessive use of irri�ation water and require the permittin�,re�ulation and monitorin�of irri�ation wells. In compliance with this recommendation,the proposed project would maximize the use of low-maintenance,native species to reduce irrigation demand,in compliance with this recommendation. In addition,no irrigation well is proposed. > Minimize population density by encoura�in�lar�e lot development(one dwellin� unit/one or more acres),where possible to protect the�roundwater from future pollutant loadin�s. Although The Heritage at Cutchogue would consist of a higher level of density than one unit per one or more acres, density on the site is consistent with the Town's HD zoning regulations. However,the proposed development is protective of groundwater resources. To protect groundwater resources, installation of a network of clustered septic systems will ensure that sanitary waste generated by the site will be handled properly so as to protect groundwater. A stormwater management system will also be installed to collect and recharge stormwater generated by the subject property. This will prevent stormwater runoff from potentially gathering contaminants and polluting groundwater. As such,the proposed project would adhere to this recommendation to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore,the proposed action includes the implementation of a Soil Management Plan to clean up the existing contaminants from historic agricultural use of the subject property to protect future users from exposure to such contaminants. > Prohibit the use of certain chemical cleaners in on-lot systems. It is expected that contractors hired to clean septic systems would use only legally-permitted cleaners,such that this recommendation would be adhered to. Based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study. 46 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Suffolk County Cornprehensive Water Resources Managernent Plan(2011) As indicated in Section 2.2.1,the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan prepared goals and objectives designed to assure a viable,high quality groundwater resource for the future.The proposed project's consistency with the relevant portions is evaluated below: > All County residents should have access to safe potable water that is in compliance with drinkin�water MCLs, USEPA health advisories and New York State�uidance levels. As indicated in Section 2.2.1,the 2014 water quality data for SCWA's Distribution Area 30 did not indicate the presence of inorganic contaminants, synthetic organic contaminants, volatile organic contaminants, or unregulated contaminants beyond regulatory limits in any of the supply wells within the district. Therefore, since the proposed project will receive potable water from the SCWA,as required by the Stipulation of Settlement,the future residents of the proposed project will have access to safe potable water. > A community public water supply should be available to all Suffolk County residents. As mentioned above,the proposed project involves extending the SCWA public water main approximately 200 feet west from beneath Schoolhouse Lane to the subject property,pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. As such, a community public water supply will be available for the residents of the proposed project. > Residential and commercial irri�ation should be mana�ed to reduce peak demands on water supply infrastructure. As previously explained,the proposed project will maximize the use of low- maintenance,native species;limit areas to be irrigated;and utilize drip irrigation systems to reduce irrigation demand,in compliance with this goal. Based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant goals of the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan. With regard to on-site irrigation and any residual arsenic and mercury found in on- site soils, arsenic and mercury bond to organic materials and do not,therefore, readily migrate with water filtration through soils. As such, as with natural rainfall, irrigation would not be expected to cause the mobilization of any residual contaminants. Potable Water Usaqe As discussed in Section 1.2,the subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped, and there is no current potable water usage. Upon implementation of the proposed project,the SCWA water main will be extended approximately 200 feet west from beneath Schoolhouse Lane to the subject property to provide potable water to the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. The 47 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� anticipated potable water usage by the proposed age-restricted condominiums is provided in Table 6,below,which is based upon Suffolk County's sewage flow rates. Table 6-Anticipated Water Demand Structure Use Hydraulic Load* No.of Units Total PRC unit between 600 and 150 gpd/unit* 72 10,800 1600 SF gross floor area PRC unit between 1600 and 225 gpd/unit* 52 11,700 2000 SF ross floor area Total Residential Usage 130 22,500 Irrigation 43,500** sources: "Table 1:Project Density Loading Rates&Design Sewage Flow Rates."Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences.Suffolk County Department of Health Services(2009).PRC =planned retirement community **Based on a total area of 442,573 sf(10.1±acres)that will require irrigation and using 0.1 gallon/day per square foot for turf areas, 0.08 gallon/day per square foot for shrub beds. As identified above,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project is expected to use an estimated 22,500±gpd of potable water for the proposed residences,or 8.2 million gallons annually,which represents approximately.01 percent of SCWA's annual pumpage, as described above. In addition,the proposed project would use approximately 43,500 gpd,during the irrigation season. As the proposed project would only use approximately .01 percent of SCWA's entire water supply system,no significant adverse impacts associated with water usage are expected. With respect to the Evergreen Pump Station, an SCWA facility,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would not pose significant adverse water quantity or quality impacts to public water supplies in the area. Regarding water quality,while groundwater flow from the site is to the southeast, as described above,the Evergreen Pump Station is located to the northwest of the subject property.Furthermore,with respect to quantity, various water efficiency measures would be employed to reduce potable water demands,including the use of native,low-maintenance plant species, drip irrigation systems and limiting irrigation areas to reduce irrigation demand, as well as installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures within the residences at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. Public and Private Wells As indicated in Section 2.2.1 above,it is assumed that nine parcels in the vicinity of the subject property are currently served by private wells.As the proposed project would include the implementation of a Soil Management Plan, described in Section 2.1.2,to address impacted soils on the subject property,it is anticipated that the construction of the proposed project would have a positive impact on groundwater quality.Furthermore, as required by SCDHS,proposed sanitary leaching pools 48 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� would be located at least 150 feet from any private wells and sanitary pipes and septic tanks would be located at least 100 feet from any private wells.Therefore,the proposed project would not pose significant adverse impact to private drinking water wells in the vicinity. Sanitary Waste Generation and Discharge In its existing condition as a vacant and undeveloped parcel,the subject property does not generate any sanitary waste. The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would utilize clustered on-site septic systems to accommodate sanitary waste generated by the proposed development. SCDHS design flow standards characterize the proposed development as a Planned Retirement Community(PRC), which is defined as: "A multiple residential project in which each unit is required by law or re�ulation to be occupied by at least one resident per unit who is 55 years of a�e or older." The anticipated quantities of sanitary waste to be generated by the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue age-restricted community are presented in Table 7,below. Table 7-Anticipated Sanita Waste Generation Structure Use Hydraulic Load No.of Units Total PRC unit between 600 and 150 gpd/unit 72 10,800 1600 SF gross floor area PRC unit between 1600 and 225 gpd/unit 52 11,700 2000 SF gross floor area TOTAL 124 22,500 Source:Table 1:Project Density Loading Rates&Design Sewage Flow Rates."Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences.Suffolk County Department of Health Services(2009). As indicated above,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is expected to generate an estimated 22,500±gpd of sanitary waste. As described in Section 1.3.4,37 septic systems are proposed to be constructed on the subject property,each system serving between two and four housing units(i.e.,36), and one system for the clubhouse.See the Utility Plan located in Appendix A of this document for the Sanitary Density and Flow Calculations, as well as the proposed septic system layout and construction details. Each system would be designed to comply with the most current standards of the SCDHS. As indicated in Section 1.1.1, according to correspondence from the Town Attorney dated March 29,2007,the permitted density,under Chapter 280 of the Town Code of one unit per 10,000 square feet where there is "community water and 49 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� sewer" is applicable to the subject property, as the SCDHS will not require an"actual sewer system' because covenants and restrictions will be filed restricting occupancy on the subject property to those age 55 and older(see Appendix C). According to discussions with the SCDHS, clustered on-site septic systems are preferable to an STP due to the nature of the development(i.e., age-restricted condominiums). As discussed below,the anticipated quantity of sanitary waste to be generated by The Heritage at Cutchogue would comply with the relevant sanitary density limitations of Article 6 of the SCSC. In addition,the proposed development would also require a SPDES permit for discharge of effluent to the ground through the clustered septic systems. Suffolk County Sanitary Code As explained in Section 2.2.1,Article 6 of the SCSC states that individual sewerage systems may be approved by the SCDHS provided that certain conditions exist. The proposed project's consistency with same is discussed below: > The construction project is located outside of Groundwater Mana�ement Zones 111; V and Vl; and the population density equivalent is equal to or less than that of a realty subdivision or development of sin�le family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000; Based on SCDHS design flow standards and the size of the subject property,the proposed development must have a population density equivalent not exceeding 22,540 gpd, to use individual sewage disposal systems. According to Table 7 above,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would generate 22,500±gpd,and, as such, complies with this requirement. > The construction project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existin�sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and�roundwater conditions are conducive to the proper functionin�of individual sewera�e systems;and The subject property is not located within an existing sewer district and,based upon consultations with the SCDHS,the subject property and proposed project meet conditions necessary for the proper functioning of the proposed sanitary system design. In addition, adequate separation distance(minimum of two feet) would be provided between the base of the sanitary systems and groundwater to allow for the proper filtration of sanitary waste. > The individual sewera�e systems comply with the SCDHS Current Standards or State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 75. The proposed clustered septic systems would comply with all prevailing requirements. In accordance with Article 7 of the SCSC,the proposed clustered septic systems would comply with all SCDHS standards, and all required permits for such systems would be obtained prior to construction.The stormwater management design for the subject property would be such that stormwater would be recharged on-site, and would not be subject to contamination by any toxic or hazardous wastes or materials. The sanitary and stormwater systems would filter effluent and stormwater before it 50 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� reached groundwater, and,therefore,the proposed project would be in compliance with the requirements in Article 7 of the SCSC. As explained in Section 2.2.1,the subject property is located within a water supply sensitive area, as defined by the SCSC, and is,therefore, subject to certain additional restrictions and prohibitions for discharges of toxic or hazardous materials. The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is expected to be served by natural gas supplies from National Grid for the purposes of heating, and other uses. The storage of heating fuel on-site is not proposed. Moreover,it is not expected that the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would include the storage or use of any significant quantities of chemicals or other hazardous materials;however, certain routine maintenance chemicals or materials would be stored on site,including those associated with routine swimming pool and landscape maintenance. All pool maintenance chemicals and landscape maintenance agents to be stored or used at the subject property would be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 12 of the SCSC, and all required permits would be secured, as needed. Based upon the above analysis,The Heritage at Cutchogue development complies with the requirements of the SCSC. However,in accordance with the concerns that have been expressed related to possible nitrogen impacts that may occur from traditional treatment of sanitary effluent,this application looked into other methods of treatment which are discussed in subsection 5.3 of this document under the alternatives for wastewater treatment. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Stormwater Runoff and Drainage Introduction Drainage patterns on the subject property would be altered as a result of grading and the installation of impervious surfaces and landscaping. Although the overland flow of stormwater runoff would change,runoff from the proposed project would be contained on-site. Moreover,the on-site soils on the property are generally sandy and highly permeable. More specifically,the process of collecting site runoff and recharging it into the ground via the use of drywells and DRAs is a means of recharging Long Island's groundwater system through the underlying soils. Site design techniques that incorporate the use of drywells and DRAs detain the increase in stormwater volume and peak flow rates, as well as remove pollutants. A more detailed discussion of the proposed stormwater management system is contained below. 51 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Proposed Post-Development Stormwater Management Plan As provided on the Grading and Drainage Plan(see Appendix A),the subject property is divided into 19 drainage(tributary)areas.For each of these tributary areas,runoff coefficients of 1.00 for roofs and paved areas,0.50 for gravel walkways and 0.30 for non-paved(i.e.,vegetated and landscaped) areas,were used to calculate the required drainage system capacity for a two-inch rainfall event,which is required by the Town. Based on the proposed improvements, compared with existing conditions,the total volume of stormwater runoff generated at the subject property is expected to increase as a result of the construction of buildings,parking areas and driveways (a total of 15.17±acres of impervious surface would be created at the site). A total system capacity of 198,775CF is required based on these calculations, see chart below. Contributing Area Runoff Rainfall Volume (CF) SF Coefficient FT Pavement 270,989± x 1.0 x 0.1667 = 45,165± Sidewalks 54,022± x 1.0 x 0.1667 = 9,004± Roof Area 338,897± x 1.0 x 0.1667 = 56,483± Drainage 171,422± x 1.0 x 0.1667 = 28,570± Reserve Gravel 29,579± x 0.5 x 0.1667 = 2,465± Landsca e 1,141,776± x 0.3 x 0.1667 = 57,089± Total Area SF =2,006,685± Re uired CF = 198,775± The Grading and Drainage Plan(see Appendix A)provides details of the drainage system and drainage calculations,which demonstrate that the proposed system is designed to accommodate a total of 641,002±cubic feet(CF)of stormwater storage,in excess of the Town's storage requirement(198,775±CF). See Table 8,which provides a breakdown of the required and provided capacity by drainage area. 52 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 8- Total S stem Capacit - Required and Provided, by Drainage Area Draina e Area Re uired CF Provided CF A 10,664± 11,096± B 4,845± 4,845± C 18,824± 18,845± D 18,182± 62,522± E 15,037± 67,000± F 1,370± 1,412± G 2,608± 2,622± H 2,271± 2,241± I 2,882± 3,026± J 3,729± 3,934± K 2,376± 2,421± L 31,153± 214,771± M 3,572± 4,237± N 7,462± 7,566± O 4,229± 4,539± P 2,795± 2,824± Q 8,439± 9,079± R 7,523 7,566± S 50,815 210,276± Total 198,775± 641,002± As indicated above,the proposed project would include an on-site drainage system, designed in conformance with both Town and State requirements to retain stormwater runoff generated by on-site impervious surfaces. The Town requirement is to provide capacity for storing a two-inch rain fall,however in accordance with the NYSDEC SWPPP,the system is sized and designed to accommodate capacity for a 100-year storm event,utilizing a system of drywells and drainage retention areas located within the interior of the subject property. An analysis was completed using Hydro CAD software in order to demonstrate that the proposed project captures and recharges virtually all runoff during a 100-year rain event and,therefore, does not result in an increase in stormwater discharged off site. In order to accommodate the requirement for recharging runoff from the 100-year storm, additional drywells were added to accept roof runoff in areas not tributary to a DRA. Based upon the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff are anticipated. The DRAs,which are situated in the interior of the site,would be planted with a variety of native species(see Landscape Plan in Appendix A). The use of these drainage retention areas as part of the stormwater management plan is expected to have multiple benefits,including increased evapotranspiration and improved stormwater quality. In conclusion,the proposed development of the subject property is not anticipated to result in stormwater impacts, as a result of proper site grading procedures,erosion controls, and drainage system design. 53 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program As discussed in Section 2.2.1 of this DEIS, certain discharges are unlawful unless they are authorized by an NPDES permit or by a state permit program. The New York SPDES program includes a General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity(GP-0-15-002). As discussed in Section 2.1.2 of this DEIS, a SWPPP will be prepared and implemented in connection with the construction of the proposed project, to include erosion and sedimentation controls and methods by which stormwater would be accommodated. The proposed SWPPP would be consistent with the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control(NYSDEC,2005)and the New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual(NYSDEC,2010). The erosion and sediment control measures to be incorporated in the SWPPP would generally be as indicated on the Erosion&Sediment Control Plan included in Appendix A of this DEIS, and described in detail in Section 2.1.2,although specific adjustment may be made based upon field conditions. Under post-development conditions,the proposed stormwater management system would contain and is expected to recharge virtually all of the stormwater runoff generated at the subject property(see discussion above and the Grading and Drainage Plan in Appendix A). As the subject property would disturb greater than five acres of land,the SWPPP to be prepared would also address post-development stormwater management. Coverage would be obtained under GP-0-15-002,and erosion and sedimentation controls and stormwater management would be implemented in accordance with a SWPPP(to also be reviewed by the Town in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code),in satisfaction of all relevant requirements. Based on the information presented above,the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the New York SPDES program. Chapter 236 of the Town of Southold Code: Stormwater Management The Heritage at Cutchogue's stormwater management system would comply with all applicable stormwater management criteria as set forth by Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Runoff generated by the proposed project would be collected and recharged by stormwater management infrastructure, and, as such,would not allow for stormwater to discharge to adjacent properties. Also,the private roads, driveways and walkways on the subject property would be properly maintained at all times. Further,the stormwater management system would not interfere with natural drainage areas, as there are no wetlands or surface waters on the subject property. 54 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� With regard to provisions of Chapter 236 of the Town Code that relate to land- disturbing activities and land development activities disturbing five or more acres, a consistency analysis follows: > Land-disturbin�activities that add impervious surfaces shall provide temporary and permit construction controls and shall be required to contain a two-inch rainfall on site. The proposed project's stormwater management infrastructure has been designed to accommodate a two-inch rainfall on the site, as required. > Stormwater mana�ement practices that are desi�ned and constructed in accordance with NYSDECs New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control meet Town standards. The Heritage at Cutchogue's stormwater management system has been designed in accordance with the above-referenced technical guides, and brief summaries of the guides are included in Section 2.2.1 of the DEIS. > Any land development activity shall not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards such that there shall be no substantial increase in turbidity of surface waters, there shall be no increase in suspended,colloidal or settleable solids that will impair the waters and there shall be no residue from oil and floatin�substances, nor visible oil film nor�lobules of�rease. There are no surface waters located on or around the subject property. The proposed SWPPP would outline measures for erosion and sediment control during land development activities as well as provide provisions to prevent contaminants from leaving the site or impacting surface runoff. Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent. > Stormwater runoff from land development activities disturbin�five or more acres shall include water quantity and quality controls (post-construction stormwater runoff controls). Post-construction stormwater runoff controls for water quality and quantity are demonstrated in Section 1.3.2 of this DEIS. As stated,the proposed project would store and recharge via drainage reserve areas and drywell systems to accommodate a 100-year rain event. > Stormwater runoff from land development activities disturbin�five or more acres shall comply with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation S.P.D.E.S. �eneral permit for construction activities (GP-0-15-002)and complete a stormwater assessment form to assist in determinin�compliance with Chapter 236. As indicated in the subsection above,a SPDES general permit for construction activity would be sought and secured. Further,stormwater management controls and a stormwater assessment form would be completed in consultation with the Towri s Stormwater Management Officer in order to determine compliance with Chapter 236. > The SWPPP should be submitted to the Buildin�Department and shall include all those materials as required by Section 236-20(C). A SWPPP would be prepared in compliance with�236-20(C)of the Town Code and would be submitted to the Building Department, as required. 55 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ("NURP Study") The NURP Study includes recommendations with regard to stormwater runoff,as it pertains to the protection of groundwater and surface water resources. The proposed project's consistency with the relevant recommendations is discussed below each italicized recommendation: > Continue to use rechar�e basins wherever feasible for the disposal of stormwater and the replenishment of the�roundwater. The proposed stormwater management plan includes collection and infiltration by the use of drywells and DRAs. DRAs are similar to recharge basins in that they are designed to store a specific volume of stormwater and provide a means for infiltration of stormwater into the ground,through the base of the DRAs as well as diffusion wells. Therefore,the proposed development would be in keeping with the intent of this recommendation. > Consider the use of in-line stora�e leachin�draina�e systems, or components thereof, as a substitute for rechar�e basins in areas, other than parkin�lots, where maintenance will be assured and where the value of the land for development purposes is�reater than the cost of installin�and maintainin�the under�round system. Stora�e leachin�draina�e systems should also be considered for use where the installation of rechar�e basins is not feasible. The stormwater management system includes the use of drywells and DRAs with diffusion wells to assist in infiltration of stormwater into the ground. The proposed development would hire contractors who would properly maintain all elements of the stormwater management system,in keeping with this recommendation. > Prevent ille�al dischar�es to draina�e systems or rechar�e basins. Such dischar�es, which often result from improper stora�e or deliberate dumpin�or chemicals, must be controlled at the source. The proposed drainage systems would be designed in accordance with prevailing regulations. Given that no industrial uses are proposed,and that household chemicals would be disposed of according to all applicable regulations,no potential illegal discharges associated with the improper storage of chemicals would be expected. > To maintain existin�water quality where it is currently satisfactory,preclude any additional direct dischar�e of stormwater runoff into surface waters, usin�all available means for detention and/or rechar�e to reduce bacterial loads. As there are no natural waterbodies located on or directly adjacent to the subject property,this recommendation is not applicable. > Protect stream corridors from encroachment. As the site does not contain,nor is it located adjacent to any stream corridors, this recommendation is not applicable. 56 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based on the foregoing analysis,the proposed project would be consistent with the recommendations of the NURP Study. Nonpoint Source Management Handbook The Handbook was reviewed as to recommendations. The proposed project's consistency with the relevant recommendations follows: Land Use > Concentrate hi�h density or commercial/industrial land uses in existin�hi�h density or commercial/industrial areas or in areas located down�radient and within existin� contaminant plumes. As discussed in Section 1.1.1 of this DEIS,the subject property is located in the HD zoning district,which permits developments with higher density than in the surrounding area, and the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would be developed in conformance with such zoning district. In addition,the subject property is located near the Cutchogue hamlet center,in the HALO zone, an area of Town that contains higher-density uses. In addition,the subject property is not within, or proximate to, any existing contaminant plumes. Accordingly,the location of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue, an age-restricted multi-family use, proximate to the Cutchogue hamlet center,would be consistent with this recommendation. > Limit the removal of natural ve�etation and the creation of lawn areas. In order to achieve the proposed development,natural vegetation would be removed from the subject property. Currently,there is approximately 45.99± acres of natural vegetation on the subject property. Upon implementation of the proposed project,the natural vegetation would be removed, and 23±acres of open space would be maintained,in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement. 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.Therefore,based on the foregoing,the proposed project complies with the intent of this recommendation. > Minimize nitrate loadin�s to�roundwater and surface waters by requirin�natural ve�etative controls to limit lawn areas, thereby decreasin�fertilizer use. A total of 23±acres of open space would be created at the 45.99±-acre subject property,in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement. As indicated on the Landscape Plan(see Appendix A),native plant species would be used wherever turf grass is not specified. The use of such species, as an alternative to fertilizer- dependent species,would be expected to minimize the need for fertilizer and pesticide application. As a result,the potential presence of such constituents within the stormwater runoff would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. 57 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Stormwater Runoff > Minimize�rade chan�es and site clearin�. Much of the subject property has historically been disturbed, due to past agricultural use. Additional site clearing and grading would occur to construct The Heritage at Cutchogue. As discussed in Section 1.3.2,while regrading of the site would occur,the change in grade from the existing to proposed conditions would be generally attributable to the need to balance the site in preparation for installation of foundations and infrastructure as well as to address impacted soils. Existing grades would be retained wherever possible. The proposed project would initially result in the clearing of the 45.99-E--acre subject property. However, as previously discussed and as indicated in the Landscape Plan in Appendix A, a total of 23-E-acres of open space would be created,in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,using native plant species to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly,the proposed project complies with the spirit of this recommendation. > Reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces insofar as possible. To reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces at the subject property,the walkways and nature trail would be constructed with permeable materials(e.g., gravel walkways)as a substitute for impervious materials(e.g.,asphalt or concrete pavement). In addition,the designed drywells and DRAs shown in the Grading and Drainage Plan(see Appendix A)would result in stormwater being contained and recharged at the subject site. As discussed,the Handbook lists several recommendations relevant to the general design of a stormwater management system. In accordance with those recommendations, a Grading and Drainage Plan has been prepared(see Appendix A). This plan includes the creation of four DRAs within the landscaped areas in the interior of the subject property for the purpose of stormwater collection and recharge, consistent with the above recommendations to use shallow depressions,vegetative stormwater control, and biofiltration systems. In addition to the DRAs, drywells would be used to collect and recharge stormwater on-site, and the walkways and the nature trail would be constructed with permeable materials. Stormwater runoff would be directed to drywells via downspouts. Accordingly,the proposed project would be consistent with the various recommendations of the Handbook for the design of stormwater management systems. The Handbook also lists several recommendations relevant to stormwater management during site development. Erosion and sedimentation control measures would be employed during construction in accordance with the preliminary Erosion&Sediment Control Plan (see Appendix A). Specific anticipated measures include the strategic placement of sediment barriers(e.g., silt fence,hay bales)along the limits of disturbance and to surround drainage system inlets,temporary seeding and covering of graded and 58 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� stripped areas and stockpiles,and the establishment of a stabilized construction entrance. Clearing and grading activities would be scheduled to limit the extent and duration of soil exposure,which would effectively limit the extent of potential soil erosion and sedimentation as discussed in the recommendations. All control measures would be regularly inspected and maintained during construction to ensure proper function. 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 noted that there are no steep slopes present at the subject property under existing conditions, and none would be created upon implementation of the proposed project. Overall,the proposed project would be consistent with this relevant recommendation. On-Site Systems > Follow County Health Department�uidelines. The proposed on-site sewage disposal system would meet the design standards of the SCDHS as approval would be required from such agency, such that the proposed project would be consistent with this recommendation. This section of the Handbook makes a variety of additional recommendations regarding the siting and maintenance of on-site sanitary systems(e.g., separation distance above the water table,from the 100-year floodplain,public water supply wells, stormwater collection,etc.). Several of these are addressed by the respective requirements of the SCDHS,with which the proposed on-site sanitary systems would comply. The depth to groundwater at the subject property is approximately 15±to 35±feet bgs,which would allow for an adequate separation distance between the base of the proposed leaching structures(which will vary across the site)and the water table. This separation distance would be a minimum of two feet. The subject property and surrounding areas are also not within any Special Flood Hazard Area(as determined by FEMA).Overall, therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant recommendations for on-site systems of the Handbook. Fertilizer > Retain as much of the natural ve�etation of the site as possible. Minimize�rade chan�es and site clearin�. Due to the impacted soils at the subject property from the prior agricultural use, the entire site would have to be cleared of natural vegetation so as to remove the affected soils. As such,to the maximum extent practicable,native and/or low- 59 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� maintenance species would be utilized to replant the subject property(see the Landscape Plan in Appendix A). Although the subject property has been historically disturbed due to past agricultural activities, additional site grading would be necessary to implement The Heritage at Cutchogue. > Use native plants for the plantin�of areas that have been disturbed by�radin�. Consider the use of alternative types of�roundcover and other plant materials to avoid or reduce lawn area and the consequent need for fertilizer applications, extensive waterin�and maintenance. Consistent with this recommendation, as described earlier,the plantings to be installed within proposed landscaped areas at The Heritage at Cutchogue consist of native,low-maintenance species(see Landscape Plan in Appendix A). In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,23±acres of open space would be created on the subject property.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.The use of native and low maintenance vegetation would reduce the need for fertilizer application, irrigation and other maintenance. Overall,based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant recommendations of the Handbook. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Surface Water There are no surface waters or wetlands present at or adjacent to the subject property, as indicated in Section 2.3.1. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact upon such resources. As demonstrated by the analyses presented throughout this section of this DEIS, implementation of the proposed action would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts upon water resources,including groundwater,nor would it result in significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater runoff. 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation 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: ➢ Use of native,low-maintenance plant species to reduce irrigation demand; ➢ Use of drip irrigation systems and limiting irrigation areas;and ➢ Installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures. 60 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Adequate separation distance(minimum of two feet)will be provided between the base of leaching structures(drywells/leaching pools,sanitary systems)and groundwater to allow for the proper filtration of stormwater and sanitary waste. > The proposed project would adhere to the relevant requirements and recommendations of SCSC Articles 6, 7 and 12,the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan,the NURP Study,the 208 Study,the Nonpoint Source Manaxement Handbook, and other relevant water resources studies. > Coverage would be obtained under SPDES GP-0-15-002,and erosion and sedimentation controls and stormwater management would be implemented in accordance with a SWPPP(to be reviewed by the Town in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code),in satisfaction of all relevant requirements. > The proposed stormwater management system would be designed to accommodate, and recharge on-site, stormwater runoff generated during a two- inch rainfall event. > The proposed site design incorporates permeable materials for interior trails and walkways to allow for greater stormwater recharge throughout the site. 61 2.2 Water Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 2.3.1 Existing Conditions Existing ecological conditions at the 45.99±-acre subject property were assessed through a review of United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),NYSDEC and New York Natural Heritage Program�$(NYNHP)records and maps, as well as an ecological assessment of the subject property prepared by Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. and summarized in the 2009 DEIS(hereinafter,the"2009 ecological assessment"). In addition, an ecological field inspection of the subject property was performed by a VHB project scientist on October 9,2014.The field inspection included a habitat evaluation,vegetation and wildlife species inventories, and an assessment for the presence of rare and protected species. HabitatsNegetation Since the cessation of agricultural activity in the early-1980s,the subject property has remained undeveloped. As observed during the field inspection,the subject property currently supports early-through mid-successional habitats,including several areas of successional woodland habitat. In addition,the site is traversed by a network of unpaved trails. To further characterize the habitats identified above,the New York Natural Heritage publication"Ecolo�ical Communities of New York State"19(ECNYS)was consulted. This guidance provides detailed descriptions and includes global and State rarity rankings for many habitats found within New York. Utilizing ECNYS,three ecological communities were identified at the subject property during the field inspection(see Figure 6): > Successional Old Field > Successional Shrubland > Successional Southern Hardwoods Figure 6 also identifies dominant shrub species within these communities,pursuant to the Town's request.The following narrative provides a description of these three ecological communities,based upon the ECNYS community definitions and supplemented with field observations of the subject property. � �a The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 19 Edinger,G.J.,et al.(editors).2002.Ecological Communities of New York State.Second Edition(Draft).New York Natural Heritage Program, NYSDEC. 62 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife ,�1 , „ „ �� ; � � �j� . ' �' ��(� � �fi �a '-F (� !,� 9 �� f I., ��k1�' . R ��p�LP fn�� J�f)� F ��, ��, �'/ M" �( e A, . �� ;,. ., " � :. y e ��mlr7r�i7t hrub�: i;� �� „� �(�� I t u .`. � �„ , w� �- e rst�.in rccl ccd�rr, I " 1 � ,� � � ,, 'r" � M >„ �sm o�hnaurn bc ry � d��i�w,,,� �; �k ��A�i� i,� 1 y�+'l� � � �i ��m � i ��/�it�,',� / � i �� irnr7ai7t�hrub ; �� ,� r� i � �� ///��i� ,.� �° �(f� czrst�.in red ced�rr ' :� r � ° � �� % ��f��i � ' ��F F � �ii�l�ne a e f q � r , , �,' l�, '� 's �� Dcnrnr7ar7t�hruY� �. ��irolr7ai7t�hrubs: �„ 'c,� "�� r V P�y'� " � er�ste;m red cLd rr i�� '�� i � i7oithein d�aybErry '�,'� � � iroulYiflcna ros�: �, ,� � w� ( i f . �r��te�rn red c;¢:darr ;� r `� r � g--� ' rroaltiTic�rer ro�e� R� ° i�� grc�ui7dsEl bush r�i7d , � i � .� �' � �autumn c�liv�. ,, �, i,�.��. �p � � 'l1 '�; � .; � ,i,i ,� -�C7ominanf Shruk�. � , , f',�� ,,,,� %,�� northembzryberry �,., � . , � � " ;_ .; i �� r.. , � . � , � W � �, „ �� ' ' �" �� h� � ,. i �j�/�„` ID�irolr7r�i7t�hrub� � +''9� .. /„ ,. 1 i � i �.as�t�rn recl c�:d�rr, ., ., � "� � iriulYiflcn�a ro�¢:, � �I �� ,. ,. r � � ii � � fair�ilr�n , r f " r 'if I ��V� VV II m r �,�� I� �9��Y� �� e .�y` � �� i// �� Y�oncysuckl�: � ; I �" .. � i�� Ji� // i � : biairi�le�&�rnd IDcnrnr7ar7t�hruY�s l� J�� U//// �� ,l i//� ,� / � r j� i i �'' nortYi¢:m b�ybErry . La�te;m red ccdr�r /� � �J r �,� �,'/�r�ij�i ",y !;�- ,. � �,� � i7oithei7 bzryb�:iry � �� rr%///�� D�irilr7r�i7t�hrubs�: r�i7d zrufurnr7 ollve � o� �� as�t�,in red c�:d�rr �„ A I „p�j ,�� r�i7d nc�rfhem �,.,� �� ; � ��%�� „��..bayb�:rry � �, � ,cha � �t � j, ID�irilr7r�i7t Shrubs. 'n � f I ili�jf�„ i��< «��i�y Ii �r i�II��I ezrat�.rnredced�rr, °a �,7 i�� il�llll IM��Iu��:ll�'(i�iipti ��Ii1��B��ll��p��l��iu��ilml�� i7orth��:m bayb�:rry � Legend �� Subject Property 1, ' � � Ecolo ical Communities � �omir7ant.�hrubs: e� q` eEtstE.ln YeClCedaf 0 � � C"'ST� Successional Old Field i7ortY��.m bzryb�:iry p C7omu7anf Shrubs: °Sa s � q� w � G, Successional Shrubland <a '�% ezrst�.m r�d cedar e i ��;,� �� 5� �Successional Southern ri °�-� zrnd rnulflTlorzr rosE ''�Hardwoods �,d e� r �,i The Heritage at Cutchogae Fig�e 6—Ecological Commanities n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane " '��h�F.'�� x s ,�s 1 inch=268 feet .pu I�lamlet of Cutehogue,Town of Southold - vreef souiece veau��m g i s N�y,zoi4� � i�om� Ma Aa �pe�o„s Suffolk Count,NY 11935 �+e=o�,ea�ag�,G.7.�t�.(�a;¢oa,.zoo�.c�oioq�o�i co�n�nu.��r�es fN�w }' S� L 0 90 180 360 YorkSMk.Second�diPio�(Ura(t).New�rkNeYu�a113e�Wgcp�ogram, VI�IH Ref.29305.U0 NYSUFIC;2013 NYS UiRiN!prflwirz�agRry OONYSIT'S,2013; �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Successional Old Field As observed during the field inspection,several early successional habitats dominated by herbaceous plant species occur within interior portions of the subject property(see Figure 6). These habitats are best described by the ECNYS Successional Old Field community definition: "A meadow dominated by forbs and�rasses that occurs on sites that have been cleared and plowed(for farmin�or development),and then abandoned. Characteristic herbs include�oldenrods(Solida�o altissima, S. nemoralis, S. ru�osa, S.juncea, S. canadensis, and Euthamia�raminifolia), blue�rasses(Poa pratensis, P. compressa), timothy(Phleum pratense), quack�rass(A�ropyron repens), smooth brome(Bromus inermis), sweet vernal�rass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), orchard �rass (Dactylis�lomerata), common chickweed(Cerastium arvense), common evenin�primrose(Oenothera biennis), oldfield cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex), calico aster(Aster lateriflorus),New En�land aster(Aster novae-an�liae), wild strawberry (Fra�aria vir�iniana), Queen-Anne's lace(Daucus corota),ra�weed(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), dandelion(Taraxacum officinale), and ox-ton�ue(Picris hieracioides). Shrubs may be present, but collectively they have less than 50% cover in the community. Characteristic shrubs include�ray do�wood(Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), silky do�wood(Cornus amomum), arrowwood(Viburnum reco�nitum),raspberries (Rubus spp.), sumac(Rhus typhina, R.�labra), and eastern red cedar Q�uniperus vir�iniana)..." The Successional Old Field ecological community is distributed throughout New York State and has been assigned ECNYS rarity rankings of G4,S4. According to the NYNHP,G4 indicates a community that is considered "apparently secure�lobally, thou�h it mi�ht be quite rare in parts of its ran�e,especially at the periphery." The S4 ranking denotes a community that is considered "apparently secure in New York State." The Successional Old Field community represents the initial stage in the process of ecological succession,which is the process by which a cleared or otherwise disturbed terrestrial habitat progresses by stages to a climax forest community over time. Similar to the ECNYS community description,the Successional Old Field communities at the subject property are dominated by common herbaceous plants, including several species of goldenrod(i.e.,S. altissima, S. ru�osa, S.�raminifolia and S. odora),hemp dogbane(Apocynum cannabinum),Queen Anne's lace and mugwort (Artemesia vul�aris).A moderate-to-dense groundcover stratum comprised of poison ivy(Toxicodendron radicans)and northern dewberry(Rubus fla�ellaris)is present beneath the aforementioned herbaceous plants. Grasses such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium),panic grass(Panicum vir�atum),hairgrass(Deschampsia cespitosa), sweet vernal grass(Anthoxanthum odoratum) and foxtail(Setaria spp.) are restricted primarily to the community edges along pathways. As such,the 64 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Successional Old Field communities at the subject property are dominated by forbs (all herbaceous plants with the exception of grasses)rather than grasses, and therefore do not represent native grassland habitats. Notwithstanding the on-site community description provided above,one disparate Successional Old Field community was observed at the eastern portion of the subject property. In contrast to the other Successional Old Field communities at the subject property,this particular community supports sparse,low-growing vegetative cover interspersed with unvegetated patches,presumably in response to a more recent disturbance and/or the sandy soils that occur within this area. The dominant species observed include pinweed(Lechea sp.),goldenrod,pearly everlasting(Anaphalis mar�aritacea),Virginia creeper(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), scattered eastern red cedar shrubs(Juniperus vir�inicus) and the lichen species reindeer moss(Cladonia ran�iferina). As detailed on Figure 6, Ecological Communities,the Successional Old Field communities described above exist as isolated habitat"islands" that are distributed throughout the surrounding Successional Shrubland community(described below) that dominates the subject property,forming a patchwork mosaic of early-and mid- successional habitats. The dominant shrubs in these"islands",as shown on Figure 6, consist of primarily eastern red cedar and northern bayberry. Successional Shrubland Successional Shrubland represents the next stage in the process of ecological succession following Successional Old Field. This community is described in ECNYS as follows: "A shrubland that occurs on sites that have been cleared(for farmin�, lo��in�, development, etc.)or otherwise disturbed. This community has at least 50% cover of shrubs. Characteristic shrubs include�ray do�wood(Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), eastern red cedar Q�uniperus vir�iniana),raspberries (Rubus spp.),hawthorn(Cratae�us spp.), serviceberries (Amelanchier spp.), choke-cherry(Prunus vir�iniana), wild plum (Prunus americana), sumac(Rhus�labra, R. typhina), nanny-berry (Viburnum lenta�o), arrowwood(Viburnum reco�nitum)and multiflora rose..." The NYNHP,has assigned rarity rankings of G4,S4 to the Successional Shrubland ecological community. As detailed on Figure 6,the majority of the subject property supports a Successional Shrubland community dominated by several shrub and low-growing tree species typically found within mid-successional habitats on eastern Long Island,and particularly within mid-successional habitats growing on sandy soils and located within coastal areas. The dominant trees and shrubs observed include northern 65 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� bayberry(Myrica pensylvanica),groundsel bush(Baccharis halimifolia),sumacs(Rhus spp.),birches(Betula spp.),black cherry(Prunus serotina)and eastern red cedar. The latter species occurs throughout the site and is by far the most commonly observed woody plant at the subject property. Other present though less-commonly observed woody plants occurring within the shrubland include brambles (Rubus spp.), pitch pine(Pinus ri�ida), crabapple(Malus sp.),big-tooth aspen(P.�randidentata) and quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides). With respect to the latter species,a small mono- specific stand of this pioneering tree occurs at the north-central portion of the subject property. In addition to the foregoing woody plant species,poison ivy was observed to be ubiquitous throughout the Successional Shrubland community. Commonly observed herbaceous plants within the on-site Successional Shrubland community include many species found within adjacent Successional Old Field communities, such as goldenrods,hemp dogbane,pearly everlasting, common milkweed(Asclepias syriaca),mullein(Verbascum thapsus),Queen Anne's lace, hawkweeds, asters and various grasses. Successional Southern Hardwoods "A hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Characteristic trees and shrubs include any of the followin�:American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (U. rubra),white ash(Fraxinus americana), red maple(Acer rubrum), box elder(Acer ne�undo), silver maple(A. saccharinum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum),�ray birch(Betula populifolia), hawthorns (Cratae�us spp.), eastern red cedar Q�uniperus vir�iniana), and choke-cherry(Prunus vir�iniana). Certain introduced species are commonly found in successional forests, includin�black locust(Robinia pseudo-acacia), tree-of-heaven, and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Any of these may be dominant or co-dominant in a Successional Southern Hardwoods forest. Southern indicators include American elm, white ash,red maple, box elder, choke-cherry, and sassafras. This is a broadly defined community and several seral and re�ional variants are known." According to the NYNHP,the Successional Southern Hardwoods ecological community is distributed throughout New York State and is ranked G5,S5. According to the NYNHP,G5 indicates a community that is considered "demonstrably secure�lobally, thou�h it mi�ht be quite rare in parts of its ran�e, especially at the periphery." The S5 ranking denotes a community that is considered"demonstrably secure in New York State." Barring further disturbance,Successional Southern Hardwoods represents the next stage in the process of ecological succession within upland habitats in the Long Island region. This community occurs at two locations at the southern portion of the subject property(see Figure 6). The first and largest example occurs adjacent to the neighboring recreational vehicle(RV) camp and agricultural fields located to the east of the site. The uneven terrain within this area suggests significant historical ground disturbance(i.e. soil stockpiles,trenches,berms)associated with past site usage. The 66 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� canopy stratum of this Successional Southern Hardwoods community is comprised almost entirely of non-native/invasive black locust(Robinia pseudoacacia)trees,with scattered native black cherry trees also present. Some non-native/invasive sycamore maple(Acer pseudoplatanus),Norway maple(Acer plantanoides) and white mulberry (Morus alba)trees were also noted along the property boundary with the adjacent wooded parcel to the south. The low-diversity shrub and groundcover strata are characterized by several shrub, vine and forb species,including brambles,pokeweed (Phytolacca americana)and the non-native/invasive species Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica)and Japanese honeysuckle(Lonicera japonica) The second on-site Successional Southern Hardwoods community occurs at the extreme southern portion of the subject property,proximate to Schoolhouse Lane. Dominant trees within this smaller wooded habitat are non-native/invasive black locust and native eastern red cedar. The understory stratum is characterized primarily by multiflora rose and goldenrods. A third Successional Southern Hardwoods community occurs within a narrow strip along the northern property boundary with the neighboring residential properties and vineyard. The canopy stratum includes trees that are characteristic of the ECNYS Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community observed at the aforementioned adjacent properties,including white oak(Quercus alba),black oak(Q.velutina), scarlet oak(Q.coccinea)and pignut hickory(Carya�labra). However,typical Successional Southern Hardwoods trees are also present,including black locust,red maple(Acer rubrum)and gray birch(Betula populifolia). Furthermore,the characteristic heath shrub stratum(i.e.,blueberries [Vaccinium spp.] and black huckleberry [Gaylussacia baccata])of the Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community is non-existent,most likely due to historic clearing of the understory in association with past site usage. Instead, the understory has been colonized and is currently dominated by vine species, including roundleaf greenbrier(Smilax rotundifolia) and the non-native/invasive Asiatic bittersweet(Celastrus orbiculatus)and Japanese honeysuckle vines. Other atypical herbaceous species that occur within the understory stratum include non- native/invasive multiflora rose(Rosa multiflora)and mugwort, as well as native pokeweed and goldenrods. Based upon these considerations,this disturbed wooded habitat does meet the criteria necessary to be classified as a Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community and therefore has been characterized as a successional woodland habitat instead. Based upon the foregoing observations,the limited wooded habitat at the subject property supports a number of non-native/invasive vegetative species, some of which are dominant within the canopy,shrub and/or groundcover strata. As a general rule,the presence of non-native/invasive vegetation reduces the ecological value of a habitat by out-competing native vegetation,lowering overall species diversity and reducing or eliminating breeding and non-breeding habitat for native wildlife species. Accordingly,the overall habitat quality of these wooded habitats has been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances and colonization by non- native/invasive plant species. 67 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� In summary,based upon the foregoing community descriptions and site observations,the subject property appears to be in various stages of ecological succession following historical site disturbances. The site supports three early- and mid-successional ecological communities that are considered to be either apparently or demonstrably secure in New York State by NYNHP. The Successional Shrubland ecological community occurs across the majority of the subject property, and surrounds several Successional Old Field community patches. Wooded habitat is limited to the extreme northern and southern portions of the site,where areas of Successional Southern Hardwoods occur. The overall habitat quality of the limited successional Southern Hardwoods at the subject property has been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances and colonization by non-native/invasive plant species. The vegetative species assemblage across most of the subject property is comprised of native tree, shrub,vine and herbaceous plant species that are typical of the three aforementioned successional communities and common across eastern Long Island in general. Non-native/invasive plants are present among the flora within site perimeter areas,particularly along the northern,western and southern site boundaries. At the Town's request, an evaluation/inventory of existing cedars,bayberry and other native shrubs and trees that have the potential to be utilized in buffers and landscaped areas was prepared. As previously indicated, and as shown on Figure 6, predominant shrubbery includes eastern red cedar and northern bayberry.A preliminary estimate of approximately 200 trees in excess of six inches in diameter, at three feet above the trunk base,were identified primarily on the northern and southern boundaries of the property in the areas identified on Figure 6 as Successional Southern Hardwoods.In the northern area,such species include,but are not limited to,white oak, scarlet oak and hickory. The southern area includes, but is not limited to,black locust, sycamore maple,birch and black cherry. 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. The following list provides an inventory of vegetation observed during VHB's October 9,2014 field inspection of the subject property, as well as those noted on-site during the 2009 ecological assessment. This plant species list is not intended to be an all-inclusive inventory of the vegetative species present at the subject property. 68 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Plant Species List Trees sycamore maple*** Acer pseudoplatanus Norway maple*** Acer plantanoides red maple*** Acer rubrum tree-of-heaven*** Ailanthus altissima silver birch* Betula pendula gray birch* Betula populifolia pignut hickory* Carya glabra eastern red cedar*** Juniperus vir�iniana crabapple*** Malus sp. white mulberry* Morus alba pitch pine* Pinus riXida eastern white pine* Pinus strobus Japanese black pine** Pinus thunberXii American sycamore* Plantanus occidentalis quaking aspen*** Populus tremuloides big-tooth aspen* Populus Xrandidentata sweet cherry** Prunus avium black cherry*** Prunus serotina white oak* Quercus alba scarlet oak* Quercus coccinea pin oak* Quercus palustris black oak*** Quercus velutina black locust*** Robinia pseudoacacia weeping willow* Salix babylonica sassafras* Sassafras albidum Shrubs and Vines Baccharis halimifolia groundsel bush*** Japanese barberry*** Berberis thunberXii Asiatic bittersweet*** Celastrus orbiculatus autumn olive*** ElaeaXnus umbellata Winter creeper** Euonymus sp. English ivy* Hedera helix Japanese honeysuckle*** Lonicera japonica Morro�v's honeysuckle*** Lonicera morrowii Tatarian honeysuckle* Lonicera tatarica fly honeysuckle* Lonicera xylosteum bayberry*** Myrica pensylvanica Virginia creeper*** Parthenocissus quinquefolia chokecherry* Prunus virXiniana scrub oak* Quercus ilicifolia winged sumac*** Rhus copallinum smooth sumac* Rhus Xlabra staghorn sumac* Rhus typhina multiflora rose*** Rosa multiflora blackberry*** Rubus alleXheniensis northern dewberry*** Rubus flaXellaris 69 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� red raspberry* Rubus idaeus roundleaf greenbrier*** Smilax rotundifolia poison ivy* Toxicodendron radicans lowbush blueberry* Vaccinium sp. summer grape* Vitis aestivalis Herbaceous Plants yarrow* Achillea millefolium garlic mustard*** Allaria petiolata field garlic** Allium vineale common ragweed* Ambrosia artemisiifolia pearly everlasting* Anaphalis marXaritacea big bluestem* AndropoXon Xerardii broomsedge* AndropoXon virXinicus sweet vernal grass*** Anthoxanthum odoratum hemp dogbane*** Apocynum cannabinum mouse-ear cress** Arabidopsis thaliana common mugwort* Artemisia vulXaris common milkweed* Asclepias syriaca garden yellow rocket** Barbarian vulXaris hairy bittercress** Cardamine hirsuta Pennsylvania sedge* Carex pensylvanica chicory* Chicorium intybus orchard grass*** Dactylis Xlomerata poverry grass* Danthonia spicata Queen Anne's lace*** Daucus carota hairgrass* Deschampsia cespitosa crabgrass* DiXitaria sp. spring draba** Draba verna goldentop** Euthamia Nutt. Ex Cass fescue* Festuca sp. sticky willy** Galium aparine bedstraw* Galium sp. yellow hawkweed* Hieracium caespitosum hawkweed** Hieracium L. rush** Juncus sp. path rush* Juncus tenuis purple deadnettle** Lamium pupureum L. intermediate pinweed* Lechea intermedia slender bush clover* Lespedeza virXinica ryegrass* Lolium sp. ornamental grass* Miscanthus sp. common evening primrose** Oenothera biennis sensitive fern** Onoclea sensibilis cinnamon fern*** Osmunda cinnamomea sorrel* Oxalis sp. switch grass* Panicum virXatum lady's thumb* Persicaria maculosa pokeweed* Phytolacca americana narrowleaf plantain*** PlantaXo lanceolata broadleaf plantain*** PlantaXo major bulbous bluegrass** Poa bulbosa 70 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� bluegrass* Poa sp. dwarf cinquefoil* Potentilla canadensis common cinquefoil** Potentilla simplex common sheep sorrel*** Rumex acetosella curly dock** Rumex crispus little bluestem*** Schizachyrium scoparium yellow foxtail* Setaria Xlauca. green foxtail* Setaria viridis tall goldenrod* SolidaXo altissima grass-leaved goldenrod* SolidaXo Xraminifolia sweet goldenrod* SolidaXo odora rough-stemmed goldenrod* Solida�o ru�osa goldenrod** Solidago sp. annual sowthistle* Sonchus oleraceus bushy aster* Symphyotrichum dumosum heath aster* Symphyotrichum pilosum aster** Symphyotrichum sp. common dandelion*** Taraxacum officinale maiden fern** Thelypteris Schmid. red clover* Trifolium pratense white clover*** Trifolium repens common mullein*** Verbascum thapsus common speedwell** Veronica arvensis common violet* Viola sororia *Indicates species observed during VHB's October 9,2014 field inspection. **Indicates species observed during the 2009 ecological assessment conducted by GPI. ***Indicates species observed during VHB's October 9,2014 field inspection and the 2009 ecological assessment conducted by GPI. .................................................................................................................................................................---------------------------• Wildlife In addition to the October 2014 field inspection, and to further investigate the potential on-site species assemblage,VHB consulted with NYNHP and performed research of NYSDEC and USFWS records regarding the potential presence or absence of particular species at and in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon these resources and the field inspection,a summary of the birds,mammals and herpetofauna(amphibians and reptiles)observed or expected on the subject property follows. Birds Avian species are the most common form of wildlife observed and expected at the subject property. As detailed on the list below,22 bird species were observed at or over the subject property during the October 9,2014 field inspection. When combined with the species list from the 2009 ecological assessment,a total of 37 avian species have been identified on-site, as detailed below. red-winged blackbird*** Ae�laius phoeniceus tufted titmouse** Baeolophus bicolor 71 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Canada goose* Branta canadensis red-tailed hawk*** Buteo jamaicensis northern cardinal*** Cardinalis American goldfinch** Carduelis tristis house finch** Carpodacus mexicans brown creeper** Certhia americana chimney swift** Chaetura pela�ica northern flicker*** Colaptes auratus northern bobwhite** Colinus vir�inianus American crow*** Corvus brachyrhynchos blue jay*** Cyanocitta cristata yellow warbler** Dendroica petechia gray catbird*** Dumetella carolinensis common yellowthroat*** Geothlypis trichas barn swallow*** Hirundo rustica wood thrush** Hylocichla mustelina dark-eyed junco*** Junco hyemalis herring gull* Larus ar�entatus song sparrow*** Melospiza melodia northern mockingbird*** Mimus poly�lottos house sparrow*** Passer domesticus ring-necked pheasant** Phasianus colchicus downy woodpecker*** Picoides pubescens eastern towhee** Piplio erythophtalmus scarlet tanager** Piran�a olivacea chipping sparrow*** Spizella passerine field sparrow*** Spizella pusilla European starling*** Sturnus vul�aris tree swallow** Tachycineta bicolor Carolina wren*** Thryothorus ludovicianus house wren** Tro�lodytes aedon American robin*** Turdus mi�ratorius white-eyed vireo** Vireo�riseus mourning dove*** Zenaida macroura white-throated sparrow** Zonotrichia albicollis *Indicates species observed during VHB's October 9,2014 field inspection. **Indicates species observed during the 2009 ecological assessment conducted by GPI. ***Indicates species observed during VHB's October 9,2014 field inspection and the 2009 ecological assessment conducted by GPI. To provide a detailed estimate of other avian species potentially utilizing the site, The New York State Breedin�Bird Atlas�o(NYSBBA)was consulted. According to this resource, a total of 65 bird species were identified between 2000 and 2005 within the NYSBBA survey block in which the subject property is located(Block 7054D). Of � 20McGowan,K.J.and K.Corwin,eds. 2008. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press. Data also available online at http:llwww.dec.nv.aovlanimalsl51030.html. Accessed October 20,2014. 72 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� these species,27 are confirmed as breeding,22 are listed as probable breeders and 16 are listed as possibly breeding(a copy of the atlas report for Block 7054D is included in Appendix F). It should be noted that NYSBBA Block 7054D totals nine square miles in area and includes a diverse range of habitats that are not supported at the subject property, including ponds, streams,tidal wetlands and marine open-water habitats. As such, some of the avian species recorded for Block 7054D require breeding and non-breeding habitats that are not supported at the subject property and therefore,these birds are not expected to utilize the site,except perhaps as occasional transients. Accordingly,it is not anticipated that birds on the atlas block list that are typically associated with these habitats (e.g.,saltmarsh sparrow [Ammodramus caudacutus], snowy egret[E�retta thula],black duck[Anas rubripes], green heron[Butorides virescens], common tern[Sterna hirundo] etc.)would regularly use the subject property. Rather,based upon the existing site conditions,the subject property is best suited to birds adapted to early-and mid-successional habitats,including old fields, shrublands,thickets and woodland edges. These species include many of the common birds noted on-site and included on the list for NYSBBA Block 7054D, such as black-capped chickadee,field sparrow,gray catbird, downy woodpecker,dark- eyed junco,blue jay, song sparrow,American robin and Carolina wren. In addition, given the residential development and agricultural fields located adjacent to and in the general surrounding area of the subject property,the site is also frequented by many common songbirds of suburban settings(e.g.,northern cardinal, European starling,house sparrow,mourning dove,house finch)and farm fields(e.g.,American crow, common grackle,barn swallow,etc.). Due to the limited extent and disturbed conditions of the on-site woodland communities,these areas do not represent significant habitat for several reclusive birds of forest interiors that are included on the list for NYSBBA Block 7054D(e.g., wood thrush[Hylocichla mustelina],black-and-white warbler [Mniotilta varia] and eastern wood-peewee[Contopus virens ]). As noted previously,the Successional Old Field communities at the subject property are dominated by forbs and also support shrubs and other woody vegetation. As such,these areas do not represent significant breeding habitat for native grassland birds(e.g.,grasshopper sparrow[Ammodramus savannarum],upland sandpiper [Bartramia lon�icauda],eastern meadowlark[Sturnella ma�na] etc.), and none of these species were observed on-site during the 2014 field inspection or noted on the 2009 ecological assessment bird species list. Marnrnals Whitetail deer(Odocoileus vir�inianus),eastern gray squirrel(Sciurus carolinensis)and eastern cottontail(Sylvila�us floridanus)were observed at the subject property during the 2014 field inspection. In addition,woodchuck(Marmota monax)boroughs were 73 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� noted along the property boundary with the agricultural fields located to the east of the subject property. To determine other mammal species that may utilize the site, existing surveys of Long Island mammalian populations,including The Mammals of Lon�Tsland,New York21 (Connor, 1971)were consulted. Based upon these resources,as well as an evaluation of existing ecological conditions at the subject property,the following mammal species have been identified as potentially utilizing the site. However,this list is not intended to be an all-inclusive inventory of on-site mammals. short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda bats Chiroptera spp. star-nosed mole Condylura cristata Virginia opossum Didelphis vir�inialis woodchuck Marmota monax striped skunk Mephitis meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus house mouse Mus musculus long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata whitetail deer* Odocoileus vir�inianus white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus raccoon Procyon lotor Norway rat Ratus norve�icus eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus eastern gray squirrel* Sciurus carolinensis masked shrew Sorex cinerus eastern cottontail* Sylvila�us floridanus eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus red fox Vulpes *Indicates species was observed at the subject property during the 2014 field inspection. The smaller rodent species listed above(e.g.,mice,moles and shrews)are expected to be the most abundant mammals at the subject property. However, due to their diminutive sizes and predominantly subterranean life histories,these species are not easily observed. As such,the three species noted on-site during the 2014 field inspection are expected to be among the most commonly observed mammal species at the subject property. Primarily nocturnal mammals such as raccoon and Virginia opossum are also expected to frequent the site. In addition,the 2009 ecological assessment identified nine mammal species that utilize the subject property, as detailed below. � ................................................................................................................... zt Connor,Paul F. 1971. The Mammals of Long Island.New York State University of New York,New York Museum and Science Service. 74 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda bats Chiroptera spp. virginia opossum Didelphis vir�iniana eastern mole Scolapus aquaticus little brown bat Myotis lucifu�us eastern cottontail Sylvila�us floridanus eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopis meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus raccoon Procyon lotor Herpetofauna Herpetofauna species were not observed at the subject property during the 2014 field inspection. 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 New York State Special Concern reptile species eastern box turtle(Terrapene carolina)was observed at the subject property during the 2009 ecological assessment, and,based upon the existing habitat conditions observed in 2014,the subject property continues to provide habitat to support this species. Additional discussion of eastern box turtle is provided below in the Rare or Protected Species and Communities section of this report. In order to identify other herpetofauna that may utilize the site, an evaluation of existing site conditions was performed during the field inspection. In addition,the 1990-1995 New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project(NYSARAP) database22 was consulted(see Appendix F). According to this resource,a total of 16 herpetofauna species were identified within the USGS Southold,New York Quadrangle between 1990 and 1995. However, as the subject property does not provide the necessary habitat requirements for some of these species,it is not expected that the subject property would be utilized by all of the herpetofauna included on the list. More specifically,the subject property does not provide habitat for the four sea turtle species included on the NYSARAP list. Further, due to the absence of permanent surface waters at or within the general surrounding area of the subject property(see wetlands discussion below),the site would not support the highly-or fully-aquatic herpetofauna species on the list,including American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),green frog(Rana clamitans),eastern painted turtle(Chrysemys picta), and common snapping turtle(Chelydra serpentina). � z2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2014. New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project. Available online at: http:llwww.dec.nv.aovlanimalsl7140.html. Accessed October 20,2014. 75 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The successional vegetation, dry conditions and sandy soils at the subject property are most conducive to those terrestrial herpetofuana species adapted to these upland conditions,including the aforementioned eastern box turtle. 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. Most of the other amphibian species(i.e.,salamanders,frogs and toads)included on the NYSARAP database require semi-permanent surface waters as breeding pools during the spring, summer and/or fall months,including the vernal pool obligate species wood frog(Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamander(Ambystoma maculatum). No such features were observed at or adjacent to the subject property during the 2014 field inspection. Based upon the foregoing observations and the NYSARAP database,the following species have been identified as the most likely herpetofauna to be found at the subject property. However,this list is not intended to be an all-inclusive inventory of on-site herpetofauna. gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Fowler's toad Bufo fowleri northern redback salamander Plethodon cinereus eastern box turtle* Terrapene carolina eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos *Indicates species observed during the 2009 ecological assessment conducted by GPI. Rare and Protected Species and Communities No New York State or federally-listed endangered,threatened or special concern plants or wildlife,or significant natural communities were observed at the subject property at the time of the 2014 field inspection. The 10 species that appear on the USFWS Federally Endangered and Threatened and Candidate Species List for Suffolk County(see Appendix F)include five sea turtles and two marine shorebirds.23 The remaining three species, sandplain gerardia (A�alinis acuta), seabeach amaranth(Amaranthus pumilus) and small whorled pogonia (Tsotria medeoloides), are plants of undisturbed native grass prairies,marine shorelines � z3 United States Fish and Wi�dlife Service.2014. Federally Endangered and Threatened and Candidate Species List for Suffolk County. Available online at:http:llwww.fws.povinortheastlnvfoleslCoListCurrent.pdf. Accessed November 3,2014. 76 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� and moist, deciduous forests,respectively. As suitable habitat to support these 10 species does not exist at the subject property,they would not be expected to occur at the site and,moreover,were not observed during the field inspection. In addition to the ten aforementioned federally-listed species,the northern long- eared bat(Myotis septenrionalis),was listed as federally threatened by the U�SFWS on Apri12,2015. The listing,which took effect on May 4,2015,was issued under section 4(d)of the Endangered Species Act(ESA), due to significant population declines as a result of the white-nose syndrome fungal disease24 Specific provisions of the listing under the interim 4(d)rule were the subject of a public comment period which ended on July 1,2015.The interim 4(d)rule includes exemptions from incidental take for certain activities(e.g.,forest management practices, maintenance or limited expansion of transportation or utility line rights-of-way,prairie habitat management and limited tree removal projects of one acre or less etc.).As the the public comment period has ended,the USFWS is expected to issue a final4(d)rule. Significantly,the interim 4(d)rule also indicates that direct take(defined in the ESA as to "harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, etc.")of northern long-eared bat can be avoided by restricting clearing of trees to outside of the pup season(June 1-July 31). The USFWS Northern Long-Eared Bat white-nose syndrome buffer zone map25(see Appendix F)indicates that northern long-eared bat occurs in Suffolk County, and this species was identified during 2011 acoustical surveys conducted at and in the vicinity of Brookhaven National Laboratory, located in central Suffolk County, approximately 22 miles west of the subject property.z� According to the USFWS Northern Long-Eared Bat Fact Sheet27(see Appendix F),the northern long-eared bat is a brown colored,medium-sized bat, ranging in size from 3.0 to 3.7 inches with a wingspan of nine to 10 inches. Winter roosting habitat for this species occurs within caves or mines while summer roosting habitat occurs either singly or in colonies,underneath the bark or in cavities or crevices of living or dead trees. At dusk,the bats emerge from roosts to feed on insects,which they catch in flight using echolocation or glean from vegetation and water surfaces. Foraging habitat includes forested understories, as well as the surfaces of aquatic habitats. 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. However,given the limited extent and disturbed nature of the on- site woodlands,the subject property presents limited and marginal habitat potential for the northern long-eared bat. � ------------------------------------------�-�-��--------......................................--------------------� 24 Federal Register Vol.80,No.63.Thursday April 2,2015. z5 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. April 30,2015. Northem Long-Eared Bat Interim 4(d)Rule White Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts. Available online at:http:l/www.fws.gov/midwesUendangeredlmammalslnlbaL Accessed May 15,2015. zfi White.C.,Green,T. 2011. A Preliminary Species Census of Chiroptera in Central Suffolk County,New York. United States Department of Energy. 27 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northem�ong-Eared Bat(Myotis septenrionalis)Fact Sheet. Available online at: http:llwww.fws.povlmidwestlendanperedlmammalslnlbalnlbaFactSheet.html. Accessed October 14,2014. 77 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� As part of this existing conditions assessment, consultations were undertaken with NYNHP to determine whether records exist for known occurrences of rare or New York State-listed animals,plants or significant natural communities on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. In correspondence dated October 17, 2014,NYNHP indicated that historical records exist for one wildlife species(southern sprite [Nehalennia inte�ricollis]) and two plant species(velvety bush clover[Lespedeza stuevi] and bushy rockrose[Crocanthemum dumosum]). According to NYNHP(see Appendix C),historical records are those records dated from 1979 or earlier. In addition, as noted previously,the New York State Species of Special Concern eastern box turtle was noted at the subject property in 2009. A summary of the four aforementioned species follows. Southern Sprite The southern sprite is a damselfly classified within Order Odonata(Sub-Order Zygoptera). The species is listed as a New York State Species of Special Concern, which is defined in 6 NYCRR�182.2(u)as: '...native species of fish and wildlife found by the department to be at risk of becomin�threatened in New York based on the criteria for listin�in section 182.4(a) of this Part and that are listed species of special concern in subdivision(c)of section 182.5 of this Part. Species of special concern do not qualify as either endan�ered or threatened, as defined in subdivisions (e)and(y)of this section, but have been determined by the department to require some measure of protection to ensure that the species does not become threatened. Species of special concern are listed in subdivision(c)of section 182.5 of this Part and are protected wildlife pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103(5)(c)." According to the NYNHP Southern Sprite Conservation Guide28(see Appendix F), the southern sprite is an iridescent,metallic green damselfly that ranges in size from 0.8-to-1.0-inch long. The species is associated with wetland and aquatic habitats in the northeast. On Long Island,habitat for southern sprite includes the ECNYS Coastal Plain Pond,Pine Barrens Shrub Swamp and Atlantic White Cedar Swamp ecological communities. According to the NYNHP correspondence,the historical record for southern sprite indicates that an individual of this species was captured on an island in Mattituck(located approximately 1.5 miles west of the subject property), in 1953 or 1954. Given the absence of the aforementioned ECNYS communities,or other wetland or aquatic habitats at or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, as well as the off-site location of this 60 year-old historical record,it is not expected that southern sprite would occur at the subject property. � za New York Natural Heritage Program.Southern Sprite Conservation Guide. 2014. Available online at: http:llwww.acris.nvnhp.orplreport.php7id=6710. Accessed November 3,2014. 78 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Velvety Bush Clover Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 193.3,velvety bush clover is a New York State Threatened plant,which is defined in§193.3 as: '...species that are likely to become endan�ered within the foreseeable future throu�hout all or a si�nificant portion of their ran�es within the state." New York State Threatened plants receive the following protection under New York State Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)�9-1503: "l�t is a violation for any person, anywhere in the state to pick,pluck, sever,remove, dama�e by the application of herbicides or defoliants, or carry away, without the consent of the owner, any protected plant. Each protected plant so picked,plucked, severed,removed, dama�ed or carried away shall constitute a separate violation." As indicated in the text of this law,it is not a violation of New York State law for a property owner or those authorized by the property owner to remove or otherwise disturb New York State Threatened or other New York State protected plants growing at their property. The NYNHP Velvety Bush Clover Conservation Guide29(Appendix F) describes this perennial herbaceous plant species as growing up to one meter high,with either simple or branched hairy stems. The leaves are comprised of three elliptical leaflets that are hairy above and velvety below. The purple flowers form in dense racemes in the upper leaf axils during late summer and fruiting occurs during late summer and early fa1L Habitat for velvety bush clover includes disturbed openings,trails and roadsides within and adjacent to various ECNYS pine-oak woodland and barrens communities, as well as the ECNYS Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community noted adjacent to the subject property. As such,potentially suitable habitat for this species is supported at the subject property. The NYNHP correspondence indicates that a historical record from 1919 exists for velvety bush clover occurring within"dry woods in Cutcho�ue." Based upon the habitat characteristics described above,special attention was given during the 2014 field inspection to trails and disturbed areas,particularly those located proximate to the off-site Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community. Nevertheless,velvety bush clover was not observed at the subject property, although the related and much more common(i.e.,no protected status)species slender bush clover(Lespedeza vir�inica) was noted at the site. � 29 New York Natural Heritage Program.Velvety Bush Clover Conservation Guide. 2014. Available online at: http:llwww.acris.nvnhp.orplpuide.php?id=9055. Accessed November 3,2014. 79 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Bushy Rockrose According to the NYNHP Bushy Rockrose Conservation Guide30(see Appendix F), the New York State Threatened bushy rockrose is a low-growing,perennial herbaceous plant species with widely spreading branches, alternate densely hairy leaves, solitary yellow flowers with five petals and fruiting bodies consisting of capsules containing multiple seeds. The species occurs within a variety of dry, sandy habitats on Long Island,including maritime heathlands, shrublands,grasslands,oak woodlands and openings within oak-hickory,oak-pine,and oak-maple forests. As such,potentially-suitable habitat for bushy rockrose is supported at the subject property. The NYNHP correspondence indicates that a historical record from 1921 exists for bushy rockrose occurring in Cutchogue. The species was not observed during the 2014 or 2009 field inspections,both of which occurred during the fruiting season, when this plant is most easily observed. Eastern Box Turtle As detailed previously,eastern box turtle was observed on-site during the 2009 ecological assessment of the subject property. This New York State Species of Special Concern is a small-to-medium sized,mostly terrestrial turtle with a highly-domed carapace featuring varying patterns of yellow,orange or olive markings over a dark brown or black background.31 Habitat for eastern box turtle includes open woodlands,meadows,old fields and power line cuts,where it forages for a variety of food sources,including slugs,earthworms,wild strawberries and mushrooms.ls Accordingly, although not observed during the 2014 field inspection(which occurred when the species may have already entered brumation beneath the soil), suitable habitat for this reptile still exists at the subject property. Wetlands Based upon a review of the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper(ERM) website32 and the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Map of Suffolk County,Southold, New York Quadrangle(Map No.6 of 39);3 there are no New York State-regulated freshwater wetlands located at or adjacent to the subject property. � ------------------------------------------�-�-��--------......................................--------------------� 3o New York Natural Heritage Program.Bushy Rockrose Conservation Guide. 2014. Available online at: http:llwww.acris.nvnhp.oralpuide.pho?id=9055. Accessed November 3,2014. 3t Gibbs,J.P.,et aI. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press. 32 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Environmental Resource Mapper. Available online at: http:llwww.dec.nv.povlimsmapslERMlviewer.htm Accessed November 3,2014. 33 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1975.New York State Freshwater Wetland Map No.20 of 39,Suffolk County. 80 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)Mapper website,34 there are no surface water features(including potential federally-regulated wetlands) located at or adjacent to the subject property. No surface waters or other wetland features were observed at or adjacent to the subject property during the 2014 field inspection. 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts An impact assessment of the proposed project with respect to the existing ecological resources at the subject property follows. Habitats and Vegetation As described in detail in Section 2.3.1 above,the subject property currently supports early-through mid-successional habitats,including several areas of successional woodland habitat,that have developed since the cessation of historic agricultural activities at the site in the early 1980s. The aforementioned habitats have been classified according to three distinct ECNYS community types. The Successional Shrubland ecological community occurs across the majority of the subject property, and surrounds several Successional Old Field community patches located within interior portions of the site. Wooded habitat is limited to the extreme northern and southern portions of the site,where areas of Successional Southern Hardwoods occur. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the replacement of the three existing ecological communities currently present at the subject property. As detailed in Section 2.3.1, above,the three existing ecological communities are distributed throughout New York State and are considered by NYNHP to be either demonstrably or apparently secure,both globally and in New York State. Regarding the limited on-site Successional Southern Hardwoods communities specifically, based upon field observations,the overall habitat quality of these wooded habitats has been degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances and colonization by non- native/invasive plant species. Furthermore,the three aforementioned ecological communities are common across eastern Long Island and in the general surrounding area of the subject property. These include adjoining Successional Shrubland and Successional Southern Hardwoods communities located immediately to the south of the subject property and Successional Old Field communities located proximate to the southern and northwestern site boundaries. Accordingly,no significant adverse � �^United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at:http:llwww.fv✓s.aovlwetlandslDatalmaoper.html. Accessed November3,2014. 81 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� impacts to the regional,New York State or global populations of these three communities are anticipated. With respect to individual plant species,the majority of the existing plants would be removed during clearing of the site,both for site development and remediation of subsurface soil conditions. As detailed above,the vegetative species assemblage across most of the subject property is comprised of native tree, shrub,vine and herbaceous plant species that are typical of the three aforementioned successional communities and common across eastern Long Island in general. Common non- native/invasive plants are present among the flora within site perimeter areas, particularly along the northern,western and southern site boundaries. Furthermore, no New York State or federally-listed endangered,threatened or special concern plant species or significant natural communities,were observed at the subject property at the time of the October 9,2014 field inspection.Moreover, as described in detail below,the proposed landscaping plan for the subject property comprises several of the existing native trees and shrubs that currently grow on-site,including eastern red cedar,pitch pine and American holly. Based upon the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts to local or regional populations of the existing plant species at the subject property are anticipated as a result of removal due to the proposed project. Moreover,no significant adverse impacts to populations of rare or protected plants would occur. 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 the following five ECNYS terrestrial communities: > Mowed Lawn > Mowed Lawn with Trees > Unpaved Road/Path > Urban Structure Exterior > Paved Road/Path Following implementation of the proposed project,open space in the form of lawn/landscaped habitats(i.e.,Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees)would occupy 23±-acres,or approximately 50 percent of the subject property, in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement. In addition, another 7.79±acres would be used for plantings around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways. The two lawn communities would occur primarily within the large blocks of open space proposed for the subject property interior, as well as within the vegetated buffers to be established along the site perimeter. Additional vegetated areas would occur within the yard areas of the individual residential units. The Mowed Lawn and Mowed Lawn with Trees communities would be planted with a species assemblage comprised of predominantly native turf grasses,trees, shrubs 82 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� and herbaceous plants. As detailed below,native plant species,including several that currently grow at the subject property would be utilized to the maximum extent practicable. The majority of the vegetation included in the planting plan for the proposed project are native species included on the Town Planning Board's "Recommended Native Plants" (RNP)list. These species have been supplemented with minimal quantities of additional native and non-native plantings designed to create an attractive, durable and manageable residential environment over the long term. It is important to note that none of the non-native plant species included in the planting plan are considered invasive,nor do any of the plantings appear on the Suffolk County Do Not Sell/Transfer List of Tnvasive Species35 or are included in the New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Species legislation(6 NYCRR Part 575),which goes into effect on March 14,2015. The supplemental tree species include both evergreen and deciduous shade trees, as well as flowering ornamentals. Many of the non-native shrubs supplementing the RNP-listed species in the planting plan have been introduced to better assure slower growth and lower mature heights than the native shrubs on the RNP list(many of which are also included in the planting plan), in order to create a quality long-term visual effect without the need for premature pruning. Specific details regarding the planting plan flora are as follows: > Street tree plantings encompass several species from the IZNP list,including red maple,red oak(Quercus rubra)and sweetgum(Liquidambar styraciflua), as well as native pin oak,which currently occurs at the subject property. In addition, chanticleer pear(Pyrus calleryana)is proposed to add diversity to the street tree plantings. > RNP-listed evergreen tree plantings include American holly,pitch pine and eastern red cedar, all of which currently occur on-site. The latter species occurs throughout the subject property and is by far the most commonly observed woody plant at the site. In addition,white spruce(Picea�lauca)has been included for added diversity within the screening plantings. > Flowering/ornamental trees from the RNP list include shadbush(Amelanchier canadensis)and the disease-resistant flowering dogwood cultivar Cherokee Princess(Cornus florida). Although not included on the IZNP list,native eastern redbud(Cercis canadensis),river birch(Betula ni�ra)and non-native okame cherry (Prunus incisa)are included to add diversity and additional flowering and seasonal effects to the flowering/ornamental tree plantings. > RNP-listed shrubs include southern arrowwood(Viburnum dentatum),inkberry (l�lex�labra), swamp azalea(Rhododendron viscosum),mountain laurel(Kalmia latifolia), spicebush(Lindera benzoin) and cultivars of sweet pepperbush(Clethra alnifolia) and winterberry(l�lex verticilata). Also included in the planting plan is the RNP-listed northern bayberry,which is currently common at the subject property. � ................................................................................................................... 35 Avai�able online at:http:llwww.nvis.infoluser uploadslfileslSuffolk%20DNS%201ist.pdf. Accessed December 8,2014. 83 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Several shrubs not included on the RNP list include native juniper, rhododendron and azalea cultivars,and non-native shrubs of proven durability, including drooping leucothoe(Leucothoe fontanesiana)and Japanese holly(l�lex crenata). Also included are holly, spiraea(Spiraea sp.)and yew(Taxus spp.) cultivars. These species have been included to add diversity, additional flowering/seasonal effects and to provide a range of shrub heights appropriate to a residential development. The flowering perennials,ornamental grasses and ground cover plants used are not included on the(RNP)list,but have been selected based upon proven durability and strong flowering and foliage effect. The Unpaved Road/Path community would be represented by the nature trail proposed for the subject property and would comprise about 0.70 acres. Internal roadways,buildings and other paved or impervious surfaces would occupy 15.17-E--acres or 33-E-percent of the subject property. This unvegetated cover type/land use would be represented by the ECNYS Urban Structure Exterior and Paved Road/Path and communities. Based upon the foregoing descriptions,the overall impact of the proposed development on existing ecological communities would be the clearing of habitats in various stages of ecological succession and replacement with anthropogenic habitats. More specifically,existing vegetated habitats that currently occupy the vast majority of the subject property would be replaced by lawn/landscaped habitats and impervious surfaces associated with landscaping,buildings and pavement of the proposed development. As a result,the overall vegetative cover at the subject property would decrease by approximately 50 percent. The existing flora comprised of native and non-native successional vegetation would be replaced by a flora comprised primarily of native trees, shrubs,grasses and other herbaceous plant species. The proposed site flora would be maintained by periodic maintenance,as necessary(i.e.,pruning and mowing). Following implementation of the proposed project,it is anticipated that the subject property would function ecologically as a location of developed and vegetated anthropogenic ecological communities,rather than the existing successional habitat complex that occurs across the site. 84 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Wildlife 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. Nevertheless,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. In analyzing the overall potential impacts of the proposed project on local and regional wildlife populations due to displacement,it is important to note that considering resource availability as the only limiting factor controlling wildlife carrying capacity(density)on the subject property and in the general surrounding area is an oversimplification, as many other factors influence wildlife population densities(i.e. disease,parasites,predation,weather,human disturbances,etc.). Therefore,it is possible that wildlife species populations may already be below the theoretical carrying capacities of the site and surrounding properties due to one or more of these limiting factors. For example,the presence of non-native/invasive vegetation in perimeter areas of the site and/or development and human activity at properties abutting the site may be limiting factors for wildlife species at the subject property. Nevertheless,under the assumption that resource availability is the only limiting factor affecting population density,in the short-term,it is anticipated that the habitats on and surrounding the site would experience a temporary increase in wildlife populations during the clearing and construction phases of the proposed project, due to emigration of individuals from the disturbed portions of the subject property.Subsequently, it is anticipated that inter-and intra-specific competition for available resources within these surrounding habitats would result in an insignificant net decrease in local population size for most species,until equilibrium between wildlife populations and available resources is achieved. It is anticipated that some of the wildlife displaced from disturbed portions of the subject property would temporarily occupy the remaining successional communities at the site during the anticipated development period. Other wildlife would be displaced to contiguous areas of developed and undeveloped habitat,including the Coastal Oak-Hickory Forest community to the north,Successional Southern Hardwoods and Successional Shrubland to the south, agricultural fields to the north and east, and residential properties to the north,west and east of the subject property. Additional emigration may occur to other non-contiguous examples of the aforementioned habitats located in the general surrounding area of the subject property. As detailed above,the subject property is currently most suited to those wildlife species adapted to successional habitats,including those observed during the site inspection. In addition,given the residential development and agricultural fields that adjoin the subject property and characterize the general surrounding area,the 85 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� wildlife species assemblage at the subject property includes many species adapted to developed habitats, disturbed conditions and human presence. It is important to note that many of these species are habitat generalists that are known to occur within both undeveloped and developed settings. (e.g.,northern mockingbird,northern cardinal,blue jay,black-capped chickadee, chipping sparrow,eastern gray squirrel, eastern cottontail,mice,moles,voles etc.). As such,following implementation of the proposed project, it is anticipated that the majority of the existing wildlife species would persist at the site,though at reduced densities due to the overall reduction in available vegetated habitat. Therefore,it is expected that the post-development species assemblage would include most of the avian species and many of the observed or expected mammals observed during the 2014 field inspection, as these species are expected to remain or re-colonize the site following development. It is likely that a few of the more reclusive observed or expected bird and mammal species that are less tolerant of developed conditions and human presence(e.g., eastern towhee, scarlet tanager,long-tailed weasel)may not persist at the subject property following development However, available habitat would remain for these species within the aforementioned undeveloped communities located adjacent to and in the general surrounding area of the site. With respect to herpetofuana,the overall amount of available habitat for the observed or expected species noted in Section 2.3.1, above,would be reduced,due to the proposed clearing and development of the site. Following implementation of the proposed action,the vegetated perimeter buffers located adjacent to off-site woodlands and successional habitats would offer the most suitable on-site habitat for herpetofauna. Those species known to tolerate suburban settings (e.g.,eastern garter snake,Fowler's toad,etc.)may colonize the vegetated yard areas of the proposed residential units following implementation of the proposed action. A discussion of the potential impacts due to eastern box turtles is provided under Rare and Protected species and communities. 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. The site would most favor those species that are adapted to developed settings and human presence,including the majority of observed and expected birds and mammals. Some wildlife species that are less tolerant of these conditions, including the majority of the herpetofauna expected at the subject property,would be displaced to the vegetated buffer areas or to off-site habitats in the general surrounding area. See the specific discussion of the eastern box turtle,below. Based upon the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts to local wildlife populations are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 86 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� RarelProtected Species and Communities As detailed above,no New York State or federally-listed endangered,threatened or special concern plants or wildlife,or significant natural communities,were observed at the subject property at the time of the October 9,2014 field inspection. Furthermore, as suitable habitat to support the 10 species that appear on the USFWS Federally Endangered and Threatened and Candidate Species List for Suffolk County does not exist at the subject property,these species would not be expected to occur at the site. In addition to the 10 aforementioned federally-listed species,the federally threatened northern long-eared bat occurs in Suffolk County. Based upon the 2014 field inspection,potential summer roosting habitat and foraging habitat for this species 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 However, consultations with the USFWS would be necessary to determine potential species impacts or development restrictions associated with northern long-eared bat. According to NYNHP,historical records(i.e.,from 1979 or earlier)exist for the following rare and protected wildlife species southern sprite(circa 1953),velvety bush clover(1919)and bushy rockrose(1921). The southern sprite is a damselfly associated with wetland and aquatic habitats, including the ECNYS Coastal Plain Pond,Pine Barrens Shrub Swamp and Atlantic White Cedar Swamp ecological communities on long Island. Given that these or other wetland or aquatic habitats do not occur at or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, as well as the off-site location for the 60 year-old historical record,it is not expected that southern sprite occurs at the subject property. Accordingly,no significant adverse impact to populations of this insect species is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Although potentially suitable habitat for both velvety bush clover and bushy rockrose occurs within portions of the subject property,neither plant was identified during the field inspection,which occurred during the time of the year when these species would have been most easily identified through their characteristic fruiting structures. As such,no significant adverse impact to populations of either plant species is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Further, as detailed in Section 2.3.1,above,pursuant to New York State ECL�9-1503, it is not a violation of New York State law for a property owner or those authorized 87 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� by a property owner to remove or otherwise disturb New York State-protected plants growing on their property. As described above,eastern box turtle was documented at the subject property during the 2009 ecological assessment, and habitat for this reptile currently exists at the site. Due to their territorial behavior and low mobility,individuals of this species (if still present at the site)may suffer direct elimination during clearing of the subject property. In addition, as a result of the proposed project,potential habitat for this species would be reduced and restricted primarily to the vegetated buffer areas of the subject property. Wetlands There are no New York State-or federally-regulated wetlands mapped at or adjacent to the subject property. Furthermore,no surface waters or other wetland communities were observed at or adjacent to the subject property during the October 9,2014 field inspection. As such,no impacts to wetlands would result from implementation of the proposed action. 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation The following ecological mitigation measures are proposed: > Vegetated open space habitats would be established over 23±-acres(50 percent) of the subject property,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement with an additional 7.79±acres for plantings around buildings and within the right-of- ways adjacent to roadways. > 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. > Vegetated buffers comprised of many of the RNP-listed trees and shrubs would be established around the entire site perimeter. > The aforementioned vegetated buffers would also serve as potential eastern box turtle habitat situated adjacent to existing off-site habitats for this species. 88 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � Human Environmental Resources 3.1 Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis Report(traffic study)has been prepared to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The study methodolog,y,roadway intersections and road segments examined,the accident history and the existing traffic conditions are discussed herein. Potential traffic impacts due to the proposed project, as well as the proposed and potential mitigation measures are summarized in Sections 3.1.2. The traffic study,including the methodolog,y employed in developing the study,is included in its entirety in Appendix G. 3.1.1 Existing Conditions Methodology The following describes the methodolog,y used in this traffic study: > The proposed site plan and related documents were reviewed to obtain an understanding of the project scope and layout. > A review was made of the adjacent roadway system and the key intersections that might be significantly impacted by the proposed project were identified. > Field inventories were made to observe the number and direction of travel lanes at the key intersections, along with signal timing,phasing and cycle lengths. > Accident data for the most recent three year period for the study area was reviewed,tabulated and summarized. > Turning movement counts were collected at the key intersections using Miovision cameras during weekday a.m. and p.m.peak periods and the weekend midday peak period. All counts were performed during the peak autumn tourism season to provide conservative results. 89 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The existing traffic volumes at the key intersections were adjusted to the future No-Build year(assumed to be 2020). > Any other significant planned developments in the vicinity of the project were identified and the traffic associated with those developments was included in the No-Build analysis. > The traffic generated by the proposed 124 condominiums was projected based on recognized traffic engineering standards. > The site-generated volumes were distributed along the adjacent roadway network and were added to the No-Build volumes to produce the proposed Build volumes. > Capacity analyses were performed for the key intersections for the Existing,No- Build and future Build conditions and the site driveway along Schoolhouse Lane for the future Build condition. A discussion of the software used to perform the capacity analysis is included below. > The results of the analyses for the Existing,No-Build,and Build conditions were compared to assess any significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project. > The site access point was evaluated. > The adequacy of the proposed parking was evaluated and the site layout was reviewed. > The need for traffic mitigation measures was evaluated. Software The capacity analyses were done using the traffic analysis software Synchro,version 8, a computer program developed by Trafficware Ltd.Synchro is a complete software package for modeling and optimizing traffic signal timing. Synchro adheres to and implements the guidelines and methods set forth in the 2000 Hixhway Capacity Manual and the newly released 2010 Hi�hway Capacity Manual. This analysis methodolog,y was used to evaluate the ability of an intersection or roadway to efficiently handle the number of vehicles using the facility. Synchro was used to model and analyze the Existing,No-Build and Build conditions at the key intersections. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Roadways and Intersections Conditions The principal roadways and intersections in the project area are described below. The descriptions of the roadways and key intersections include the geometric conditions and traffic control characteristics. Roadways Main Road, designated NY 25,is a major east-west arterial under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT).It extends east from Queens to Orient Point.Within the study area,NY 25 traverses approximately 1,050 feet south of the subject property and provides one travel lane in each direction with 90 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� additional turn lanes at select intersections.According to the 2013 NYSDOT forecast, the Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT)within the study area along Main Road is approximately 14,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph)and on-street parking is permitted. County Road 48(CR 48)is an east-west arterial under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works(SCDPW), and is located approximately one- half mile north of the subject property. It runs east from Sound Avenue in Mattituck to NY 25 in Greenport. Within the study area,CR 48 provides two travel lanes in each direction with additional turn lanes;the posted speed limit is 55 mph and no on-street parking is permitted. According to the 2013NYSDOT forecast,the AADT on this segment of CR 48 is approximately 15,750 vehicles per day. Depot Lane is a north-south Town road that runs south from Oregon Road to NY 25, approximately 695 feet from the subject property. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Depot Lane provides one travel lane in each direction and there are no on-street parking restrictions posted. According to the 2013 NYSDOT forecast,the AADT on Depot Road is approximately 2,250 vehicles per day. Schoolhouse Lane is an east-west Town road that runs west from Depot Road to Griffing Street, where the entrance to the subject property is located. Schoolhouse Lane provides one travel lane in each direction and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. No AADT is available for this roadway. North Street is a short north-south Town road that runs south from Schoolhouse Lane, approximately 405 feet from the subject property,to NY 25. North Street provides one travel lane in each direction and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. No AADT is available for this roadway. Griffing Street is a short north-south Town road that runs south from Schoolhouse Lane,where the entrance to the subject property is located,to NY 25. Griffing Street provides one travel lane in each direction and there is no posted speed limit on this roadway. No AADT is available for this roadway. New Suffolk Road is a north-south local collector roadway under jurisdiction of the Town that runs south from NY 25, approximately 1,050 feet from the subject property,to the north shore of Peconic Bay. It provides one travel lane in each direction and the posted speed is 30 mph. No AADT is available for this roadway. Case's Lane is a north-south local roadway that runs south from NY 25, approximately 1,250 feet from the subject property,to Cedar Road.It provides one travel lane in each direction and there is no posted speed limit on this roadway.No AADT is available for this roadway. 91 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Study Area Intersections To determine the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project,one signalized intersection and seven unsignalized intersections were analyzed under Existing,No- Build,and Build conditions.The existing traffic volumes are discussed herein.The No-Build condition represents the future traffic conditions that can be expected to occur,even if the proposed project is not constructed, and the Build condition represents the traffic conditions that would result from traffic generated by the proposed project. These two conditions are discussed in Section 3.1.2,below.The intersections differ slightly from those required by the Final Scope, as site access on Spur Road has been eliminated.Specifically,the intersections at NY 25 and Crown Land Lane and NY 25 and Highland Road have been eliminated,while the following intersections were added: > NY 25 and New Suffolk Road(Signalized) > NY 25 and Case's Lane(Unsignalized) > Site Access and Schoolhouse Lane&Griffing Street(Unsignalized) (Build only) In addition to the three aforementioned intersections that were added to the analysis, the other intersections that were analyzed are listed below and all are described in detail and depicted in Appendix G(see also Figure 7,below). > CR 48 and Depot Lane(Signalized) > Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane(Unsignalized) > NY 25 and Depot Lane(Unsignalized) > NY 25 and North Street(Unsignalized) > NY 25 and Griffing Street(Unsignalized) Although the NY 25 and Highland Road intersection was identified for study in the scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for a prior development proposal for the subject property that included a street connection(Spur Road) between the proposed development and Highland Road,no such connection is proposed under the currently-proposed project, and the proposed development will not,therefore,have any direct impact on Highland Road traffic. In fact,Paragraph 15 on Page 8 of the Final Scope(Appendix B)requires traffic analysis of Highland and Main Road(NYS Route 25)only "[i]f Spur Road is opened." Accordingly,this study does not evaluate the NY 25/Highland Road intersection. The intersection of NY 25 and New Suffolk Road and NY 25 and Case's Lane were added to the study to assess the potential impacts to these roadways as they were located in close proximity to the subject project. 92 3.1 Transportation ' 48 • N �'9y�. ;' • • O • . . . . . , . � : 'q�Y • ': 4 . , � �� • . . ,: . � y �,o � �. o � . ' ' 48 1 �� ' i; � • • v °O�• ^ B M' • � . . . � i �, � ' � � ' � �'> O10 '`, . , ,� o �� , . � � � � . � • � � c�� •��• �' ,�'Sacred Heart • " ' . v '. ' ' . ' . o Cem ,� o ° � • • o o�, �� Q , . . ,q� � , . . . r � � . ' • 24 '' Project ' ' ., , � ,�., . , . � .4O o Site ' �.,� �� , :• � . . . . • O ! � l,9y�� S� .o � • o��9'yF • � 2 •�� a � P�'-9S p • � , ,, , o � a ti 5� •. o • . � . . r � 3 . .o • � ��,� � � � � � � � � �� Ci1�G11 �G�t � : � � • ..� ?1$+ '�� • \�� I � � ��g .Pl; ♦ • . 4 .. Gs� • ' � ' utcho�.�, ... 5 � . • - • r PO • . 9�� • • � '\ � � � � � 9yJ'•�� C�� • � � � � ��•� i O 2. � . y� ' • �• C� � . . M 32 .• . ' '. Z • . . . . • � m� .'op4 � �' �� CUtCIlO 7! � �V • � �� , ��y�•••.• • •��• •'p • . : � �•� O � � � �� ' � � . .�• . y� �• � � � • �\ • � � , � �� •a .. . S,�F.c �\ p � • � • . - � ' �! O •• �� : . • o o� North Forl� . � l"" � � 20 . �, Cou ntry,C b LL 4 �� \�� ti°� ' ��• . � • ' ,� � �1. �- � . � — . �' � �� . ''y �❑ . - �. 25 • ` � �- � O ,� . � ' - - 'n` � 25 � C'�- Source:USGS T �1 CR 48 at Depot Lane �5 NY Route 25 at New Suffolk Road 2�Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane �6 NY Route 25 at Griffing Street Not to Scale 3�}' NY Route 25 at Depot Lane �NY Route 25 at Case's Lane 4�NY Route 25 at North Road �Site Access at Schoolhouse La&Griffing St Legend � Project Site � Study Intersection The Herita e at Cutcho e Figure 7-Study Intersections n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane N �o,a° Hamlet of Cutcho e,Town of Southold "n E"'�`"��'`'��'"'"''�"`� � w . . E aruliandscapedr�chitecture,['C. Suffolk County,NY 11935 VHB ReE 29305.00 S SOURCE: U.S.G.S. �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Existing Traffic Volume Data At the study intersections,turning movement counts were collected using Miovision cameras during the a.m. and p.m.peak periods on Thursday,October 9,2014 from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.and from 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. and on Sunday October 12,2014 during the weekend peak period from 10:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m. These days and times reflect the heaviest traffic flows coinciding with commuter and shopping/tourism activities, and are anticipated to be the peak hours for the proposed use.Typically, weekend traffic counts are performed on a Saturday;however,the counts for this study were performed on the Sunday of Columbus Day Weekend(due to more favorable weather conditions)during the peak tourism season,in an effort to collect the most conservative data.Given the holiday weekend,it was anticipated that the Saturday and Sunday counts would have similarly high tourism volumes. The existing weekday a.m.,p.m. and weekend volumes are shown in Figures 8 9 and 10, below. Existing driveways opposite several of the study intersections were not counted as the existing volumes were negligible during the peak study hours.The detailed turning movement count data can be found in Attachment A of the traffic study(see Appendix G of this DEIS). Seasonal adjustment factors were not utilized in this study, as the chosen dates for the turning movement counts were anticipated to provide the most conservative data for both weekday traffic,with school in session, and weekend traffic, during the busy Columbus Day holiday weekend. 94 3.1 Transportation .co,w �13 �462 ,� 1 �, r3� cx as o'. �3 1�• . BJ � 1 I 628-� 56� m:�.�"'i PTOJ GCt r' S lte � ° W� r N CO m � I rt � Schoolhouse Lane • 2�� A w i v T � G � 'J ��i � fT W W� �� 326 Y � �47 �348 � Y �4 � Y '�59 VY z5 r14 1'�376 �� °'�-382 0 '�-324 355—♦� ' pg,J . 3�� 1 3� 42� 3� 1 I 338�► A 372_..� 370_.�. V V � �� C T C _ � � � � - r NM b Scele �j � T'fte Herita e at Cutclto ue Fi ure 8—Existin AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schooihouse Lane �dq',�" �n��een„�s. ��„s Hamiet of Cutchogue,Town of Southoid ��"1��"""``<�n"``�`�_""�`'� Suffoik County,NY 11935 souRcs:�s V}I6 Ref.29305.00 �5 �—702 °°°'A 40 CR 48 � �� ... �1 5� 'ltf '`J� V j N 582—� 59� Proj ect ° � b Sitc w o ° �� Schoolhuuse Lane 23—/ ,. � I 12'�1 0�c�c ♦ J U r e: o v 'r, ,�q94 �)�t n o • r24 ,�1' Y �39 ,1-778 ro n> ~Q I � .:73 ny 25 '�-472 � � 550 '�� 499 479�► 23� �� 3� 61� 21 Z 471 ,rn p 465—i N� 526_♦ —i R N�O C � � � � n � NotmScale � 7 T'1te Herita e at Cutclto ue Fi ure 9—Existin PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Criffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �y'�' cn�;�een,�s s ��,�s Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold ��°"a�""'�r.<'n"u��=t"'�,Ye Suffolk County,NY 11935 Vx¢Ref.293o5.0o SOURCE:VHB �3 �5� "'�O' 31 cxas � �� s� '1 t (' 11� 510—► �°'w �� Projcct C � � Stte � ° �� r �� y � Schuolhuuse Lane 27�� s � c� _ F 0 � 7 N N O� r'4?3 � Y �� 71�, � �; �5 �35 NY 2.5 ♦ e°1��491 0' �-576 � � � �515 �2� h 23 • 534 • I ( 2� �2--► 1 � � � rn rn 533� j� 5�---► � an w a a T � � � � . _ � � n�t ro s�ia � � T'1te Herlta e at Cutclto e Fi re 10—Existin Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Criffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �y'�' cn�;�een,�s s ��,�s Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold ��°"��""'�'<'n"u�'�_�°�Ye Suffolk County,NY 11935 Vx¢Ref.293o5.0o SOURCE:VHB �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Level of Service and Delay Criteria The evaluation criteria used to analyze area intersections in the traffic study were based on the 2000&2010 Hi�hway Capacity Manual(HCM). For unsignalized yield- controlled intersections,the 2000 HCM criteria were adhered to and,for all other intersections,the 2010 HCM criteria were adhered to. The term'level of service' (LOS)is used to denote the different operating conditions that occur at an intersection under various traffic volume loads.It is a qualitative measure that considers a number of factors including roadway geometry, speed,travel delay and freedom to maneuver.LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection.LOS designations range from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. In addition to LOS,vehicle delay time(expressed in seconds per vehicle)is typically used to quantify the traffic operations at intersections.For example,a delay of 15 seconds for a particular vehicular movement or approach indicates that vehicles on the movement or approach will experience an average additional travel time of 15 seconds.It should be noted that delay time has a range of values for a given LOS letter designation.Therefore,when evaluating intersection capacity results,in addition to the LOS,vehicle delay time should also be considered. The LOS designations,which are based on delay,are reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections.For signalized intersections,the analysis considers the operation of all traffic entering the intersection and the LOS designation is for overall conditions at the intersection. For unsignalized intersections,however,the analysis assumes that traffic on the road is not affected by traffic on the side streets.Thus,the LOS designation is for the critical movement exiting the side street,which is generally the left turn out of the side street or side driveway. The LOS definitions for both the signalized and unsignalized intersections can be found in Attachment C of the traffic study(see Attachment C of Appendix G of this DEIS). While the results of the existing conditions capacity analysis are included in Tables 12 through 17 in Section 3.1.2,below,in order to allow for a comparison with the No- Build and Build conditions,the results of the existing conditions LOS analyses are summarized herein. Si�nalized Intersection > NY 25 and New Suffolk Road—operates under LOS A in the a.m.,p.m. and weekend peak hours. 98 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Unsi�;nalized Intersections > CR 48 and Depot Lane-operates under LOS A for the eastbound and westbound left turning lanes(with delays of under 10 seconds), a LOS B for the southbound approach and LOS C for the northbound approach in the a.m.peak hour;operates under LOS B for the eastbound left turning lane and southbound approach,LOS A for the westbound left turning lane and LOS C for the northbound approach in the p.m.peak hour;and operates under LOS A for the eastbound and westbound left turning lanes and LOS B for the northbound and southbound approaches in the weekend peak hour. > Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane-operates under LOS A for both the eastbound approach and northbound left turning lane in the a.m.and p.m.peak hours;and operates under LOS B for the eastbound approach and LOS A for the northbound left turning lane in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and Depot Lane-operates under LOS A for both the southbound approach and eastbound left turning lane in the a.m.peak hour;operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS E for the southbound approach in the p.m.peak hour;and operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS D for the southbound approach in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and North Street-operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS C for the southbound approach in the a.m. and p.m.peak hours; and operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and a LOS B for the southbound approach in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and Griffing Street-operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane,LOS B for the southbound right turning lane and southbound approach and LOS C for the southbound left turning lane in the a.m.peak hour;operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane,LOS B for the southbound right turning lane and LOS C for the southbound left turning land and southbound approach in the p.m. peak hour;and operates under LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane,LOS B for the southbound right turning lane,LOS C for the southbound approach and LOS D for the southbound left turning lane in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and Case's Lane-operates under LOS A for the westbound left turning lane and LOS B for the northbound approach in the a.m.peak hour;and operates under LOS A for the westbound left turning lane and LOS C for the northbound approach in the p.m.and weekend peak hours. 99 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Accident History Accident data from NYSDOT Accident Location Information System(ALIS)records for the most recent available three-year period were requested. NYSDOT accident data is generally considered to be the most comprehensive,and is a compilation of both local and state police records.Accident Verbal Description Reports (VDRs)for the period March 1,2011 through February 28,2014 were obtained for the following roadway segments: > Segment of NY 25—From Case's Lane to Depot Lane,including the two end intersections and all intersections in between. > Segment of Depot Lane—From NY 25 to CR 48,including the two end intersections and all intersections in between. Tables 9 and 10 below provide a summary of the most recent accident data for these two segments,both intersection and non-intersection,respectively.A detailed accident analysis is included in the traffic study text and the Accident VDRs are included in Attachment B of the traffic study(see Appendix G of this DEIS). A discussion of the specific accident history at key locations follows. Kev Intersections: At NY 25 and Depot Lane,during the three-year study period a total of 21 accidents were reported to have occurred.There were no fatalities,nine accidents resulted in personal injury,nine accidents resulted in property damage only,and three accidents were non-reportable.The accident types with the highest incident rates were right angle collisions (seven accidents—33 percent), and left turn collisions (five accidents —24 percent).Also of note at this location,there were three sideswipe collisions and three pedestrian collisions. At CR 48 and Depot Lane,a total of 14 accidents were reported to have occurred. There were no fatalities, six accidents resulted in personal injury, six accidents resulted in property damage only, and two accidents were non-reportable.The accident types with the highest incident rates were right angle collisions(six accidents—43 percent) and left turn collisions(two accidents—14 percent).No other accident type exceeded 10 percent of the total. The accident data for CR 48 and Depot Lane, as tabulated in this report,occurred when the intersection was unsignalized. As of October 2015,the intersection is currently controlled by a traffic signal. As such,future accident patterns at this location may not be accurately represented by the data provided. At NY 25 and New Suffolk Road,a total of 11 accidents were reported to have occurred.There were no fatalities,two accidents resulted in personal injury,four accidents resulted in property damage only,and five accidents were non-reportable. 100 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The accident types with the highest incident rates were rear end collisions and parked vehicle collisions(four accidents each—36 percent) and overtaking collisions (two accidents—18 percent). At NY25 and Griffing Street,a total of eight accidents were reported to have occurred.There were no fatalities and no personal injury accidents.Six accidents resulted in property damage only, and two accidents were non-reportable.The accident types with the highest incident rates were left turn collisions (four accidents —50 percent)and rear end and right angle collisions(two accidents each—25 percent). Kev Roadwav Se m� ents: On the segment of NY25 between North Street and Depot Lane,a total of 18 accidents were reported to have occurred.There were no fatalities,three accidents resulted in personal injury, 12 accidents resulted in property damage only, and three accidents were non-reportable.The accident types with the highest incident rates were rear end collisions and parked vehicle collisions(four accidents each—22 percent)and right angle collisions(three accidents—17 percent). On the segment of NY25 between Case's Lane and Griffing Street,a total of six accidents were reported to have occurred.There was one fatality,four accidents resulted in personal injury,zero accidents resulted in property damage only,and one accident was non-reportable.The accident types with the highest incident rates were rear end collisions(three accidents—50 percent) and fixed object collisions(two accidents—33 percent). One fatal accident was recorded on this segment during the study period: > Assigned the case number 34810689, the fatal accident occurred on June 11,2013 at 5:00 PM when a car travelling west at the mid-block crosswalk in that vicinity collided with a pedestrian in the crosswalk.The Verbal Description Report records the weather conditions as rainy, surface conditions as wet,and light condition as daylight.Apparent factors for the cause were given as passing or lane usage improper and failure to yield right-of-way.The pre-accident action of the vehicle is stated as overtaking. 101 3.1 Transportation Table 9 Accident Data Tabulation-Data from NYSDOT Accident Location Information System(ALIS) Accidents from March 1,2011 to February 28,2014 Accident Severity Accident Type m � a� m c � m m m m � � � °� � � � ° o Intersection � �, o T a F w Y °' � � � 3 `6 � °�' � = Q � �m � � Q m Q H O v� N >, > r H �n � � 'C s � U "O U � LL C � 0'' N j m � m � -Np "O m � @ � @ Q � � � x m Y m O E a� a` z � � � �` � a a � ¢ O CR 48&Depot Lane - 6 6 2 14 1 - 6 2 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 Depot Lane&Schoolhouse Road - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NY 25&Depot Lane - 9 9 3 21 2 - 7 5 - - 3 3 - - 1 - - - NY 25&North Street - - - 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - NY 25&New Suffolk Road - 2 4 5 11 4 2 - - - - - - - 4 - - - 1 NY 25&Griffing Street - - 6 2 8 2 - 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - NY 25&Case's Lane - 2 - - 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 0 19 25 14 58 11 2 15 11 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 Table 10 Accident Data Tabulation-Data from NYSDOT Accident Location Information System(ALIS) Accidents from March 1,2011 to February 28,2014 Accident Severity Accident Type � � a � � � i6 p) N L U N C U � '� O Segment r->`� T � T O F � i' � � � � a m � � � � Q yC• m � C a w m Q I— ~ O (� in j, � Y � vi � >. a� m �e � a� � -o c.� � - � ii = 'C� � a� � m a�i o� � � -o m � m � m � Q � � � x a� Y m O E a� a Z o � � u' � � °' � ¢ L O NY 25 1 4 - 1 6 3 - - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - Case's Lane to Griffing Street NY 25 _ 1 3 1 5 - 1 1 1 - - - - - 2 - - - - Griffing Street to New Suffolk Road NY 25 - - 2 - 2 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - New Suffolk Road to North Street NY 25 _ 3 12 3 18 4 - 3 1 2 2 - - - 4 1 - 1 - North Street to Depot Lane Depot Lane _ _ _ 2 2 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - NY 25 to Schoohouse Road Depot Lane 0 Schoolhouse Road to CR 48 Total 1 8 17 7 33 9 1 4 2 2 4 0 1 0 8 1 0 1 0 �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts The traffic study(see Appendix G)evaluates the future traffic conditions of the surrounding roadway network, and assesses the potential impacts of the proposed project upon same. In addition,proposed site access and off-street parking is evaluated. The salient portions of the traffic study are summarized below. Future Traffic Conditions The analysis of future conditions,with and without the proposed project("Build" and "No-Build" conditions,respectively),was performed to evaluate the effect of the proposed project on future traffic conditions in the study area.Background traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2020,reflecting the year when the proposed project is expected to be completed and operational.3�The No-Build condition represents the future traffic conditions that can be expected to occur,even if the proposed project is not constructed.The No-Build condition serves as a comparison to the Build condition,which represents expected future traffic conditions resulting from both project and non-project generated traffic. No Build Condition To account for increases in general population and background growth not related to the proposed project, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes.Based on the NYSDOT Lon�Island Transportation Plan(LITP),the growth rate anticipated for the Town,including the hamlet of Cutchogue, is 1.8 percent per year for a total of 10.8 percent(1.8 percent x six years). After applying the growth factor,the resulting 2020 No-Build traffic volumes for the weekday a.m.peak, weekday p.m.peak, and weekend midday peak periods are shown in Figures 10-1, 10-2,and 10-3,respectively,of this DEIS. � ................................................................................................................... 3s To be conservative,a worst case of six years(1.5 years per phase X 4 phases)was assumed for the Build year for the traffic analysis. 104 3.1 Transportation p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq ��4 �512 rn:iw 41 CR 48 � � � ' 3 9� �1 (� 696--► 62� Proj ect d � Site � � ;� r � � l � Schoolhouse Lane 25�.. � ip ai y '� A O L � N � � b0 � C � z m� �'`�° �361 � � �52 �-386 w'' �4 � Y �65 NY 25 �16 e.,�350 r49 � � ��423 �� 359 393� e � 1 375—J► 36�� I 3 J 47 J 412�► 410---► ° o�a R 0 a T a+ Y C Q h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-1 No-Build AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq �6 O�O A ~778 ,,�� CR 48 � � � ' , s� '1 T (' 17� G4S—"'► N N�O' 65� Proj ect d � Site � � � A t0 � � l � Schoolhouse Lane 25� " �� 13'� � � d � L � N � � b0 � C � z �m �� 27� M � e.,�523 r859 1� Y �`�609 � � �• �81 NY 25 553 23—• � � � prj J 545.� 3� 68 J � ao.^�i 515—► � � � �3—► 522—► tr .P tT m 0 a a+ Y T r' O h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-2 No-Build PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq �3 w oo.i �656 CR 48 � � � �� '' '11 (' ,2� 565� �'ii.o 42� Proj ect d � Site � � om C � l � � Schoolhouse Lane 23�'. i t � � 4� i�' : � � no � a � z .�aw �y J �-555 "o NY25 �1J9 �" � e.,�� 79 � � �`�638 � � �• �59� 604--► °, 1 1 25J 516� � � 2J 41J 13� a'o m 591—► N v �3�► 623—� � orn � 0 a T a+ Y C Q h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-3 No-Build Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Under the No-Build condition,the study intersections would operate under the following conditions: Si�nalized Intersections > NY 25 and New Suffolk Road—would operate at an overall LOS A for the a.m., p.m. and weekend peak hours. > CR 48 and Depot Lane—would operate at overall LOS A for the a.m.,p.m. and weekend peak hours. Unsi�,nalized Intersections > Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane—would operate at LOS B for the eastbound approach and LOS A for the northbound left turning lane in the a.m., p.m. and weekend peak hours. > NY 25 and Depot Lane—would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS C for the southbound approach in the a.m.peak hour; would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS F for the southbound approach in the p.m.peak hour;and would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS E for the southbound approach in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and North Street—would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS B for the southbound approach in the a.m.peak hour; would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS C for the southbound approach in the p.m.peak hour;and would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS B for the southbound approach in the weekend peak hour. > NY 25 and Griffing Street—would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS B for the southbound approach in the a.m.peak hour; and would operate at LOS A for the eastbound left turning lane and LOS C for the southbound approach in the p.m. and weekend peak hours. > NY 25 and Case's Lane—would operate at LOS A for the westbound left turning lane and LOS C for the northbound approach in the a.m.,p.m. and weekend peak hours. The Town Planning Department did not identify any other planned developments in the vicinity of the subject property that might have the potential to influence traffic conditions in the study area.However, a proposed four-lot subdivision(Baxter Subdivision)is pending,but is not expected to have significant impacts on traffic conditions in the study area. The Town of Southold Highway Department did not identify any planned roadway improvement projects in the area that would affect existing intersection traffic controls or geometry. 108 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was reviewed and did not identify any planned roadway projects in the area that would affect existing intersection traffic controls or geometry. Furthermore, the Towri s website was accessed on October 21, 2015 (http://24.38.28.228:200/Weblink/Browse.aspx) and a review of the available materials indicated that a four-lot minor subdivision application for SCTM#102-5-9.4(the Baxter property on the east side of Griffing Street)was "expired". Build Condition Proiect-Generated Traffic Volumes To estimate the project-generated traffic for the proposed development, a review was undertaken of available trip generation data sources,including the reference published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9t'�Edition.This widely utilized reference source contains trip generation rates for various land uses,including residential developments. The ITE trip generation for the proposed condominiums based on the number of units was calculated in order to determine the projected traffic generated from the proposed development.To be conservative,the study utilizes a standard Condominium/Townhouse trip generation rate.A Senior Housing trip generation rate, also appropriate for this development,would result in nearly 50 percent less traffic during the peak hours. Trip generation data for comparable Long Island senior housing project's(The Bristal at North Hills) data was consulted and found to have maximum trip rates per unit of 0.34 for the a.m.weekday peak hour,0.45 for the p.m.weekday peak hour, and 0.30 for the weekend midday peak hour,respectively.These rates are significantly lower than the rates utilized for this study based on the ITE trip generation for land use code#230—Condominium/Townhouse, as demonstrated in Table 11 below(i.e.,0.49,0.58 and 0.63,respectively).As such,the more conservative and "worst-case" scenario rates for the non-age restricted Condominium/Townhouse were used. 109 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 11 -Trip Generation Component Density AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Midday Peak Trip Generation Rate: Trip Generation Rate: Trip Generation Rate: Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+026 Ln(T)=0.82Ln(X)+0.32 T=029X+42.63 RESIDENTIAL Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting ITE#230 124 Units 17% 83% 67% 33% 54% 46% CondominiumlTownhouse (Peak Hour of Generator) 10 51 48 24 43 36 Total= 61 Total= 72 Total= 79 As shown in Table 11,the 124 condominiums are projected to generate 61 trips during the a.m.peak hour, 72 trips during the p.m.peak hour and 79 trips during the Saturday midday hour.Although traffic counts were performed on a Sunday of Columbus Day weekend,Saturday trip generation calculations were applied to be conservative and are referred to in the traffic study as weekend trips. Trip Distribution and Assiqnment The trips originating from and to the subject property were assigned to the adjacent roadways based on characteristics of the roadway network, the location of the proposed site access point,existing travel patterns, and likely destination points. The trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 9 in the traffic study(Appendix G) were then applied to the site-generated traffic volumes and assigned to the local roadway network.The resulting project-generated traffic volumes for the a.m.,p.m., and weekend midday peak hours are presented in Figures 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6, respectively,of this DEIS. To determine the future Build condition traffic volumes,the project-generated trips were added to the No-Build condition traffic volumes at the key intersections.To be conservative,the Saturday project-generated trips are applied to the Sunday turning movement count data.The resulting Build traffic volumes for the a.m.,p.m. and weekend peak hours are shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13 respectively,below. 110 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Site Access The site access intersection with Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane was analyzed in the Build condition with the site-generated traffic.The proposed access approach would be stop-controlled while the other approaches would remain uncontrolled.No existing count data at this intersection were recorded,however,to be conservative,it was assumed that all background trips in the No-Build condition for Griffing Street, North Street,and Schoolhouse Lane would pass through this intersection.These resulting volumes are shown in the a.m.,p.m., and weekend peak hours in Figures 11, 12, and 13,respectively,below. 111 3.1 Transportation p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq �1 CR 48 2� '1 �' �� Proj ect d � Site � � °� w a 1 � �, � � � 5 Schoolhouse Lane �4 � (20)—► e' I (15) • ,. � _J d � (5)� + �5�� ' � � L � � � b0 � C � z 1� � l ( � t 1� Y e., �1 �1 � �. �� Y �• �2 NY 25 �(Q1) 4--► °� • �5)--► (5)� (10)—/ 4� � � 0 a T a+ Y C Q h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-4 Site Generated AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq CR 48 �7 �� .�� Proj ect d � Site � � N N 'p ACi 1 � � �p4 Schoolhouse Lane �19 � � � (10)—► a' I (8) ••. � _J A �2�� Q�� N ai y L � N � � b0 � C � z �� I � M � e �5 Y �` �5 � �° �10 NY 25 �(10) �5 19--► °. • (2)"""� (2)—► (4)---► 18J � � 0 a T a+ Y C Q h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-5 Site Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York p:\29305.00 herltaqe cutchoque\cad\ts\planset\29305_trafflc fiqures.dwq �s CR 48 6� '1 �' �� Proj ect d Site ° �� W � 1 � � �p2 Schoolhouse Lane �18 � � � (14)—► a� (10)S.. � � �4�� , �4)� cn d � L � N � � b0 � C � z �� v l ( � NY25 �(14) 1� Y e., �4 �4 � �. �4 � �• �8 17--► °' • �4�� 4)�� (8)—► 17J � � 0 a T a+ Y C Q h � � � NM to Scale �j � � r ,i• Figure]0-6 Site Generated Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Heritage Cutchogue,New York �1�F w:i ra +�—512 CR 4$ � 7` � `�' � �� `1 � �' sss�r �� sa� Proj ect Site d ro a � rnt�n �� 1 t`$ �,j � s� � SCLOO�IIOLLB@ LAII�2 �r► aa.,.� � 4 12� cn� � �j � � � � � � � .� j �� ' ,� w sA t iVi 25 �S2 � �'° "�350 �497 � �• '' +I�424 � "F `°� ��1 397�► `� � � 35 314`• � 3� 47✓ 3� ao m 375--► � o w 417��, 420��. m � � � � nNn�osoa� �' ,�� T'1te Herita e at Cutclto ue Fi re 11—Build AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �ee`�' �n��een,��s. �,.,,s Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold ��"i�o.,��«r.<,n�u��=��,Yc Suffolk County,NY 11935 souRcs:�s V}I6 Re£29305.00 t—s !�� •�—��a ,�51 CR 4S � • � `f 1 17� � 1 � 645�► �ru r°Su 72� Praj ect Site ti � R N N W iD r.'� � �z� � � � �� Schoolhause Lane 1 r''' �� '�1 � �a � � � � � � AG�7 04 �F�524 �'''a � NY25 �277 � � e. �—523 �85 � Y : a• +II-614 �,a� �583 550—► ' '�} � q.} � �¢`� 3 gg� 23� � 515�► 45� �vWi 585�► 526��r 9�V � � � � � � Not ta Saale Z,,� �,� T'1te Herita e at Cutclto ue Fi ure 12—Build PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �ee`�' �n��een,��s. �,.,,s Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold ��"i�o.,��«r.<,n�u��=��,Yc Suffolk County,NY 11935 souRcs:�s V}I6 Re£29305.00 '�—� w�,� �—sss � � � �dQ �� 0 12� � � � 58b�r �a c~n d8� Prvj ect Site d � a � �� r �� L� � � � °� � SchooEao�e Lsne 1 � 33✓ �t �� 8� �� x W N +1-560 � ( �42 �799 �Y � �=1 U @� '`�44 NY25 /-1$ '�y . ,��r� �, B42 � �'Q' �579 � 82i�r `. � � 42� 59$� � � 2�i 41 18� i b91—► � �rn $87�; 631�► 0o m � � � � Nat to Scale �� The Herita e at Cutcho ue Figure 13—Build Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �ee`�' �n��een,��s. �,.,,s Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold ��"i�o.,��«r.<,n�u��=��,Yc Suffolk County,NY 11935 souRcs:�s V}I6 Re£29305.00 �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Traffic Operations Analysis Measuring existing traffic volumes and projecting future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area.To assess quality of traffic flow,roadway capacity analyses were conducted with respect to the Existing,No-Build and Build conditions. These capacity analyses provide an indication of the adequacy of the roadway facilities to serve the anticipated traffic demands. Level of Service Analysis The results of the capacity analyses for the signalized intersections of NY 25 and New Suffolk Road and CR 48 and Depot Lane for the Existing,No-Build and Build conditions are summarized in Tables 12, 13 and 14 below,for the a.m.,p.m. and weekend midday periods,respectively.The results of the capacity analyses for the six unsignalized study intersections for Existing,No-Build and Build conditions are summarized in Tables 15, 16 and 17 below,for the a.m.,p.m. and weekend midday peak periods,respectively. The detailed capacity analysis worksheets are contained in Attachment C of the traffic study(see Appendix G of this DEIS). 118 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 12 - Level of Service Summa - Si nalized Intersection -AM Peak Hour Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Intersection Movement Lane Group Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) TR 10.6 B 11.9 B 11.9 B EB Approach 10.6 B 11.9 B 11.9 B L 3.7 A 4.0 A 4.0 A WB T 4.7 A 5.9 A 5.9 A NY 25&New Suffolk Road Approach 4.6 A 5.7 A 5.7 A LR 12.6 B 132 B 13.4 B NB Approach 12.6 B 132 B 13.4 B Overall 7.7 A 8.8 A 8.8 A L 4.5 A 4.9 A T 52 A 5.7 A EB R 1.4 A 1.5 A Approach 4.9 A 5.3 A L 5.3 A 5.8 A T 4.8 A 52 A WB CR 48&Depot Lane R 0.8 A 0.9 A Approach 4.8 A 52 A LTR 34.8 C 35.9 D NB Approach 34.8 C 35.9 D LTR 21.8 C 212 C SB Approach 21.8 C 212 C Overall 7.4 A 8.1 A 119 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 13 - Level of Service Summa - Si nalized Intersection - PM Peak Hour Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Intersection Movement Lane Group Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) TR 13.1 B 134 B 134 B EB Approach 13.1 B 13.4 B 13.4 B L 4 A 4.1 A 41 A WB T 5.3 A 5.5 A 55 A NY 25&New Suffolk Road Approach 5.1 A 5.3 A 5.3 A LR 15 B 16 B 161 B NB Approach 15 B 16 B 16.1 B Overall 9.4 A 9.6 A 9.6 A L 4.9 A 5.1 A T 5.0 A 52 A EB R 1.4 A 1.4 A Approach 4.7 A 4.8 A L 5.1 A 5.4 A T 5.4 A 5.6 A WB CR 48&Depot Lane R 0.0 A 0.0 A Approach 5.4 A 5.5 A LTR 33.0 C 33.5 C NB Approach 33.0 C 33.5 C LTR 18.5 B 182 B SB Approach 18.5 B 182 B Overall 7.5 A 7.7 A 120 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 14- Level of Service Summary- Signalized Intersection -Weekend Peak Hour Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Intersection Movement Lane Group Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) TR 132 B 13.3 B 13.3 B EB Approach 132 B 13.3 B 13.3 B L 3.8 A 3.8 A 3.8 A WB T 5.0 A 5.0 A 5.0 A NY 25&New Suffolk Road Approach 4.8 A 4.8 A 4.8 A LR 14.5 B 16.1 B 162 B NB Approach 14.5 B 16.1 B 162 B Overall 9.5 A 9.7 A 9.7 A L 52 A 5.5 A T 52 A 5.5 A EB R 1.8 A 1.8 A Approach 4.9 A 52 A L 52 A 5.7 A T 5.6 A 5.9 A WB CR 48&Depot Lane R 0.0 A 0.0 A Approach 5.5 A 5.9 A LTR 32.6 C 342 C NB Approach 32.6 C 342 C LTR 20.8 C 20.3 C SB Approach 20.8 C 20.3 C Overall 8.6 A 9.2 A As shown in Tables 12, 13 and 14,the signalized intersection of NY 25 and New Suffolk Road operates at an overall intersection LOS A during all periods analyzed. When compared to the No-Build condition,the results in the Build condition are consistent and there is no change in the LOS.The overall intersection delay from No- Build to Build condition would not increase and thus,would not impact motorists traveling through the intersection.Furthermore,the signalized intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane also operates at an overall intersection LOS A during all periods analyzed.The northbound approach in the a.m.peak hour period sees a delay increase of one second from the No-Build to the Build condition,resulting in a change in level of service from LOS C in the No-Build to LOS D in the Build condition.This additional one second delay will not be noticeable to drivers. 121 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 15- Level of Service Summa - Unsi nalized Intersections-AM Peak Hour Critical Intersection Approach/ Lane Group Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Movement EB L+U 9 A WB L+U 9.8 A CR 48&Depot Lane NB Approach 17.4 C SB Approach 14.4 B EB Approach 9.9 A 10.1 B 10.3 B Schoolhouse Lane&Depot Lane NB L 0.4 A 0.3 A 0.4 A EB L 8.4 A 8.6 A 8.6 A NY 25&Depot Lane SB Approach 17.1 C 19.9 C 21.1 C EB L 8.5 A 8.7 A 8.7 A NY 25&North Street SB Approach 12.9 B 13.7 B 17.4 C EB L 8.5 A 8.7 A 8.7 A NY 25&Griffing Street SB Approach 13.6 B 14.5 B 14.8 B WB L 8.2 A 8.3 A 8.3 A NY 25&Case's Lane NB Approach 13.8 B 15 C 15.4 C Site Access&Schoolhouse Lane& NB L - - - - 7.4 A Griffing Street SB L - - - - 9.6 A 122 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 16- Level of Service Summa - Unsi nalized Intersections- PM Peak Hour Critical Intersection Approach/ Lane Group Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Movement EB L+U 10.0 B WB L+U 9.2 A CR 48&Depot Lane NB Approach 15.9 C SB Approach 12.1 B EB Approach 9.9 A 10.2 B 10.5 B Schoolhouse Lane&Depot Lane NB L 0.3 A 0.5 A 0.8 A EB L 9.1 A 9.4 A 9.5 A NY 25&Depot Lane SB Approach 35.4 E 56.7 F 62.9 F EB L 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.0 A NY 25&North Street SB Approach 18.0 C 20.4 C 23.7 C EB L 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.1 A NY 25&Griffing Street SB Approach 18.5 C 21.5 C 22.2 C WB L 8.6 A 8.8 A 8.8 A NY 25&Case's Lane NB Approach 17.7 C 20.4 C 21.2 C Site Access&Schoolhouse Lane&Griffing NB L - - - - 7.5 A Street SB L - - - - 9.6 A 123 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 17- Level of Service Summa - Unsi nalized Intersections-Weekend Peak Hour Critical Intersection Approach/ Lane Group Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020 Movement EB L+U 9.7 A WB L+U 8.7 A CR 48&Depot Lane NB Approach 13.0 B SB Approach 13.3 B EB Approach 10.1 B 10.3 B 10.6 B Schoolhouse Lane&Depot Lane NB L 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.4 A EB L 8.8 A 9.1 A 9.1 A NY 25&Depot Lane SB Approach 31.3 D 48.6 E 57.7 F EB L 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.0 A NY 25&North Street SB Approach 12.5 B 13.2 B 22.7 C EB L 8.6 A 8.9 A 9.0 A NY 25&Griffing Street SB Approach 18.7 C 21.8 C 22.4 C WB L 8.7 A 8.9 A 9.0 A NY 25&Case's Lane NB Approach 19.3 C 22.6 C 23.6 C Site Access&Schoolhouse Lane&Griffing NB L - - - - 7.4 A Street SB L - - - - 9.5 A As shown in Tables 15, 16 and 17,most critical approaches at the unsignalized study intersections would operate at the same LOS in the No-Build condition as the Build condition.Additionally,most critical approaches at the unsignalized study intersections would operate at an LOS C or better in all conditions and peak hour periods. During the a.m.peak hour, as seen in Table 15,from the Existing condition to the No- Build condition,the Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane eastbound approach would go from LOS A to LOS B, and the NY 25 and Case's Lane northbound approach would go from LOS B to LOS C.Both of these changes in delay would be less than two seconds and the LOS changed only because the Existing condition values were at or near the threshold for the next level-of-service.This difference in delay would not require mitigation.From the No-Build condition to the Build condition,the only critical approach that would change LOS in the a.m.peak hour is the southbound NY 25 and North Street delay,which would change from LOS B to LOS C. However,this delay change(from LOS B to LOS C)would be less than four seconds,would be unnoticeable to motorists and would not require mitigation. During the p.m.peak hour, as seen in Table 16, all critical approaches would maintain the same LOS in the No-Build and Build conditions.From Existing condition to No-Build condition,Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane eastbound 124 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� approach would go from LOS A to LOS B.This change in delay would be less than one second and the LOS changed only because the Existing condition value was at the threshold for the next level-of-service.This delay change would be unnoticeable to drivers and would not require mitigation.From the Existing condition to the No- Build condition to the Build condition,the NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach would go from LOS E to LOS F to LOS F.The change in delay would be seven seconds from the No-Build condition to the Build condition;this increase would not be significant enough at an unsignalized intersection to warrant mitigation.Possible measures to improve the level of service of this approach are discussed in the Mitigation section of this report. During the weekend peak hour, as seen in Table 17,from the Existing condition to the No-Build condition to the Build condition,the NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach would go from LOS D to LOS E to LOS F.The change in delay would be less than 10 seconds from the No-Build condition to the Build condition; this increase would not be significant enough at an unsignalized intersection to warrant mitigation. It should be noted that this analysis reflects the southbound Depot Lane approach to NY 25 as a single shared lane. Observations indicate that this approach often operates as two lanes even though it is not striped as such. Nonetheless,the increases in delay on this approach,even under the single lane evaluation scenario, are less than 10 seconds in this peak period,which are minimal. The mitigation section below presents a scenario under which the two-lane operation could be formalized to ensure that it operates as two lanes under all circumstances. Possible measures to improve the level of service of this approach are discussed in the Mitigation section of this report.In the No-Build condition to the Build condition, the NY 25 and North Street southbound approach would go from LOS B to LOS C. This change in delay would be less than 10 seconds and an acceptable level-of-service (LOS C)would be maintained during all peak hours at this approach;therefore,no mitigation is recommended. All the critical approaches in the No-Build and Build conditions would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during all periods analyzed with the exception of the southbound NY 25 and Depot Lane approach during the p.m.peak hour and weekend peak hour.In the Build condition the site access would operate with LOS A during all three time periods analyzed. Based on these results there is no need for mitigation measures due to the projected increased traffic volumes on the study intersections related to the proposed development However,a potential improvement has been developed for the southbound approach for NY 25 and Depot Lane,which could be implemented if requested by the Town(see Section 3.1.3,below). 125 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Off-Street Parking and Circulation The Town Code for the Town of Southold requires two off-street spaces per unit for two-bedroom multi-family condominium housing,plus 0.25 space for each additional bedroom, and one space per 300 square feet for the community center. For the proposed 124 units and 6,189-SF community center at The Heritage at Cutchogue, a total of 282 spaces would be required.The Layout and Materials Plan for the proposed development(see Appendix A)includes 284 spaces,which exceed the Town Code requirements. Parking is proposed to be unregulated within the subject development.In addition to the two-car garages provided for each residential unit,there is driveway space available for an additional two cars per unit.Additional on-site parking is located in parking areas adjacent to the community center. A careful review of the proposed site plan shows that,given the roadway widths, curve radii and intersection geometry,the configuration of the parking layout, drive aisles,site access point and internal site roadways will provide for adequate on-site vehicular circulation.The internal roadways provide a continuous circulation throughout the site and were designed based on consultations with the Town of Southold Planning Department.Previous versions of the site plan included additional horizontal curvature along the internal roadways that were softened as a result of these consultations. In order to control speed, and provide traffic calming, all internal roadway intersections within the project site are stop-controlled. With regard to truck access,trucks will enter the site via the main access on Schoolhouse Lane.It is anticipated that truck activity on the site would be low and limited to parcel post-type deliveries, solid waste removal,and periodically activities related to moving in/out of residents.A circulation plan demonstrating the entry and circulation of trucks is included in Appendix A of this DEIS. Emergency access to the subject site is provided not only through the paved main access along Schoolhouse Lane,but also via two emergency access roads, constructed with 20-foot wide reinforced grass block surfaces,which are accessed from Spur Road on the southwest corner of the parcel, and Bridle Lane on the northwest corner of the parcel.A circulation plan demonstrating the entry and circulation of fire trucks is included in Appendix A of this DEIS.As there are no significant increases in delay within the study area,as a result of the proposed project,there would be no significant adverse impacts to emergency response times.As an example, a police response from the stationhouse east of the site,would involve a free-right turn to Griffing Street from NY 25. The project will not increase delays to this free movement. Were a fire emergency responded to from the west,the left turn onto Griffing Street is essentially identical to the No-Build,with the analysis Build in this study indicating only a 0.1 second increase in delay for this movement. Moreover, the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA)indicates that 14 minutes is the minimum standard for response time by fire personnel.Chief Flatley projected a 126 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� four-minute response time;thus, any minor increase in response time due to this project would maintain a response time well below the minimum standard. Although the Final Scope requires discussion of,the potential impacts of the proposed action on parking infrastructure within the hamlet center,given the proximity of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue to the hamlet center,it is not anticipated that significant adverse impacts would occur to parking infrastructure within the hamlet center.As NY 25 is the major route for east/west transit along the North Fork, a significant portion of activity,including parking,is a result of patrons passing through the hamlet. Any increases in parking demand,from the proposed action(which are difficult to quantify)are expected to be a small percentage of existing activity. Pedestrian accommodation on-site includes a series of trails which traverse the subject property.Off-site pedestrian accommodation is currently only provided in the business district and on main roadways.In keeping with the existing, adjacent, low-volume,residential roadways of the area,no off-site sidewalk is proposed to be constructed for this project. Potential alternative site access locations(such as to Depot Lane)have been considered, as required by in the Final Scope.The site has no frontage on Depot Lane and, as such, cannot provide access to Depot Lane.Alternative connection to the site via existing roadway stubs,west of the site,were considered under the previous application, and were eliminated from consideration as being not desirable. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Summary > The proposed 124 residential condominiums would generate a moderate amount of traffic during the a.m.,p.m. and Saturday midday peak periods. > The traffic generated by the development can be accommodated by the adjacent roadway network.The site-generation traffic for this project was conservatively developed using a general condominium use that approximately doubles the number of projected site-generated trips during all study periods as compared to rates for senior condominiums.The actual trips generated from the proposed use are anticipated to be much lower than the volumes shown in this report.In addition,the site generated volumes are anticipated to be seasonal, and not all the proposed units are anticipated to be actively used for the entire year. > Following the completion of the project,the signalized intersections of NY 25 and New Suffolk Road and CR 48 and Depot Lane and the six unsignalized intersections critical approaches would operate at a satisfactory overall intersection Level of Service C or better during all analysis periods with the exception of the southbound approaches to NY 25 from Depot Lane in the p.m. peak hour and weekend peak hour. > The Site Access proposed to be aligned to Griffing Street along Schoolhouse Lane would operate well during the Build Condition, as existing traffic volumes are low. 127 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Based on a review of the traffic analysis, and as described in Section 3.1.2, above,no mitigation would be required for this project. Any increases in delay at the study intersections are deemed insignificant.In addition, any increases in delay are accounting for the busiest hour of the day;delays throughout the remainder of the day at all the intersections would be even less significant.The largest increase in delay for any single approach would be the southbound approach at NY 25 and Depot Lane. As indicated in Section 3.1.2, although no mitigation would be required,if requested by the Town, a possible improvement for the affected intersection has been developed and could be implemented. This measure would improve the level of service on the southbound approach of the unsignalized intersection of NY 25 and Depot Lane during the p.m.peak hour and weekend peak hour. This southbound approach operates as two lanes under all circumstances. Therefore,the intersection was reanalyzed with a minor roadway geometry change—widening Depot Lane by four feet to allow for the creation of one exclusive southbound right-turn and one exclusive left-turn lane at NY 25.The four foot widening,with taper to meet the existing roadway width,would not extend beyond 80 feet from the intersection, coinciding with the limits of the corner gas station property.By slightly widening the roadway to allow for a short exclusive right-turn lane,the southbound approach LOS can be improved from LOS F to a LOS E in the p.m.peak hour and from LOS F to LOS D in the weekend peak hour,in the Build Condition. It should also be noted that this potential improvement would also improve the No Build condition in the weekend peak hour(from LOS E to LOS D).The widening can be achieved within the existing public right-of-way as the Depot Lane width is shown as 50 feet wide on record plans.No property acquisition or dedications would be required for this improvement.The existing Depot Lane roadway section is 30 feet wide and the resulting pavement width would be a maximum of 34 feet wide over a length of 80 feet,to accommodate two approach lanes at NY 25.The results of this improvement are shown in Tables 18 and 19,below and the detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are included in Attachment C of the traffic study(Appendix G).A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed and determined that a traffic signal at the intersection of NY 25 and Depot Lane is not warranted(see Page 49-50 of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report in Appendix G).The results of the No Build and Build conditions are also shown in the table for easy comparison.It is important to note that these analysis results are intended to demonstrate that the impact of the site- generated traffic can be readily mitigated.The need for this potential improvement would be determined by the Town of Southold.In response to the Town's comment regarding potential safety improvement measures,the provision of the turn-lanes is a proven countermeasure, according to NYSDOT. 128 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 18 - Miti ation Level of Service Summa — Unsi nalized Intersection - PM Peak Hour Critical Lane Build 2020 Intersection Approach/ Group No Build 2020 Build 2020 Mitigated Movement EB L 9.4 A 9.5 A 9.5 A NY 25& Depot Lane SB Approach 56.7 F 62.9 F 42.7 E Table 19- Miti ation Level of Service Summa —Unsi nalized Intersection -Weekend Peak Hour Critical Lane Build 2020 Intersection Approach/ Group No Build 2020 Build 2020 Mitigated Movement EB L 9.1 A 9.1 A 9.1 A NY 25& Depot Lane SB Approach 48.6 E 57.7 F 31.7 D 129 3.1 Transportation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 3.2.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS identifies current land uses on the subject property and within the 500-foot study area.As zoning generally reflects existing land use patterns,prevailing zoning on the subject property and within the surrounding area is described, and the proposed project's conformance with zoning and relevant public policies is evaluated in Section 3.2.2. Land Use The subject property is located on Schoolhouse Lane in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold.Comprising 45.99+acres,the subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped.The property currently consists of successional growth vegetation with some areas of disturbance associated with informal trails.The current property owner periodically removes select trees to either maintain the health of the overall site or for personal use.Historically,the site was used for agricultural production, which ceased in 1983 (see Photograph Nos. 1 through 4 in Appendix H). The subject property is bounded on the north by agricultural uses and a residential subdivision;on the east by active farmland and a recreational vehicle(RV)camp;on the south by Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,vacant land, and the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church and parish residence;and on the west by single-family residences that are part of a larger subdivision with access off NY 25.The land use pattern in the vicinity of the subject property is such that commercial uses are concentrated along NY 25,within the hamlet center,with single-family homes to the east and west of the hamlet center. Residential development density(which generally follows the Town's zoning ordinance)generally decreases as one moves away from the Cutchogue hamlet center along the NY 25 corridor. The land uses surrounding the subject property within 500 feet are depicted by Figure 14(photographs depicting land uses on the subject property and in the surrounding area are provided in Appendix H and cited herein), and are described as follows. 130 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans , i ui�i� � �,�� , �, '� � � �' ��, �„`i! ;��'�,r .��1 ' r � � u (,T � � �,r ��I� �� , �� ' , / �l. 'o, ,J� JPe � � � ��v ��ir �� i� ..: �°d,. �� ,i � .� � �., , � / � , � 8. R f � ��e � /�i " �� P �,y„ i��uyii i ry , ' � �i � ��/i0%��ii ) � �� I ��li� �' �� / �� j /is� i � � ��a � � „ � � �� , �. � ;, �; /r i i ��/// ��'/ i ,. / �,;%/ i �j � � �llir��J 'R%i, � ��op / � l r ae �' .. .� � pe / �q ��ry� e�e h �r ,; / �. / ;, �'„ / � f� ��% '�,�' v � � P ��' �, ��, �+ // / � ' ��', i // � � �r :. � �%/% J�„��/% �� a ' 4 ��' 14ie� '? � �� f � /� /i „�/,�� // l �y�r„ � < r� �� i/j �� ' �.' ';'al i ro°, �'��. .<" I� „% r ��i��VM V � J� �'a ca� � % / �� -. m // // � e°o �i i �%iii � ✓�O// i," vu T /j/i//j///� J;�loiir�/��j//% I � V ° ', .�i�l i�� ril /y / Jii � ;' � �,, ' �� y ds��. ;,,, � %%�%li� �/ f .. ..� , � Legend � , %/ii i ' ! �� tioy �� ; �hso- �Subject Property � �/�� °qW,�� ' ��500-foot buffer / /� ��0�� /v /� � . , e ��1/ i/ �i . Land Use 9ba �y.� �, ��//�� /o / f IIIIIIIII A9riwlturel s � � ��a �� i� � �� '��i `� ��Insttlullonal �a lG✓ �. ✓(a� ic,l�a /6�/ /�, ,r/�� %IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII d,''✓ a � I If tl i ! �1, ��il ��yP`�, o ' � � /� �/� e�; R.V.Camp �f ,,,1✓� �� a��ii %/ � �� y%f ,� �)��Y �, �� F ( 9 Y) � ��0 � � .�1j)� '4� Residential Sin le Famil rr� + �I �� %/�G � l��„,, �� 'i�� VI(G' � �p��-�., '.. �:Vacant(Private) / ' JJJJJJJJJJJ� ( ) %r !�;,, ,/�/, �� p �bi � Vacant Public /i, �i The Heritage at Cutchogue Fi uxe 14-Existin Land Uses n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane �� '�, F t+,�� x+ ,�s I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold 2+nch=333 fee< �I'B�'j�rm,r � a �u.Qea Suffolk Count NY 11935 �reer SOUftCL 2013NYSUiRiml VI�I13 ReE 29305.U0 Y S 0 ll5 230 9(0 �j4��a�d Use Su�e�y.3� �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� North: A farmhouse and an active agricultural operation to the north(see Photograph No.5 in Appendix H);a single-family residential subdivision generally on one-acre lots,known as The Woods,on Evergreen Drive,to the northwest(see Photograph No.6 in Appendix H);farmland in active production(see Photograph No.7 in Appendix H)and the Red Rooster Bistro, a commercial use(see Photograph No.8 in Appendix H),to the northeast. East: Active farmland(see Photograph No.9 in Appendix H) and single-family residential uses to the east;and a small RV camp to the southeast(see Photograph No. 10 in Appendix H).Further east, single family residences on one-third to half-acre lots are located along Schoolhouse Lane(see Photograph No. 11 in Appendix H)and Depot Lane. South: Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street to the southeast,with undeveloped woodlands east of Griffing Street(see Photograph No. 12 in Appendix H). West of Griffing Street,there is also vacant land with undeveloped woodlands. West: Single-family residential development on approximately one-acre lots along Highland Road,Bridle Lane,Spur Road and Crown Land Lane(see Photograph Nos. 13, 14 and 14 in Appendix H). 132 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Zoning The subject property is located within the Hamlet Density Residential(HD)Zoning District of the Town.According to the Town Code,�280-20: "The purpose of the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District is to permit a mix of housin�types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck, Cutcho�ue, Southold, Orient and the Villa�e of Greenport." Permitted uses in the HD district include one-family detached dwellings, subject to residential site plan approval for more than one such structure per lot,two-family dwellings, subject to residential site plan approval for more than one such structure per lot,multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings, subject to residential site plan approval, and a continuing care facility and life care community, and certain accessory uses.Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals include accessory apartments in single-family residences,bed-and-breakfast uses,health care facilities,preservation and use of federal or state designated historic buildings for certain uses, subject to certain conditions. Based upon the foregoing, the HD district is primarily a residential zoning district. The bulk, dimensional and parking requirements associated with the HD zoning district are represented in Table 20,below. Table 20 - Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Regulations of the HD Residence Zoning District Regulation Requirement Minimum Lot Size 20,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 75 Feet Minimum Lot Depth 120 Feet Minimum Front Yard 35 Feet Minimum Side Yard One Side Yard 15 Feet Total Side Yards 30 Feet Minimum Rear Yard 35 Feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25 Maximum Building Height 35 Maximum No.of Stories 2'/2 Minimum Livable Floor Area 850 SF/dwelling unit Parking 2 spaces/2-bedroom unit 0.25 space/each additional bedroom 133 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Additional density and minimum lot size requirements for the HD zoning district, applicable to multiple dwelling units and townhouses, such as the proposed action, are represented in Table 21,below. Table 21 -Applicable Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for the HD Residence Zoning District Minimum Lot Area Per Unit Multiple Dwelling or Townhouse 20,000 SF without Utilities Multiple Dwelling or Townhouse with 20,000 SF Community Water Multiple Dwelling or Townhouse with 10,000 SF Community Water and Sewer In addition to the foregoing restrictions,�280-137 of the Town Code and Attachment 6 to the Town Zoning Code impose additional open space,buffer, setback,total building area,unit size, and design requirements and considerations in connection with residential site plans. Several zoning districts are present in the immediate area surrounding the subject property, as follows(see Figure 15): North: Agricultural Conservation(A-C)to the north; East: Low-Density Residential R-80(R-80)and a small area of Low-Density Residential R-40(R-40)to the east,with A-C beyond; South: Hamlet Business(HB)and R-40 to the south; West: R-40 to the west,with A-C beyond. Permitted uses allowed in the zoning districts within 500 feet of the subject property are as follows: > Agricultural Conservation(A-C)zoning district regulations permit one-family detached dwellings,various agricultural operations and accessory uses supporting same,municipal uses,wineries,small wind energ,y systems, accessory apartments.Additional uses are allowed by special exception by the Board of Appeals. > Low-Density Residential R-40 zoning district regulations permit one-family detached dwellings,various agricultural operations and accessory uses supporting same,municipal uses, small wind energ,y systems, accessory apartments.Minimum lot size requirement is 40,000 square feet.Additional uses are allowed by special exception by the Board of Appeals and site plan approval from the Planning Board. 134 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans � _ � �� / � � � C -� � s,. �, � 1h ` �� , Y , � �- . � \ _- i 1 r C '"' � � — � — i l �" � � I. ,� � � .... 1l\L � i � , ' � ,- Y�''�, � '� � r _.� u ,_ ( ' ' � � �N -- � � � ' '.'�. -"�� '. � � i � � � ,,.� ,./.� �.,`- �, , -- ' � `l" _'_ - _ y'" � ' i � � � � I � i ��, f � : � � 1 � I � v � �� 1 u,� ', � .,- � , � ' ( � ,� \�� , 1 1 �. r << �� i ',, 1 �. r � � `� � � � . � � 1 � � ' \ � \ � 1 _ � a- � i �.. � � ` a1 � � � , _ ... i � � � �7 ,_ � , A � \ � -_ -- i ��., _ ,_,i � - _ �' ' _- � ° -- - -- - � � -= =� � Zone �Description � ' �i � � -: - �� ` AC Agricultural Conseroation(2 acre) _ � I � ^ �` � � � � � �� ' "�� - - � _,. R 40 ResidenCiai Low Density(1 aore) � �� ` � `T� V �� ---- , � -- i � � R-80 Residen4ial Low Densiry(2 acre) �"�� I �= \ ii � � �-` ,l �� ✓� � '�, �,�i R-120 Residential Low Density(3 acre) �� R 200 Residentiai Low Density(5 acre) � � ' � � � �� " �� ,� i � ti �. � � R-400 ResidenCial Low Density(10 acre) �� ' � � �` � 1 � �� 1 ` � HD Hamiet Density Residentiai i� � � � ;� I " ��m�m i �t-�� ''�� +"" � � � � AHD Affordable Housing District I , ' ' �� r , � � �� RR Resort Residential � i� � � � � `�-"�� " � � � � t `�� f _ � �� n . - � � � RO Residential0ffice. . __i i--,, ��i i � �, �'- y ' ` \ � , _ � �i � HB Hamlet Business " � � � I � � S.� - �t �- i I �� LB Limited Business � i ' ' � " � I � . � � �\ t�1�� ti � - - i i �.. � � � � _ � ' B General Busmess , , �,? , �, � � } MI Mannel � ' � " ` �• A � � , t�� ( �� % � i � „ , MII Manne II , �',. 1 � '�i ��n�l� ��.�+"�$�%� �. �a, �, �-��r �.� �� ' ,�i : . � � I �. . - LIO �ight Industnal Park _ a�o -,., i � ' � - �' p,�Q� � ��^' �� _ . � ,P� � � ( t , l LI Light Industnal �' ,qy`'�� ' � i / ..... ... ..... ..... -h � i1 i�.. 1 � i -I �*4&&_.. C\/ '' %, �� ` J l�JYr _ � u � � �� ,r� �� , �� , 1� / � -�� i. �, � - � �� i� , � , �� . �;� �,; � , , � I , � I / �f, r � �� / �� i � � � � �i � � t �� :; �-a t � � 2 �/ �` , � 7 ' � � � � _ ,.. _ � � ;� �� rt . � = f. / I � i ��Ili� �/ . �� , �� y �5� i � � �� , � �� i � � r � � 9 � � i ,v� i w� � .. � � �, i( �� _ � �T;. � �� "� � r � _ I F ��i�� '\ '�'i 1 , ._ � ...,�` � / :. -. , �� `` \ � �� .,�� A`:'�r \ p � . /�, �i � �> � � , � .� �, �, l '��` F :'T , . ..�. � � �. ..� , ;� ., .. ., .. ., '/, x , . ,. , . , , ... .�, The Heritage at Cutchogue Fi e 15-Zonin Ma Exce t n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane '�n��F g��==� x r ...��s I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold Legend �rca,r �,�. a eau.e,ea Suffolk County,NY 11935 ��Sub�ed Pro e ��T°°"'�'s°"N'°��""sM`"'� o�� 1 P rN o{4�T�ds�u,daT�sond; VI�IH Ref.29305.00 S.CRP.TS.A �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Low-Density Residential R-80 zoning district regulations permit one-family detached dwellings,various agricultural operations and accessory uses supporting same,municipal uses,wineries,small wind energ,y systems, accessory apartments.Minimum lot size requirement is 80,000 square feet. Additional uses are allowed by special exception by the Board of Appeals. > Hamlet Business(HB)zoning district regulations permit one-and two-family detached dwellings,municipal uses,boarding houses and tourist homes, business,professional and governmental offices,banks and financial institutions, various types of retail stores and establishments,restaurants, auditoriums or meeting halls,repair shops, custom workshops,bus or train stations,theaters, libraries or cinemas,laundromats,bed-and-breakfasts,multiple dwellings, grocery stores and convenience stores.Minimum lot size requirement is 20,000 square feet.Additional uses are allowed by special exception by the Board of Appeals and site plan approval from the Planning Board. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Relevant Comprehensive Plans In accordance with the Final Scope adopted by the Town,provided below is a brief summary of identified plans and studies as they pertain to the proposed action. Section 3.2.2 of this DEIS includes a consistency analysis of the proposed project with the relevant plans identified herein. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994) The Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(hereinafter"Stewardship Study")was prepared for the Town Board in June 1994 by the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force(hereinafter"Task Force").The purpose of the Stewardship Study was to evaluate the recommendations of the 1991 report from the U.S./U.K.Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team(hereinafter "U.S./U.K.Report"), an international group of planners who came to Southold,invited by the 1991 North Fork Planning Conference,to provide pro-bono consultant services to selected case study sites to address the issues of sustainable economic development and countryside stewardship. Based upon the evaluation of the U.S./U.K.Report, the Stewardship Study set forth a series of recommendations.A summary of those recommendations is provided below. Preservation of Farm Land and Open Space > Consider farmland and open space preservation strategies that uphold the economic viability of farming,with the most direct protection being large lot zoning(i.e.,25 acres or agricultural zones)for non-agricultural activity. 136 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Extend programs pioneered by the Town,Suffolk County, and New York State that have helped to preserve North Fork farmland and open space. > Implement new programs, such as transfer of development rights. Sustainable Economic Development A�riculture and Marine Activities Encourage agriculture and marine activities by preserving the land and water on which they depend and through innovative farming techniques and diversity of crops, development of markets, and the adoption of beneficial governmental policy. Tourism Extend current season(late spring to mid-fall)to a year-round basis through the scheduling of Town-wide seasonal festivals,while mitigating the serious traffic problems that come with a flourishing tourist trade. Water > Prioritize the management of surface runoff and the prevention of contamination to both salt and fresh waters,including protecting the quantity and quality of Town groundwater. > Due to the nature of the soil types in the Town,groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities, and thus,over-pumping, which could result in salt water intrusion, should be discouraged. > Extension of public water should in no circumstance alone provide the basis for more dense development. Affordable Housinq The Stewardship Study identified residents in need of housing assistance as young families,the elderly,low wage earners,and the working poor,while recognizing that the availability of affordable housing is critical to the overall health of the local economy. > Continue the successful cooperation between the Town and the North Fork Housing Alliance as the basic administrative structure for affordable housing programs throughout the Town. > Encourage the rehabilitation of existing homes,rather than the construction of new ones. > Encourage more rental units. > Recapture and recycle subsidies provided by the Town. 137 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Character of Hamlets and Rural Settinq > Allow appropriate new residential and commercial development within, providing for a rural pedestrian oriented village quality consistent with the Town's history and traditional pattern of development. > Maintain the countryside's open rural atmosphere,while preserving vistas of fields,woodlands, and water. > Consider the consistency of new development in the countryside and hamlet areas with the historic character of the landscape to avoid the "blurring of the distinction between hamlet and countryside." Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) The Seaview Trails of the North Fork(1994) (Seaview Trails)was an effort by the Southold Town Transportation Committee to create a network of bicycle and pedestrian lanes and trails throughout the Town. Seaview Trails identified 57 miles of roadways and trails in four"loops" for bicycle and pedestrian use:Mattituck- Cutchogue,Southold Bayview,Southold Soundview and Orient.The Mattituck- Cutchogue loop consists of 14 miles between the hamlets of Mattituck and Cutchogue.This loop includes a route along Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street, past the proposed entrance to The Heritage at Cutchogue development.No recommendations or further analyses are included in the Seaview Trails publication. Peconic Estuary Program (1995) In 1987,the Clean Water Act was amended to provide for the creation of a National Estuary Program(NEP). As part of the NEP,the Peconic Estuary was designated in 1991 and the Peconic Estuary Program(PEP)was established. The Peconic Estuary contains a large variety of natural communities,from upland pine barrens along the Peconic River to soft-bottom benthos in the bays. There is a larger percentage of undisturbed habitats and a greater diversity of natural communities within this watershed than anywhere else in the coastal zone of New York State. The PEP is a partnership of local,State, and federal governments, citizen and environmental groups,businesses and industries, and academic institutions.The PEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP)was approved in 2001 by the EPA. The CCMP was prepared to address the following management areas: > water and sediment quality, dealing with abatement and control > living resources,focusing on protection and restoration > land use and water resources,including conservation areas and special protective legislation and initiatives There are 340 management tasks included in the CCMP;priority topics include Brown Tide,nutrients,habitat and living resources,pathogens,toxic pollutants, and critical lands protection. 138 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The subject property is within the Peconic Estuary study area boundary;however it is not identified by the PEP as a priority preservation target. The CCMP includes the following points that are relevant to residential development: > Groundwater discharges to the bays and accounts for more than 21 percent of nitrogen input.Residential fertilizer and on-site sewage disposal systems are among the sources of nitrogen in groundwater. > The conversion of open space for development purposes is related to the quantity of nitrogen found in both groundwater and surface water. > Nonpoint sources of pathogens,especially stormwater runoff,have been identified as the main contributors to the degradation of the shellfish beds in the Peconics. > Sources of toxic substances in the estuary include runoff from residential developments,individual on-site disposal systems,roads and parking lots and pesticides. Economic Development Plan (1997) The 1997 Economic Development Plan was submitted to the Suffolk County Legislature as the Towri s Industrial and Commercial Incentives Plan(ICIP). The Economic Development Plan focused on the three base industries that comprise the Towri s economy: agriculture, commercial fishing and tourism and recreation. The economic state and potential growth of each of these industries, as well as other industries,is detailed in the Economic Development Plan. The Economic Development Plan provides a vision for the Town that focuses on encouraging economic growth and expansion within hamlet areas "...while preserving and enhancing the surrounding rural areas." The Economic Development Plan recommends the following: > encourage existing local businesses in targeted industries to expand,upgrade or diversify to meet changing needs of the 21st century > encourage new businesses in targeted industries to locate within the Town to broaden the tax base and provide local employment > ensure that proposed expansions,upgrades and diversifications be located within appropriate zoning districts > encourage creative re-use and integration of existing buildings,including preservation of significant structures,where feasible. Finally,the Economic Development Plan discusses strategies on how to achieve the vision,including zoning regulations to direct business development into hamlet centers, developing a transportation plan to provide for adequate access to the hamlets, or offering incentives for the sectors within the agricultural,maritime and 139 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� tourism industries, and other industries, such as affordable health care facilities and recreational facilities. The subject site is not specifically identified in this plan. Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiative (1997) Provided below is a summary of the Southold Township:2000 Plannin�Tnitiative (Southold Township:2000),as described by the Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strate�y, as a copy of this document was not available. In 1997,Southold Town Supervisor Jean W.Cochran launched a growth management initiative, Southold Township:2000. The initiative focused on developing strategic action plans to guide Town actions,and was supported by a$60,000 matching grant from the New York State Department of State(NYSDOS).The completion of the Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strate�y, discussed below, was a required component of the initiative.The goals of Southold Township:2000 are as follows: > To position the Town to constructively manage anticipated growth,while simultaneously preserving its unique character and environment. > To adopt clear,unambiguous guidelines,policies and procedures to guide the various Boards and Departments responsible for overseeing applications for development. > To develop efficient,timely and cost-effective ways for the various Boards and departments to make decisions in accordance with established guidelines, policies and procedures. > To protect, for the future,the Town's unique,irreplaceable and critical resources: natural,scenic,economic,architectural, cultural and historic. > To more fully implement the vision articulated in the 1985 Master Plan Update. As a copy of the document was not available for review, and because the goals of the document,as summarized through the Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strate�y publication are directed toward the Town and not private property developers,no further examination of the document is included in this DEIS. Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan, 1998-2001 (CPPP),was prepared in July 1998. The CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act,which was enacted on June 22, 1998. According to the CPPP,this "..legislation created a mechanism whereby the Town of Southold may establish a fund financed solely by revenues from a real estate transfer tax to be levied on certain types of real estate transactions within the Town." Use of the funds is limited to implementing the CPPP. 140 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The CPPP identifies how the Town intends to preserve or protect properties that are integral to its unique community character. The Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act specifically provides for the preservation and protection of specific types of land as follows: > Open space and agricultural lands > Parks,nature preserves,recreation areas > Lands of exceptional scenic value > Fresh and salt water marshes,wetlands > Aquifer recharge areas > Undeveloped beachlands or shorelines > Wildlife refuges with significant biological diversity > Unique or threatened ecological areas > Natural free flowing rivers or river areas > Historic places and properties whether listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places or protected by municipal law > Any of the aforementioned types in the furtherance of a greenbelt The CPPP explains how the Town developed the listing of properties that would be eligible to participate in the CPPP program;prioritizes the type of properties that should be preserved or protected;identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties;and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected.As indicated in the CPPP,its purpose was intended to be a guide for interested land owners who voluntarily chose to work with the Town to preserve and protect privately-owned real estate assets in a way that benefits the community as well as the land owner.The CPPP was only valid for three years beginning in November 1998.The 1998 CPPP lists the subject property as one of many parcels eligible for preservation,under Classification Code A, "open space,including agricultural lands".The 2006 update of the CPPP, discussed later in this section, also lists the subject property. As of the time of this writing,the Town has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study(1999) The County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study(Corridor Study)was prepared for the Town Board in April 1999.The purpose of the Corridor Study"is to provide recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate land use and zoning within the corridor." As the subject property is not situated within the study area of the Corridor Study,identified recommendations are not relevant to the proposed project and,thus,no further examination is warranted. 141 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2002) The Town has been actively preserving farmland since 1983 through bond initiatives and Community Preservation Program monies to fund the purchase of lands and development rights.Additional bond issues were approved in 1987, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2001.According to the Towri s website,37 from 1983 through 2011,the Town protected over 3,000 acres of open space and farmland. As active farming of the subject property ceased in 1983 (the time of the first bond initiatives),further analysis of the Towri s Farm and Farmland Preservation Program is not relevant to the proposed project. Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) The Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strate�y(Farmland Protection Strate�y)was developed in response to increased development pressures threatening agricultural lands in the Town.Setting forth a strateg,y for improving preservation efforts,the goals of the Farmland Protection Strate�y include: > To preserve land that is suitable for farming > To ensure that farming remains an important part of the local economy The report also developed recommendations for how the Town might meet the above-referenced goals,including: > Identify farmland in need of protection > Reach out to owners of vulnerable parcels > Compile and maintain a listing of lands known to be for sale > Provide literature and resources on preservation options > Expedite the Conservation Opportunities Planning Process > Leverage public and private funds to the greatest extent possible > Encourage farm support services and farm-related businesses to thrive > Investigate creating a Town Agricultural Agreement Program > Encourage the use of Integrated Pest Management and other environmentally friendly farming techniques > Streamline the regulatory process > Develop a stewardship program > Assign responsibility for implementation of the above-referenced strategies and actions by January 2000 The Farmland Protection Strate�y identified the hamlet of Cutchogue as having the most farmland of all of the hamlets,with 2,939 acres.It also identified acreage � 37 Town of Southold,Land Preservation Department,Farmland and Open Space Protection(accessed September 24,2014);available from http:llwww.southoldtownnv.povlindex.aspx?N I D=116. 142 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� numbers for protected farmlands,unprotected farmlands, and farmland at risk.It did not identify parcel numbers or map farmland parcels.The subject property is currently not in active cultivation,and has not been farmed since 1983.As the Farmland Protection Strate�y did not identify specific parcels, and the subject property has not been farmed since 1983, 17 years prior to the publication of this document, the recommendations discussed above are not relevant to the proposed project. Town Water Supply Management &Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) The Town Water Supply Mana�ement and Watershed Protection Strate�y(WSM�WPS) for the Town was prepared to address the protection of the quality and quantity of the Towri s groundwater supply and the maintenance of the community's rural agricultural character.Based on the analysis of geolog,y and soil characteristics, surface and groundwater resources,land use, development characteristics, and demographic trends,the WSM�WPS proposes a number of initiatives including the establishment of new zoning and special district designations, as well as coordinating the expansion of services. The WSM�WPS advises limiting population density and controlling growth to the maximum extent possible, seeking a commitment from the SCWA to not extend public water lines to those areas where a significant percentage of agricultural properties are situated(i.e.,within the Towri s two SGPAs and within groundwater recharge areas within the central areas of the Town,neither of which includes the subject property),and to coordinate future extensions in accordance with its watershed protection objectives,which include the aforementioned protection of groundwater supplies and the maintenance of the area's agricultural character.The WSM�WPS also recommends that the Town explore Water Quality Treatment Districts(WQTD),a Critical Environmental Land(CEL)ordinance that specifically recognizes environmentally sensitive land,and the establishment of two Watershed Protection Zones (WPZs).The WSM�WPS recommends within WPZ's,that a Conservation Subdivision Program(CSP)be adopted to create a disincentive for landowners that propose traditional developments utilizing cluster or grid style designs and alternatively cause such landowners to redirect their projects to more desirable locations within the Town. The WSM�WPS identifies CELs as freshwater wetlands and adjacent areas,tidal wetland and adjacent areas,lands with natural slopes in excess of 15 percent and lands with a depth to groundwater of less than 10 feet.Approximately seven percent of the subject property contains steep slopes;however it does not fit any of the other criteria that would classify it as a CEL. According to the WSM�WPS,the two WPZ's should be established in the central area of the Town,generally coinciding with the established SGPA boundaries.As the 143 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� subject property is not within an SGPA,it is not expected that it would be included in either of the WPZ's. In addition,the WSM�WPS recommends that the Town consider the possibility of establishing an open space land preservation fund with fees collected from non- conforming lots that receive variances and increase public awareness of the importance of significant environmental areas.As the proposed project does not involve variances,this recommendation is not applicable. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) The Scenic Southold Corridor Mana�ement Plan(Corridor Mana�ement Plan)was prepared for the Town in Apri12001. The purpose of the Corridor Mana�ement Plan is to "...inventory the resources along proposed scenic byways,identify opportunities and constraints and,based upon the vision and goals articulated by the public and local stakeholders, define a set of implementation tools and policies that will help preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of the roads to be examined." Seven roads within the Town were chosen for study,including CR 48,NY 25, Narrow River Road in Orient,Sound View Avenue in Southold,Main and North Bayview Road and Avenue in Hogneck,Oregon Road from Cutchogue to Mattituck, and New Suffolk Road and Avenue from Cutchogue to Mattituck. As neither the subject property nor the study area(within a 500-foot radius of the subject property) is situated along any of the aforementioned roadways,the recommendations from the study are not relevant to the proposed project. North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment (2002) The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment is a subcomponent needs analysis of the Lon�Island Transportation Plan to Mana�e Con�estion,known as the LITP 2000 Study Subtask 7(LITP 2000). The principal goal of this effort is to meet the future transportation needs of the community while maintaining or improving the rural quality of life on the North Fork. The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment was intended to provide an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural,primarily recreational North Fork. Based on the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment,traffic volumes on the North Fork are expected to grow at rate of nearly two percent annually. Transportation needs identified by the study include the need for increased mobility on the highway system(CR 58,SR 24,CR 105 and CR 48),education for travelers on best routes,implementation of ineasures to address safety at specific intersections, adjustments to the public transportation system and a well-designed access management plan. 144 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment recommends that when property owners or developers make an application for the subdivision of large agricultural parcels having access to side roads as well as arterials and collectors, such access should be preserved during the subdivision review process. In addition, the site plan review process should be utilized to make certain that new, smaller properties are not created that only have access to arterials,thereby resulting in the necessity to grant individual access to each parcel. Site plans for the subdivision of large properties zoned for residential development along arterials should provide individual parcels with access to side roads via internal connections,either driveways or internal roadways. Where practical,the residences in such subdivisions should be oriented so that they back on an arterial with a suitable buffer between the residences and the highway right-of-way. Where it is impossible to provide all parcels with access to the side roads,access to the arterial should be limited to a single access point,providing combined access to affected parcels,which would limit the number of potential conflict points on an arterial road. The subject parcel is not located along an arterial roadway. Therefore,the recommendations cited herein are not relevant. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold, Final Report(July 2002) The Blue Ribbon Commission(BRC)was charged by the Town Board to make specific recommendations for preserving operating farmland in the context of overall planning in the Town,which included issues of environmental quality,open space potential,population density,affordable housing, and public water.Specifically,the BRC was required to recommend specific preservation targets and feasible steps to achieve those targets as well as seek a consensus in the Town regarding both targets and steps by June 30,2002. The result of such charge is the BRC Final Report,the goals of which include: > The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected land currently in the Towri s agricultural inventory,which consists of approximately 6,900 acres. > The permanent preservation of at least 80 percent of unprotected open space, which includes approximately 3,900 acres. > A reduction in potential density of housing units of at least 60 percent relative to what would be permitted with full build-out at current zoning. To achieve the above goals,the BRC Final Report recommended the following: > Conservation subdivisions,which give priority to preserving land rather than to the creation of house lots.Such subdivisions would have a significant and 145 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� permanent conservation preservation element and a reduction in density of 60 percent or more on the entire acreage relative to current zoning, > A new Planned Development District(PDD),referred to as a Rural Incentive District(RID)to facilitate the orderly preservation of farmland and open space and to maintain landowner equity. > A modification to the Towri s Purchase of Development Rights(PDR)program to permit some of the development rights to be rejoined to the land under carefully constructed guidelines where the Town would issue a "Preservation Credit" for each unit of density reduction resulting from a specific PDR. > No general up-zoning of the agricultural and open space lands until at least one year after the inception of the IZID to give landowners time to participate in the district at their original zoning density. > Planning Staff to establish a detailed monitoring and quarterly reporting system providing a current breakdown of the preservation and development processes. > The Town Board to review Planning Staff quarterly reports on a regular basis and consider possible zone changes on the basis of the reviews. According to the BRC Final Report,the BRC concluded that over a ten-year period, from 2002 to 2012, approximately 5,674 acres(82 percent)of farmland and 3,167 acres (81 percent)of open space would realistically be preserved. The recommendations of the BRC, cited above,were not formally adopted or implemented as policy by the Town.As the subject property was not active farmland at the time the BRC Final Report was prepared, and as the BRC Final Report did not identify specific parcels,this plan is not applicable to the subject property. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GEIS (2003) The Southold Comprehensive l�mplementation Strate�y(CTS)was prepared by a working group/moratorium team that was formed after the Town Board enacted a moratorium on residential subdivisions and multi-family developments requiring site plan approval to allow the Town to consider the cumulative impacts of rapid land use changes and population.The group's efforts culminated in a plan, consisting of 43 recommendations in the form of legislation and procedures,to implement the Towri s goals.The Generic Environmental Impact Statement(GEIS) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed amendments to the Town Code and the implementation of various Town regulations,initiatives,etc.that were being considered by the Town Board.The recommendations and strategies that comprised the CIS sought to further the following Town goals: > To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes. > To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. 146 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > To preserve the Towri s remaining natural environment to prevent further deterioration of the Towri s natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. > To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socioeconomically diverse community. > To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel,while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of the roadways in the Town. Of the working group's 43 recommendations, 17 recommendations involve changes to the planning process,zoning and zoning code,eight recommendations target public education and enforcement, four recommendations include capital improvements and expenditures, 10 recommendations involve direct Town management and four recommendations involve inter-agency/quasi-agency initiatives. As the strategies are generally tools to be implemented by the Town,the recommendations are not specifically directed at private property developers. However,the proposed project is evaluated in the context of these recommendations in Section 3.2.2. Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) The Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Pro�ram (Southold LWRP)acts as the Towri s comprehensive plan, as it contains a complete inventory of the Towri s resources and analyses of all existing land use conditions, and incorporates the goals of all existing planning studies and policies. The Southold LWRP follows the Lon�Tsland Sound Coastal Mana�ement Pro�ram Policies (LTSCMP)in outlining thirteen waterfront revitalization policies to specifically address the Towri s resources that will"determine the appropriate balance between economic development and preservation that will permit beneficial use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources."3� These thirteen policies have been categorized into Developed Coast,Natural Coast,Public Coast, and Working Coast. The LTSCMP describes a specific goal for each Coast category, as follows. Section III of the Southold LWRP outlines the thirteen central policies,from which standards are derived, as indicated above. These policies implement the NYSDOS' 44 coastal policies, and represent a local refinement of the LISCMP.These policies are listed within the Southold LWRP as follows: � ................................................................................................................... 3a Town of Southold,LWRP III-1 147 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Developed Coast Policies: ➢ Foster a pattern of development in the Town that enhances community character,preserves open space,makes efficient use of infrastructure,makes beneficial use of a coastal location,and minimizes adverse effects of development ➢ Preserve historic resources of the Town ➢ Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town. > Natural Coast Policies: ➢ Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion ➢ Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town ➢ Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town's ecosystem ➢ Protect and improve air quality in the Town ➢ Minimize environmental degradation in the Town from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes > Public Coast Policies: ➢ Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters,public lands, and public resources of the Town > Working Coast Policies: ➢ Protect the Town's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water- dependent uses in suitable locations ➢ Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town ➢ Protect agricultural lands in the Town ➢ Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources Inventory and Analysis The Southold LWRP contains an inventory and analysis for the existing conditions of land use,zoning, and development within the Town. The inventory identified the two dominant land uses within the Town in 1995,as agriculture and residential. Residential development was found to comprise approximately 30 percent of the land area, and was concentrated in the Town's hamlet areas,in the Incorporated Village of Greenport, and in the vicinity of the many creeks and inlets found along the Peconic Estuary shoreline.In 1999,roughly a third of the Town's land area nearly 10,000 acres,was in active agricultural production;this excludes the subject property as agricultural use of the property ceased in 1983. According to the Southold LWRP,based on the U.S.Census data between 1950 and 1990,the Towri s housing stock grew at approximately 2,000 units per decade since the 1950s.However,this figure did not include homes occupied seasonally,which were classified as vacant housing. 148 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Reach Analysis The Southold LWRP divides the land within the Town into 10 distinct"Reaches" to appropriately organize inventories and analyses of existing conditions, and to develop proper goals,policies, and standards specific to the lands contained in each. The subject property is located within Reach 8,whose coastal boundaries extend from the east side of Little Creek,by Arrowhead Lane,to the east side of Marratooka Point, and whose inland boundaries are CR 48. The predominant land uses within Reach 8 are agricultural to the north of NY 25 and residential to the south of NY 25.Reach 8 is noted as containing the largest amount of acreage in agricultural production,with 2,305 acres in active cultivation.The subject property is located within the northern part of Reach 8,where residential land uses are interspersed with agricultural operations.The Southold LWRP identifies the greatest concentration of residential development in this part of Reach 8 to be located south of the LIRR track,which roughly parallels CR 48, and between Depot and Alvah's Lanes,where the subject property is located, as well as three major subdivisions.The southern portion of Reach 8 is more residential and commercial than agricultural, although there are significant areas of agricultural land located south of NY 25. The Southold LWRP identifies the NY 25 corridor between Depot Lane and Alvah's Lane as traditional hamlet, and notes that the hamlets of New Suffolk and Cutchogue are within convenient walking distance from one another.According to the Southold LWRP,the strip nature of commercial development within Cutchogue is of some concern.Other key issues identified within Reach 8 are: > Agricultural protection > Harbor management regulations on bay moorings > Public access and recreation > Protection of habitats and wetlands > Protection of water quality > Flooding and erosion > Protection of scenic resources > Protection of historic resources > Transportation management Based on the Southold LWRP, development trends show a shift of land from agricultural use to residential development.The 1985 Master Plan Update proposed that the future pattern of land use encourage residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets.Further,the 1985 Master Plan Update proposed that lower residential densities should be located in the remainder of the Town, specifically in agricultural and coastal areas.The Southold LWRP"seeks to advance these land use goals with particular emphasis on ensuring that local residents who work in the Town are not priced out of the housing market." 149 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The Town of Southold Hamlet Study(the Hamlet Study),adopted in July 2005,provides an overview and vision for the future of each of the eight hamlets within the Town, including Mattituck, Cutchogue,New Suffolk,Peconic,Southold,Greenport West, East Marion, and Orient. The subject property is located adjacent to, and just north of,the Cutchogue hamlet center,which is described as one of the Town's three largest commercial areas,along with Mattituck and Southold. Among several components of the hamlet vision for Cutchogue, the Hamlet Study indicates that the vision should "embrace a diversity of housing types,within the overall context of the existing character of the hamlet including townhouses and condominiums," and that, "opportunities for new residential development exist in Cutchogue.A new hamlet locus,or HALO,zone is recommended to facilitate this goal.The parameters of this new zoning should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types at a density of 1/4 acre." A map accompanying the Hamlet Study identifies the southern portion of the subject property as being within the HALO boundary zone.According to the HALO Non- Buildable Lands Map,the subject property is not designated as a protected land nor does it contain community facilities. The Hamlet Study also provided recommendations for hamlet-wide specific improvements. These improvements were identified under sixteen headings. Of these sixteen headings,the following were determined to be relevant to the proposed project: Human Scale,Gateways,Streetscape,Vehicular Circulation,Parking, Pedestrian Circulation,Public Transportation,Infrastructure, Enterprise,Housing, Maintenance,Open Space Preservation,the Working Landscape,Historic Resources and Recreation. The relevant recommendations from the Hamlet Study are presented below. Human Scale > Discourage commercial sprawl in Cutchogue's hamlet center and foster a human scale that encourages pedestrian activity. Streetscape > All new development must install new utilities underground. > Preserve trees along the hamlet center's streetscape. 150 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Vehicular Circulation > Evaluate all sight distance impediments at driveways and intersections and correct as required. Pedestrian Development > New residential development in the HALO zone should reflect a"walkable community" that enhances and supports neighboring businesses in the hamlet center. Infrastructure > Overhead utility lines detract from the aesthetic appearance of the hamlet and impede views of the streetscape and individual buildings.These utility lines should be placed underground. > The hamlet center and HALO zone should be fully served by public water facilities. Housinq > The creation of a new HALO zone is recommended that provides for a variety of housing types and increases density to the equivalent of 1/4 acre zoning. > Mixed housing opportunities should be provided for young people as well as retirees.For example two-story townhouses supporting both affordable (workforce)housing units and market rate units. > Identification of one new housing site within the hamlet center—a 47-acre parcel located on Schoolhouse Lane—having the potential to provide some workforce housing.Although the exact parcel was not identified,it is assumed that this is the subject property. Open Space Preservation > The major purpose of the hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the hamlet/HALO boundaries. 151 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans � , t�I i i f11' u�� p: °,..,�. ��"` )��y P,��a� ,� ; �. m,��,�` �"�*'� �� IIII � �� i �"�� " �n� �� , �� b � .,i � t�. i�'M ,u�"' . nb,� ,��a� � k � ��'�^ . / � P ` �.wl IV-�W �o �� II w�� uX� � �i'. �'.. � I II � r� �� „�� ,, '.. � �� '�'" '�y�"��" �m'"'�� o%°h JI,�W ��I��, '"�' �I� ..�� i� �� : � ��. , u�� . � �� ,� .� � "`'.;�w �; . �� il �k�� . �� . � ��a��"Im , ,� lu��. �'�" w�,m��" "��'..�.w� � ' . �� Il��ii �,., �"�w,'��,�„�� ,. � �� " �'"'�.�„�.,'� +i�" '�,�r � i � � �, �� *: Legend � ✓ ,,, mfi V� ,� I i�"��"�� ,�rv"" , ��,�"„� ,�� w,,:�� p III Sub�ect Property � ,: a^�" �� ' �u� r,c'��. ". �. ��,� �' . III, ��^4 `"� , , `Iw, i .ii .��,.-. � .��. � �„�,, ,�J . b " w �a',� y �+.'.a . Hamlet Center Boundar �f' � i�� . �� '��'m�r ��..��I�;;� ^ � '�'�w„� � �,,.,„ Y r� Lot Lines �i � �� u �i W�w�„ I � � +� � .n � � � i �� r'f�� '"",,... pU m m m ma HALO Boundar � �� Y� s � "'�v �W�U� u m m m m Y ��" � �N +��"'V � �w„ � w�"' �� "�° � '�� ,��f/1 � `��. � Vo. ,,�+. �.� � ��' �' � . . � � . x � "'� i,�wu� i .�Vpm� w•�' �P �G°tha« � � �m� � �i � �� m �� ' � W� � �� ° �� ll �Y�I � �w � e, �. � ��: w,N�� , ��,�,, �� rc. � ��, � IIUI �� .,, � �„�, � ,�� Z � � �� yVi ��„ �,,w� � *�iG The Heritage at Cutchogue Fi uxe lfi—HALO Ma n/s/o Intersection of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane '�, F s++�� x s �,��s I�lamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold �!I'9�'J�rm,r � a eau.Qea Suffolk County,NY 11935 Not to Scale mr°,w`otso inoia row`�`e'�:y s`°� VI�IHRef.29305.U0 p N+wbyc�ez�ycm.sviiNgwiin Sou io wnG15,2005 �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Long Island North Shore Heritage Area Management Plan (2005) The Lon�Tsland North Shore Herita�e Area Mana�ement Plan(LINSHA Mana�ement Plan)was completed in November 2005. Its stated purpose"...is to preserve,protect and enhance the cultural,historical and natural resources which define the North Shore of Long Island and to promote the responsible economic development of the area compatible with the historical and natural environment." As indicated in the LTNSHA Mana�ement Plan,the New York State Legislature designated a portion of Long Island's North Shore as a State heritage area in 1998. The boundaries of the heritage area include the greater portion of the northern half of Long Island. More specifically,the boundary of the area is "generally described as the area of Long Island from Great Neck east to Orient Point,north of Route 25 or I- 495,whichever is more southerly,north to the Connecticut border in Long Island Sound and west to the western border of Nassau County." Based upon this description,the subject property is included in the Long Island North Shore Heritage Area(LINSHA). The goals set forth in the LINSHA Mana�ement Plan are as follows: > Protect: Understand and manage growth for the heritage area > Connect: Develop a unifying identity for the heritage area > Package: Identify experiences residents and their visitors will enjoy and recommend to others > Promote: Increase visitation by our friends and neighbors and decrease the seasonality of our tourism, all within sustainable limits > Partner: Create opportunities for profit,reinvestment and economic growth The LINSHA Manaxement Plan presents numerous implementation strategies to further its goals.Those strategies that are relevant to the proposed project are: > Evaluate the impact of development plans on the heritage area > Support efforts to raise awareness of and preserve,enhance and rehabilitate cultural,historic and natural resources of the heritage area,including buildings, sites,vistas and landscapes > Support economic and job development efforts It should be noted that the implementation strategies of the LIlVSHA Manaxement Plan apply to the heritage area as a whole;they are not site-specific.Additionally,the recommendations are non-binding and do not affect local zoning. 153 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment(2005) The Town of Southold Housinx Needs Assessment June 2005, (Needs Assessment) "pertains to the specific housing needs of households whose incomes are considered 'moderate."' The Needs Assessment indicates that the Housing Assistance Council reported in February 2005 that gentrification in rural areas frequently means the loss of affordable housing.The Housing Assistance Council also stated"when wealthier households move to rural areas, developers focus on meeting the housing needs of the higher end market while ignoring the needs of the lower end." The Needs Assessment found that the scarcity of vacant land on Long Island has limited opportunities for development, specifically affordable housing, and the Town's efforts to preserve open space has further limited the amount of raw land available for the development of new housing.In addition,the Needs Assessment indicates that development is further curtailed by the lack of sewage treatment outside the Village of Greenport and the accessibility to public water. Moreover,the Town attempted to address the lack of affordable housing through measures including the creation of density incentives, allowing accessory apartments and building affordable housing units.However it did not anticipate that housing prices would increase exceedingly beyond inflation.As such,the Town did not see the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity, and thus, the Town no longer has an inventory of affordable housing.According to the Needs Assessment, as of Apri130,2005, approximately 114 affordable housing applications had been received and pre-screened by the Town as meeting qualifications to receive housing assistance from the Town. The Needs Assessment concluded that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities to do so without assistance.In addition,the Needs Assessment found that there are other distinct housing needs that are not addressed in the assessment such as seasonal housing to accommodate workers in the tourist industry and year-round laborers. Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) The Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan,2006 Update(2006 CPPP) was adopted by the Town Board on January 31,2006. As previously indicated,the CPPP was created as a result of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act, which was enacted on June 22, 1998. The 2006 CPPP provides an update to the List of Eligible Parcels(noted in the previously-discussed 1998 CPPP)which includes: > The addition of 188 parcels,totaling approximately 350 acres,to the existing List of Eligible Parcels 154 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The deletion of parcels that have been preserved using various preservation methods > The deletion of parcels that have been developed > Corrections,where applicable,of the Suffolk County Tax Map numbers for parcels included on the existing List of Eligible Parcels As of January 2006,the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels contained 947 parcels totaling 17,900 acres. The associated map shows 672 parcels totaling 9,551 acres as existing protected parcels.Since the adoption of the Community Preservation Fund (the two-percent real estate transfer tax),the fund has been used to partially or totally fund 56 acquisitions,totaling over 950 acres.The land acquisition cost for these projects was approximately$20.5 million. Since its inception,the Community Preservation Fund has raised over$27 million. The 2006 CPPP defines the list of properties that are eligible to participate in the CPPP program,prioritizes the type of properties that should be preserved or protected,identifies alternative mechanisms that may be used to preserve or protect properties, and provides a map and companion listing of eligible parcels that should be preserved or protected through the CPPP. The subject parcel continues to be shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels with the same Classification Code A(open space,including agricultural lands). As previously noted,the subject property has not been used for agricultural purposes in over 30 years,though it remains privately owned and zoned for residential development. Furthermore,the applicant has not been contacted by the Town with an offer to purchase the subject property for preservation. Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan 2020 Although a final Comprehensive Plan Southold 2020(Comprehensive Plan)has not been finalized or approved, a summary of the drafted components of the plan is provided in order to perform a thorough comprehensive consistency review of the proposed project with respect to available land use plans.According to the Vision Statement that was created for the Comprehensive Plan, and was approved by the Town Board: "The Town of Southold is a community of extraordinary history and beauty. Residents and visitors benefit from its diverse hamlets surrounded by pastoral landscapes and expansive natural resources. Our citizens cherish Southold's small- town quality of life and wish to preserve what we currently value while plannin�for a productive and viable future.Future plannin�shall be compatible with existin� community character while supportin�and addressin�the challen�es of continued land preservation, maintainin�a vibrant local economy, creatin�efficient transportation,promotin�a diverse housin�stock, expandin�recreational opportunities and protectin�natural resources." 155 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The Comprehensive Plan is currently in the process of being completed;however, a Full Demo�raphic Tnventory was prepared and several chapters are available in draft form, a summary of which is provided below: Full Demoqraphic Inventory This inventory revealed trends pertaining to residents,housing, transportation and business within the Town, and was used to identify important planning needs.The inventory identified the Town's population as of 1990,to be 19,836 and, as of 2009,to be 21,605 residents, which was expected to grow by 500 through 2014.Like the Town as a whole,the hamlet of Cutchogue,too,has experienced substantial population growth between 1990 and 2009. The inventory indicated that the numbers of empty-nesters and retirees have risen substantially, and continued growth among this age group is projected through 2014. The inventory notes that resources geared toward this population may be in demand throughout the community. Beyond basic demographic characteristics,the inventory summarizes a variety of data products from the United States Census Bureau,including housing characteristics, such as housing diversity and prices, social characteristics, such as educational attainment and crime, and economic characteristics, such as income and employment data. Aqriculture The Agriculture chapter of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that approximately 31 percent of the Towri s land area is farmland.The Comprehensive Plan notes that farmland is both a very visible aesthetic asset and a strong economic force in the Town.As of a 2010 inventory conducted by the Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee,vineyards represent the highest amount of farmland acreage.The Comprehensive Plan notes that there are many challenges to maintaining agriculture as a viable industry, and it identifies the following goals and objectives with respect to agriculture in the Town: > Retain and advance the industry of agriculture. > Protect prime agricultural soils from depletion,removal and excessive erosion. > Promote best management practices for the use of agricultural pesticides and herbicides to protect groundwater and surface water resources. > Promote improved agricultural yields through nuisance wildlife management. > Promote best management practices to prevent the movement of crop disease and pests from one location to another. > Protect public safety by ensuring there is adequate parking and traffic control on private property at retail agricultural operations. 156 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Community Character This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals and objectives for scenic resources, cultural resources and natural heritage.It further sets goals and objectives for the individual hamlets.Town-wide goals include: > Identifying,managing and preserving scenic resources;protecting scenic vistas outside of hamlet centers;planning for intensity and mix in hamlet centers without changing the scale;and preserving the character and tranquility of residential neighborhoods. > Identifying, documenting and mapping historic resources;protecting historic resources;integrating historic resources into the future through compatible uses; enhancing resources important to the culture of the Town;protecting and preserving archaeological resources;promoting heritage tourism;and promoting arts and cultural attractions in hamlet centers. > Preserving working landscapes and waterscapes;protecting and restoring ecological quality;protecting vulnerable fish,wildlife,plant species and rare ecological communities;protecting Town beaches;and protecting soils,aquifers and air quality. The Comprehensive Plan identified the following specific goals for the hamlet of Cutchogue: > Improve hamlet center streetscape through the development and implementation of a traffic calming plan for NY 25 focused on pedestrian flow and safety. > Design and implement traffic calming measures in the King Kullen Shopping Center area(improve signage). > Work with NYSDOT to develop a streetscape plan including the installation of street furniture and the development of a street tree planting and maintenance program. > Expand the village green property to the west with the assemblage of historic properties. > Encourage the continued operation of the Post Office. Economic This chapter addresses economic development that is appropriate for the Town.It identifies goals and objectives for the same, as follows: > Encourage new, and facilitate the growth of existing business sectors—including agriculture, aquaculture,health care,renewable energ,y,tourism,light industrial, retail/service-based and the maritime-related industry—that pursue stable and sustainable employment. > Promote economic development to occur in an efficient manner that ensures an adequate tax base,without compromising the unique character of the Town. 157 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Preserve and improve the vitality of each of the Towri s hamlet centers and HALO zones as walkable local business districts. > Preserve and encourage industries that support existing and future agriculture and aquaculture uses. > Preserve,encourage, and continue to support existing and future maritime uses— including fishing-related industries,marine trades,marine biolog,y,marinas, recreational boating support uses, and related uses—as an important business sector within the Town's economy. > Promote mainland Southold as a year-round tourist destination. Housinq The housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan analyzes the types of housing stocks that will be important over the next ten years in keeping with the demand and need of Town residents.The goals set forth by this chapter are as follows: > Create affordable housing; ➢ Provide additional diversified housing from existing stock to help meet the needs of current year-round residents,including senior citizens,emergency services volunteers, and other local workers. ➢ Encourage the development of new diversified housing to help meet the needs of current year-round residents,including senior citizens,emergency services volunteers and other local workers. > Educate the public about housing resources available. > Retain residents in existing housing. > Address quality of life issues,including avoiding blight and illicit tenant overcrowding. > Research and develop best practices in housing. Human Services This chapter reviews services available to various population segments in the Town, as well as analyzes the need for the further provision of such services.The chapter indicates that,in addition to providing safety net services,human services foster community responsibility and social equity.The chapter notes the following trends in the Town that may affect the need for human services: > Increase in senior population > Increase in second homeowners > Decline in school-aged children > Increase in Hispanic population > Decrease of funding from federal,State and County governments > Increase in requests for food stamp assistance > Decrease in household income > Decrease in childcare subsidies > Increase in incidents of domestic violence 158 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based upon the above trends and an analysis of the needs of residents of the Town, this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan identified the following goals: > Sustain and enhance services for seniors > Sustain and enhance services for youth > Improve employment opportunities for residents > Provide recreational and cultural opportunities for residents > Expand transportation services to increase access to human services > Improve opportunities for households living in poverty > Expand awareness of and access to human service programs > Deliver effective and efficient human services > Assist underserved populations/minorities > Coordinate and provide resources to address behavioral health issues and promote wellness > Provide housing for persons with human service needs > Encourage civic engagement and volunteerism among Town residents Land Preservation It is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan's Land Preservation chapter that the wide open spaces in the Town,in large part,make up the character of the community. According to this chapter,the Town has aggressively been preserving land through various programs since 1983.Further goals relating to land preservation are identified, as follows: > Farmland.Continue to promote farming with an overall goal of retaining at least 8,000 acres(80 percent of the current agricultural acreage)in agriculture. > Open Space.Continue to preserve lands with high quality natural resources, including wetlands,watersheds, shorelines, significant trees and woodland, and wildlife habitat, as well as those lands with recognized scenic values, and smaller parcels that could provide for village greens or neighborhood pocket parks. > Active recreation.Continue to preserve lands for active recreation where needed. > Land stewardship.Inventorying,managing and monitoring lands in which the Town holds an interest. Again,it is noted that the subject property has not been farmed since 1983 and does not contain significant high quality natural resources, and the Town has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation. Natural Resources&Environmental Protection This chapter notes that natural resources in the Town are recognized as one of New York State's most important assemblages.Further,this chapter outlines the importance of managing and preserving natural resources.The Comprehensive Plan was written to reflect the findings of the Towns LWRP, and offers the following goals and objectives: 159 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > Conserve water quantity > Protect groundwater quality > Protect surface water quality > Watershed Management > Protect and enhance freshwater and marine habitats > Protect and preserve soils and geologic features of the Town > Protect and preserve upland habitats and individual trees > Protect and preserve fish and wildlife resources > Control and/or monitor nuisance species > Control and/or monitor invasive species > Adapt to the effects of climate change,particularly in vulnerable coastal zones > Conserve energy > Protect and improve air quality in the Town > Continue to manage solid waste and hazardous waste Parks and Recreation This chapter reviews parks and recreation services available to Town residents,and analyzes the need for the expansion of recreational opportunities.The discussion focuses on the provision of park facilities by the Town to its residents.The Comprehensive Plan presents the following goals with respect to parks and recreation facilities in the Town: > Provide diverse recreational,educational and leisure programming > Enhance use of recreational holdings and obtain additional lands for such uses > Ensure accessibility of recreational facility and programs > Promote health and wellness Natural Hazards This chapter details natural hazards that the Town faces,including:flooding, nor'easters, severe winter storms(heavy snow,blizzards and ice storms), coastal erosion, severe storms(windstorms,thunderstorms,hail and tornados),hurricanes, sea level rise, drought,extreme temperature rise, and wildfire.The chapter focuses on the need to avoid and/or minimize potential damages in areas that may be vulnerable to the above-referenced hazards.The goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to natural hazards include: > Mitigate the effects of natural hazards to achieve coastal resiliency,protect public safety and reduce economic loss > Complete a Post Disaster Recovery&Reconstruction Plan > Provide education to the public relating to natural hazards 160 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts This section of the DEIS evaluates the potential for the development of the proposed multi-family residences to impact current land uses in the surrounding area.In addition,the proposed project's compliance with the provisions of the applicable Town zoning,regulations is described.An analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the relevant portions of the comprehensive plans identified by the Final Scope is also presented in this section. Land Use Under existing conditions,as discussed in Section 3.2.1 of this DEIS,the subject property is vacant and undeveloped, and contains successional growth vegetation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a use change of the subject property from a vacant and undeveloped land to a residential condominium development. The subject property is proposed to be developed with a land use that is permitted under the site's prevailing HD zoning. Upon implementation of the proposed action,the subject property would be developed with 124 age-restricted (55+)condominium units,including 52 two-story units with a maximum of 1,999 square feet of livable floor area(identified as Unit Types A-1,A-2 and C),which would provide three configurations,and 72 units with a maximum of 1,599 square feet of livable floor area(identified as Unit Type B),which would be available in two configurations,including both a one-and two-story structure. All A and C Units would have three bedrooms(one on the first floor and two on the second floor)(see Appendix A). Both A and C Units offer a first-floor room labeled either"study" or "home office." The A Units would have a larger footprint than the C Units due to more livable space located on the first floor(i.e., 1,592 square feet[A-1] and 1,590 square feet[A-2] compared to 1,506 square feet[C-1],respectively). Unit Type B-1 would be a ranch-style home with two bedrooms on the first floor while Unit Type B- 2 would be two stories with the second bedroom located on the second floor. Unit Type B-1 would have a larger footprint than Unit Type B-2(i.e., 1,594 square feet compared to 1,330 square feet). Unit Types B and C would be attached to an adjoining unit by a common wall while Unit Type A would be attached to an adjoining unit by a covered breezeway.All units would include an approximately 20-foot by 15-foot porch as well as an attached two-car garage.The two-story residential units would be a maximum of 30 feet in height, and the one-story units would be 16 feet in height. The use of the subject property for no more than 130 residential units(i.e., 124)of one or two stories conforms to the development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. In addition,The Heritage at Cutchogue would provide amenities for its residents, including a 6,189-square-foot clubhouse, a pool,two tennis courts, a manned reception booth and 50 percent open space,in conformance with the development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. 161 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The changes to site coverages on the 45.99±-acre subject property,by implementation of the proposed project,will be as follows: Table 22 - Site Covera es: Existin and Post-Development Coverage Existing Conditions Proposed Buildings 0 acres 7.78±acres Other Impervious Surfaces (roadslparking) 0 acres 7.39±acres Open Space(including native plantings,turf grass and pervious 45.99±acres 23.03±acres walkways) Additional Landscaping(around buildings and within rights-of-way 0 acres 7.79±acres* adjacent to roadways) Total 45.99±acres 45.99±acres As shown in Table 22,the proposed project would add a total of 15.17±acres of impervious coverage(from buildings and other impervious surfaces),0.70±acres of pervious surfaces and 7.76±acres of landscaping around buildings and within right- of-ways adjacent to roadways while maintaining 50 percent of the site (approximately 23 acres)as open space in accordance with the development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. The increase in impervious surface area from the proposed development would result in the generation of additional stormwater runoff at the subject property. As described in Section 2.2.2,a stormwater management system would be employed, which would provide adequate stormwater capacity for runoff generated by a two- inch rainfall event,through the use of drywells and DRAs proposed in several locations throughout the site. Within the context of the area surrounding the subject property,the proposed residential community is strategically situated to take advantage of the benefits afforded by its location within walking distance of the hamlet center.Likewise, businesses in the Cutchogue hamlet center are expected to benefit from establishment of new housing in that community. The proposed residential condominium use would be consistent with surrounding development,which includes 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.Further, as discussed in detail below,the proposed project would provide a type of housing that is not readily available in the Town and would serve the aging population,while also being consistent with the Town's goal to develop higher-density communities in and around hamlet centers.As such,the proposed project would not pose a significant adverse impact on land use in the area surrounding the subject property. 162 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Zoning Paragraph 38 of the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B),which has been"so ordered"by the New York State Supreme Court, provides,in pertinent part,that "[t]his stipulation,upon its'so-ordering,' shall constitute a judgment of the Court that'special facts'exist,which entitle the Petitioners/Plaintiffs,except as otherwise provided in this stipulation,to develop and use the Subject Property in accordance with the Town Code and other provisions of law and land use regulations that existed prior to adoption of the aforesaid Local Law 1-2009,2-2009, and 3-2009, and the amended Site Plan Application shall be reviewed based on such preexisting provisions and regulations." In addition,Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation of Settlement sets forth specific parameters for the proposed development of the subject property. 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 20091ocal laws, and(2)the aforesaid development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.Therefore,to the extent that the proposed development does not comply with open space,total building area,or other requirements that were established by the aforesaid 20091oca1 laws,such requirements are not applicable to the proposed development. With respect to the uses proposed for The Heritage at Cutchogue development, according to Town Code�280-22(A)(3),multiple dwellings,townhouses,row or attached dwellings are allowed in the HD zoning district, subject to residential site plan approval. In addition, accessory uses are allowed in the HD zoning district, subject to Planning Board approval.The Heritage at Cutchogue includes several amenities for its residents,which are classified as accessory uses,including the clubhouse,the reception booth,two tennis courts, and a pool.While�280-137 of the Town Code sets forth specific standards for residential site plans,several of these standards are not applicable to the proposed development based on the foregoing provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement. Moreover, as set forth in detail in Section 1.1.1 of this DEIS(and included in Appendix B)the Stipulation of Settlement sets forth several development parameters for the proposed development. The proposed development is consistent,in the following respects,with the said development parameters: > 130, a�e-restricted for 55+,residential condominium units; The proposed project would include 124 residential condominium units,subject to covenants and restrictions limiting occupancy of the units to persons 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.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with this requirement. 163 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > 245,000 square feet of "livable floor area,"as defined by the Town Zonin�Code, exclusive of accessory uses; The total livable floor area of the proposed project, calculated in accordance with the definition in Town Code�280-4 is 219,076 square feet and,thus,would be consistent with this requirement. > 50%of the subject property set aside for open space with related setbacks, as shown on the Conceptual Development Plan, in(Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement); As depicted in the Open Space Plan in Appendix A,23±acres of open space,or 50 percent of the 45.99+acre subject property,plus an additional 7.79±acres of landscaped areas around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways,will be provided by the proposed development and,thus,the proposed project would be consistent with this requirement. > $2 million fee paid by the applicant for all park,recreation area, affordable housin�, professional and other fees associated with the development;and Sections 280-137E and�240-10B (2)(c)of the Town Code require that all residential site plans within the HD zoning district involving the creation of five or more lots set aside 10 percent of the lot yield as moderate-income family dwelling units(MIFDUs)or obtain a waiver of such set-aside by payment of a sum to the Town of Southold Housing Fund.In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,the applicant will pay the Town a total of$2.0 million for all park and recreation areas, affordable housing,professional, and other fees other than post-site plan building permit and inspection fees.As such,the proposed development will comply with this provision. > Development in accordance with the use, area, dimensional,parkin�, draina�e and other re�ulations applicable to the Town's HD zonin�district as provided by the Stipulation of Settlement; The Heritage at Cutchogue project would be consistent with the use, area,bulk, dimensional regulations and parking requirements of the HD zoning district as shown in Table 23 below and as provided by the Stipulation of Settlement. 164 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 23 - Consistency with Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Zoning Regulations of the HD Residence Zoning District The Heritage at Regulation Code Requirement Cutchogue Minimum Lot Size 20,000 SF 2,003,582 SF Minimum Lot Width 75 Feet 216.51 Feet Minimum Lot Depth 120 Feet 1,792.61 Feet Minimum Front Yard 35 Feet 305.70 Feet Minimum Side Yard One Side Yard 15 Feet 79.4 Feet Total Side Yards 30 Feet 180.90 Feet Minimum Rear Yard 35 Feet 75 Feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 14.53% Maximum Building Height 35 Feet 35 Feet(clubhouse) Maximum No.of Stories 2'/2 2(two-story units) Minimum Livable FloorArea 850 SF/unit 1,599-1,999 SF/unit Parking 2 spaces/2-bedroom unit 0.25 spaces/additional bedroom=261 spaces 1 Space/300 SF 284 spaces (clubhouse)x 6,189 SF= 21 Spaces As shown above,the proposed project would comply with the foregoing specific Town Code requirements for the HD zoning district and the foregoing additional development parameters specified in the Stipulation of Settlement. Moreover,to the extent that the project does not comply with open space,total building area,or other Town Code�280-137 standards for residential site plans, such standards are, pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement,not applicable to the proposed development. It should be noted that, according to the Town Code,the HD zoning district was created"to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers,particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue,Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport." As a multi-family development of condominium units for the 55+demographic,proximate to the hamlet center of Cutchogue,The Heritage at Cutchogue would be consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district. As demonstrated by the analyses of the Stipulation of Settlement and the Zoning Code regulations,implementation of the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts with respect to zoning, and would,in fact,further the intent of the Town's HD zoning district, as described above. 165 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Relevant Comprehensive Plans This section of the DEIS provides a consistency analysis with those comprehensive plans identified in the Final Scope and described in Section 3.2.1. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study(1994) The following aspects of The Heritage at Cutchogue design demonstrate the project's consistency with the recommendations of the Stewardship Study, which addressed issues of sustainable economic development and countryside stewardship: > Although the subject property was previously used for agricultural purposes, such use ceased over 30 years ago.Currently,the subject property is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, and therefore would not involve the conversion of agricultural land. > The proposed development involves situating the dwelling units such that the site design would provide open space and a nature trail,with a vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the site in keeping with the rural hamlet character(see Appendix A). > In keeping with the Towri s rural pedestrian-oriented village quality,The Heritage at Cutchogue would be located within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center, and is expected to attract homeowners,who would patronize local businesses. > The development would fit in with the character of the community as the hamlet center has a higher density of residential and commercial uses. > Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to the availability of affordable housing by providing up to$2.0 million to the Town for use on affordable housing projects(see further discussion under the Town of Southold Housin�Needs Assessment(2005)heading,below). > The sanitary systems have been designed to adequately manage all sanitary wastewater generated by the site within Article 6limitations and in conformance with SCDHS standards and requirements, such that groundwater quality would be protected. > Stormwater would be managed through collection and recharging on-site,via the installation of drywells and creation of DRAs, such that stormwater runoff would not be expected to adversely affect surface water or groundwater resources. Based on the information above,the proposed project would be consistent with the recommendations of the Stewardship Study. 166 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) Seaview Trails includes a route along Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,past the proposed entrance to The Heritage at Cutchogue development.The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact upon the operation or use of this route as the additional vehicular trips on Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane would not significantly increase the level of service on these roadways(see Section 3.1.2 for further discussion of traffic impacts). Peconic Estuary Program (1995) As indicated in Section 3.2.1,the subject property is within the Peconic Estuary Program study area boundary,indicating that it contributes groundwater and stormwater runoff to the Peconic River and Estuary.The subject property is not listed as a parcel of critical land for protection purposes. With respect to the relevant considerations from the CCMP described in Section 3.2.1, regarding protection of natural resources of the Estuary,the design of the proposed development includes several aspects that demonstrate consistency with the Peconic Estuary Program CCMP. They include: > Landscape design for The Heritage at Cutchogue that includes native plant species to reduce dependence on fertilizer and pesticides,resulting in the reduction of nitrogen and other chemicals entering the Estuary. > Site design that includes the provision that 50 percent of the property would remain as open space,which would reduce runoff and the quantity of nitrogen entering groundwater and surface water. > Walkways and the nature trail on-site would be constructed of permeable materials,which would allow for increased filtration of stormwater on the subject property and reduce runoff and the potential for contamination. > A stormwater management system that would include the installation of drywells and the creation of DRAs,which would collect and recharge all stormwater on the subject property so that no runoff would be discharged off the site. > On-site sanitary systems,which would be designed with adequate capacity to manage sanitary wastewater generated by the site. > Heating by natural gas,eliminating the need for underground storage tanks containing potentially toxic or hazardous materials on the subject property. Based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with the Peconic Estuary Program CCMP. 167 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Economic Development Plan (1997) While the proposed development is residential,it is within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center, and would,therefore,bring more people into the downtown area,thus contributing to the local economy.In this respect,the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the Economic Development Plan to strengthen local businesses. Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) According to the CPPP,the subject parcel has been listed as an eligible parcel for preservation.However, as of the time of this writing,the Town of Southold has not made an offer to purchase the subject property for preservation.It the intention of the landowner to develop the subject property as an age-restricted, multi-family development in accordance with the uses permitted in the HD zoning district,within which the subject property is located. Town Water Supply Management &Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) As identified in Section 3.2.1,the subject property is neither a CEL,nor is it within an SGPA.Moreover,as discussed in Section 2.2.2,the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on water resources, and would employ various water efficiency measures to reduce potable water demands, including the use of native,low-maintenance plant species,the limiting of irrigation areas to reduce irrigation demand,the use of drip irrigation systems,the use of low- flow plumbing fixtures installed within the proposed residences.In addition, as discussed further in Section 3.4.2,the proposed project would be consistent with surrounding community character.Therefore,the proposed project would be in conformance with the goals of the WSM�WPS to protect the quality and quantity of the Towri s groundwater supply and to maintain the community's rural agricultural character. North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment (2002) The main access to The Heritage at Cutchogue development would be from the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Avenue,with emergency access from Bridle Lane and Spur Road;therefore,there would be no access along an arterial and access to side roads would be preserved, as recommended.In addition,the proposed project involves the development of the subject property into condominiums, such that smaller properties with access only to arterials would not be created. 168 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Based on the foregoing,the proposed project would be consistent with the North Fork Travel Needs Assessment. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GEIS (2003) Although the specific recommendations included in the Comprehensive Implementation Strateg,y CIS involve Town initiatives,the following aspects of The Heritage at Cutchogue design demonstrate the project's consistency with the intent of the CIS: > The proposed development would occur within a HALO Zone identified in the Southold Hamlet Study.The subject property is in the vicinity of a hamlet center that includes a higher density of residential and commercial uses,as recommended. > The proposed development involves situating the dwelling units such that the interior site design would provide common open space areas and a nature trail, and the subject property perimeter would be vegetated and a planted berm would be installed along the northern,eastern and western property boundary. > The proposed project would expand the range of housing opportunities by providing age-restricted condominiums in an area currently lacking such housing types. > Given the proximity to the Cutchogue hamlet center,it is anticipated that residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue would be able to walk into the hamlet center,thereby reducing automobile trips and assisting in strengthening local businesses. > Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to the availability of affordable housing by providing up to$2.0 million to the Town for use on affordable housing projects. > The stormwater management and sanitary systems would be designed such that water quality would be protected to the maximum extent practicable. Based on the information above,the proposed project would be consistent with the CIS. Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) As indicated in Section 3.2.1 above,the Southold LWRP set forth thirteen central policies,categorized within the Developed Coast,Natural Coast,Public Coast, and Working Coast headings.A consistency analysis is presented below for the policies relevant to the proposed project: > Developed Coast Policies: 169 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� ➢ Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character,preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development; The location of the subject property proximate to Cutchogue's hamlet center, within the Hamlet Density zoning district is in keeping with the existing community character of higher densities clustered around hamlet centers.As indicated in the Southold LWRP,higher density housing enhances existing development patterns,utilizes space and infrastructure more efficiently and discourages sprawl.As such,the proposed project would be in conformance with this policy. ➢ Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold;and Archaeological investigations of the subject property have concluded that the subject property did not warrant further study with respect to such resources.Moreover, as indicated in Section 3.5.2 of this DEIS,the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts upon archaeological resources.As such,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. ➢ Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throu�hout the Town of Southold. The Southold LWRP explains that scenic resources in the Town have been traditionally based on agriculture and maritime activities.The subject property is neither agricultural land,nor located along the waterfront, and there are no significant views of the subject property from surrounding roadways,including the more well-traveled arterials in the area.In addition, The Heritage at Cutchogue would be developed with traditional architectural elements and extensive landscaping on-site which would provide a pleasing aesthetic for the residents and immediate neighbors,and a buffer with natural vegetation would be planted around the property perimeter.As such,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. > Natural Coast Policies: ➢ Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold; The purpose of this policy is to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface waters in the Town.Possible sources of contamination are identified as careless fertilizer and pesticide application practices, stormwater runoff,malfunctioning on-site wastewater treatment systems, and boater pollution.The Heritage at Cutchogue would incorporate stormwater management infrastructure for the proposed development that would ensure that stormwater runoff generated by the site would be collected and recharged on-site through the use of an integrated stormwater management system.The sanitary systems would be designed with adequate capacity for sanitary wastewater generated by the development,within SCSC Article 6limitations 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 170 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� irrigation.Based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. ➢ Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem; 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.In addition,23+acres of open space would be incorporated into the site design,including native plantings, as noted above,and lawn areas,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement.As such,the proposed project is in keeping with the intent of this policy. ➢ Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold;and The Southold LWRP indicates that a main contributor to air pollution is the expansion of automobile use within the Town.As the subject property is located within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center,it is anticipated that residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue would be able to walk into the hamlet center,thereby reducing automobile trips.In addition, as The Heritage at Cutchogue would be served by natural gas (i.e., a cleaner- burning fuel as compared to No.2 fuel oil)via grid connections,no significant stationary sources of air pollution are planned as part of the site design.Based on the above,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. ➢ Minimize environmental de�radation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. As indicated in Section 1.4.2 of this DEIS, solid waste and recyclables will be collected and disposed of by private carter.It is expected that the private carting company will comply with all applicable rules and regulations with respect to the collection, disposal and management of solid waste, recyclables and hazardous substances.As stated above,there will also be no storage of home heating oil on-site, as the condominiums would be served with by natural gas.Moreover, as a residential development,The Heritage at Cutchogue would not generate hazardous substances. > Public Coast Policies: None of the Public Coast policies are relevant to the proposed project, as it is not located along the coast, and,therefore, a consistency analysis with same is not required. > Workin�Coast Policies: ➢ Protect a�ricultural lands in the Town of Southold. As the subject property is not specifically zoned or used for agricultural purposes(and has not been used as such for over 30 years), and the proposed use of the subject property would have no impact on other agricultural lands in the Town,the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 171 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� ➢ Promote appropriate use and development of ener�y and mineral resources. The Heritage at Cutchogue is proposing to incorporate various energ,y conservation methods into the design of its residential units,including Energy Star-rated kitchen appliances and bath fixtures.In addition, insulation,windows, doors,boilers and HVAC components would meet Energy Star requirements.Therefore,the proposed project would conserve energ,y resources,in keeping with this policy. As was also indicated in Section 3.2.1,the Southold LWRP divides the land within the Town into 10 distinct"Reaches." The subject property is located within Reach 8.The Southold LWRP notes that south of the LIRR track,between Depot and Alvah's Lanes, there are three major subdivisions.As the subject property is located between Depot and Alvah's Lanes, south of the LIRR,the development of the property with a residential community would fit in with the existing character. A consistency analysis is provided below for the relevant"Key Issues" raised by the Southold LWRP for Reach 8: > A�ricultural protection In this section of the Southold LWRP,the Reach 8 analysis indicates that the block of farmland within Reach 8 is subject to development pressure.It is further stated that loss of such land would negatively impact the Towri s ability to maintain a core block of land for agricultural purposes.As the subject site is not used for agricultural purposes and has not been used as such for over 30 years, the proposed project would be consistent with this portion of the document. > Public access and recreation It is indicated in this section that demand for public access and recreation will increase as residential uses in the Reach increase.As the subject property is not currently utilized for public recreation, development of the subject property would not affect the availability of recreational areas.In addition, although new population would be added to the area,which would use existing recreational resources,a nature trail, a clubhouse,pool,putting green and outdoor courts would be created as part of The Heritage at Cutchogue community,which would provide recreational opportunities to residents of the development. Therefore,the proposed project would address the concerns for this issue area. > Protection of Water Quality This section of the Southold LWRP discusses the importance of filtering stormwater runoff before it is discharged into surface water bodies.It also notes that poorly functioning sanitary systems are a serious concern to water quality in Reach 8.The design of the stormwater management infrastructure for the proposed development would ensure that stormwater runoff generated by the site would be collected and recharged on-site. In addition,the sanitary systems have been designed with adequate capacity for sanitary wastewater generated by the development and would be in conformance with SCSC Article 6 and the other relevant standards and requirements of the SCDHS.Overall, as indicated in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS,the stormwater and sanitary infrastructure on the 172 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� site would be designed such that no significant adverse impacts with respect to water quality are expected.As such,the proposed project would address the concerns for this issue area. > Protection of scenic resources This section indicates that scenic resources in Reach 8 are found along NY 25,CR 48 and the local, creek-side roads.It also notes that agricultural land in the northern part of Reach 8,alongside CR 48,is slated for preservation to protect views.As indicated above in the Developed Coast policy section,the property is neither agricultural land,nor located along the waterfront, and there are no significant views of the subject property from surrounding roadways,including the aforementioned arterials.As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this section of the document. > Protection of historic resources As discussed above in the Developed Coast policy section,the proposed project would be consistent with this section of the document. With respect to the goal of the Southold LWRP to advance the land use goals of the 1985 Master Plan Update,as the subject property is located within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center and partially within the HALO zone,the proposed project would involve the siting of residential development around an existing hamlet.Further, the proposed project would provide up to$2.0 million to the Town, which would assist in providing affordable housing opportunities for Town residents.Overall,the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Southold LWRP. Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) The following aspects of The Heritage at Cutchogue design demonstrate the project's consistency with the Southold Hamlet Study: > The proposed project would include the development of an age-restricted condominium development for seniors at a density of approximately 2.7 units per acre(0.37 acre per unit),in an area currently lacking such housing type. > The subject property is partially located within the Cutchogue HALO zone, and the subject property is zoned Hamlet Density residential. In keeping with these designations,The Heritage at Cutchogue are proposed at a density(0.37 unit per acre)appropriate for the HALO zone(noted as 0.25 acre per unit)and hamlet center character. > The location of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center would allow residents to walk to the hamlet center, thereby fostering pedestrian activity in the area. > All utilities would be installed underground, as recommended. > The proposed landscaping at the entrance to the community, at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,would provide an attractive visual feature at the northern edge of the hamlet center. 173 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > The Heritage at Cutchogue community would maintain the area around the entrance at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street,with respect to vegetation, snow removal and litter clean-up, and would ensure that there would be no sight impediments. > It is expected that residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue would patronize local businesses,thereby supporting the hamlet economy. > While not providing workforce housing on-site, as suggested by the Southold Hamlet Study as a potential use for the subject property,the applicant would contribute up to$2.0 million to the Town to provide opportunities for affordable housing within the Town.Thus,the proposed project would assist in accomplishing the intent of the recommendation,which identifies the subject property as a potential location for workforce housing. Based on the information above,the proposed project would be consistent with the Southold Hamlet Study. Long Island North Shore Heritage Area Management Plan (2005) The subject property is situated within the North Shore Heritage Area;however,it is not a cultural or historic resource,nor is it situated within an historic district. Finally, the subject property does not contain any buildings,vistas or landscapes of significance,as defined by this plan.Furthermore,the proposed development would not hinder the goals of the LINSHA Manaxement Plan,which are to understand, protect and enhance the heritage and cultural resources of the area. The subject property is privately owned and zoned for residential purposes. Although the proposed development is anticipated to provide between approximately$839,417 and$1,012,675 in annual property tax revenue,it is not expected that the development would provide very many,if any,direct permanent jobs. It is expected that indirect jobs, such as maintenance and landscaping jobs, would be created, and the proposed development of the subject site would provide 238-E-construction jobs. Based upon the above,the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of this plan to the maximum extent practicable. Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment(2005) While not directly providing workforce housing,the proposed project would provide up to$2.0 million to the Town with some of those monies likely going to the Southold Housing Fund,which was created after the Town Board passed legislation in May 2004 to "provide the Town with a mechanism to obtain funding and create programs that will increase housing opportunities for families and individuals who are residents of the Town and/or employed in the Town who are in need of 174 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� affordable housing."39 Thus,implementation of the proposed project would help fulfill the need for workforce housing as identified in the Needs Assessment. Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) Similar to the 1998 CPPP,the subject parcel is shown on the 2006 CPPP List of Eligible Parcels and classified under Classification Code A(open space,including agricultural lands).The Town of Southold has not,however,offered to purchase,the subject property for preservation. It is the intention of the landowner to develop the subject property as proposed in accordance with prevailing zoning. Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan 2020 The demographic inventory contained in the Comprehensive Plan, discussed in Section 3.2.1,indicated a growth in the empty-nester and retiree populations, and indicated that the trend is expected to continue, such that resources geared to this population may be in demand throughout the community.The characteristics that other retirees have found desirable within the Town are expected to attract the future residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue. Although the remainder of the chapters in the Comprehensive Plan have not been adopted by the Town, an evaluation of the proposed project's consistency with the draft chapters, as described in Section 3.2.1 of the DEIS,is included herein. Although the subject property was previously used for agricultural purposes, such use ceased over 30 years ago.Currently,the subject property is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, and therefore would not involve the conversion of agricultural land.Thus,the goals and objectives of the Agriculture chapter are not relevant to the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with the Community Character goals and objectives, as The Heritage at Cutchogue are proposed at a density appropriate for its HD zoning district and HALO zone designations and the hamlet center community character,as is further detailed in Section 3.3.2 of this DEIS.In addition,the residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue,located proximate to the hamlet center,would be expected to utilize the Cutchogue Post Office,which would contribute to the goal of continued operation of the Post Office.Moreover,the location of the proposed project would allow residents to walk to the hamlet center and patronize local businesses,thereby fostering pedestrian and economic activity in the area,in keeping with the Economic chapter objectives.There would also be direct economic benefits � ................................................................................................................... 39 Town of Southold,Housing Department(accessed November 2014);available from http://www.southoldtownny.gov/index.aspx7NID=196). 175 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� of the proposed project,which include projected tax revenues of between$839,417 and$1,012,675. The proposed project includes the development of an age-restricted condominium development for seniors, at a density of approximately 2.7 units per acre(0.37 acre per unit),in an area currently lacking such housing type,thereby contributing to the creation of diversified housing, as recommended by the Housing chapter.Further, as the applicant would provide up to$2.0 million to the Town,while not directly providing workforce housing,the proposed project would help to increase housing opportunities within the Town, a need identified by both the Housing and Human Services chapters. Although the proposed project does not involve full preservation of the subject property,50 percent of the subject property would be maintained as open space. Further,the Town has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation. Thus,the proposed project would by consistent with the Land Preservation chapter. In addition to the subject property remaining 50 percent open space,the proposed project would also conform to the goals of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection chapter as it would utilize low-maintenance,native species that require minimal fertilizers and pesticides,which would both ensure that non-native or invasive species would not be introduced and protect ground and surface waters from added nitrogen loads.Moreover,the sanitary systems and stormwater management infrastructure have been designed such that no significant adverse impacts with respect to water quality are expected, as is detailed in Section 2.2.2.The project would also incorporate various energ,y conservation methods into the design of its residential units,including Energ,y Star-rated kitchen appliances and bath fixtures and installation of insulation,windows, doors,boilers and HVAC components that meet Energ,y Star guidelines. As the Parks and Recreation chapter deals with Town recreational facilities,it is not relevant to the proposed project However,The Heritage at Cutchogue would include a nature trail for passive recreational use by its residents, as well as additional recreational features,including a putting green, a clubhouse, a pool and tennis courts. With respect to the Natural Hazards chapter,the proposed condominiums and amenities would be constructed in conformance with all applicable guidelines with respect to safeguarding residents from damages from hazards,such as those mentioned in Section 3.2.1. Based on the information above,the proposed project would be consistent with the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan and its overall vision,which includes the promotion of a diverse housing stock. 176 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation The proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to land use and zoning, such that no mitigation measures would be necessary. In order to minimize potential land use and zoning impacts,the following measures would be employed: > The proposed development would be within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center,encouraging pedestrian and economic activity in the area. > The proposed development of the subject property as a 55+residential community would fulfill a housing need that has been identified in various plans and studies, as described in Section 3.2.2 of this DEIS. > The applicant would provide up to$2.0 million to the Town to provide opportunities for affordable housing in the Town. > Approximately 50 percent of the subject property would remain as open space. > A vegetated buffer would be planted around the perimeter of the subject property to screen the community from neighboring properties and a three-to five-foot vegetated berm would be located along the northern,eastern and western site boundaries. > Appropriate landscaping and lighting would be provided throughout the development to enhance aesthetics,be compatible with existing community character,and,in the case of exterior lighting,provide a more secure environment. 177 3.2 Land Use,Zoning, and Plans �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.3 Community Facilities and Services 3.3.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS presents the existing community facilities and services, including emergency services, schools and utilities,that are currently available to the site and within the general vicinity. Correspondence from community service providers is contained in Appendix C of this DEIS.In addition,existing property taxes paid to the various taxing jurisdictions are identified. Police Protection The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Police Department(Police Department),which services the entire Town, consisting of an area of approximately 60 square miles.The Police Department includes a Detective Division, a Marine Division, a Juvenile Aid Bureau,Highway Patrol and K-9 Units and operates a Communications/Dispatch Center,which covers most of the North Fork via a 9-1-1 service and dispatches for two police departments and eight fire departments 40 The headquarters are located at 41405 NY 25 in the hamlet of Peconic, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the subject property. Correspondence dated September 26,2014(see Appendix C)was forwarded to Chief Martin Flatley,informing the department of the proposed project and requesting information relative to police protection services in the area of the subject property. In a response dated October 23,2014,Chief Flatley indicated that there is one officer in a sector car that is responsible for the area between Alvah's Lane to the west and Peconic Lane to the east and from the Long Island Sound to the north and the Peconic Bay to the south,thus including the subject property.At times,there could also be a Special Patrol unit working an assignment in this sector.Besides the sector officer's patrol vehicle that is equipped with an automated external defibrillator (AED),oxygen and in-car video,the officer has access to a marine unit, a K-9 unit and a command van.In 2013,the officers working in the sector within which the subject property is located responded to 2,232 calls for service.According to Chief Flatley,the estimated response time to an emergency call from the subject property would be four minutes.The 2014 annual budget for the Police Department is approximately$1.3 million. According to the tax bill for the property,the Town receives approximately$3,630 in annual property taxes from the subject property, a portion of which would contribute to the Police Department's budget. � ................................................................................................................... ao Town of Southold,Police Deparfment(accessed August 2014);available from http:/Iwww.southoldtownny.gov/index.aspx7NID=130. 178 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Fire Protection and Ambulance Services The subject property is within the service area of the Cutchogue Fire Department (Fire Department).The Fire Department services an approximately 11-square-mile area, and maintains 10 pieces of fire apparatus,two rescue boats and several utility/support vehicles 41 There are a total of 120 volunteer members,providing fire and emergency medical(i.e., ambulance) services.The Fire Department's headquarters are located at 260 New Suffolk Road,in Cutchogue,which is approximately one quarter-mile southeast of the subject property.The Fire Department reports on its website that,as of October 22,2015,in the calendar year 2015,it had responded to 348 incidents. Correspondence dated September 26,2014(see Appendix C)was forwarded to Chief Antone Berkoski,informing the Fire Department of the proposed project and requesting information relative to fire protection and ambulance services in the area of the subject property. To date,no response has been received to such correspondence. Additional correspondence(see Appendix C)was sent to Chief William Brewer on September 28,2015 requesting comment and information relative to the proposed project, and a response was received October 26,2015 (see also Section 3.3.2 below). According to the tax bill for the property,the Fire Department receives approximately$935 in annual property taxes from the subject property. Public School Districts The subject property is within the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District (UFSD). The UFSD is comprised of two schools, including one elementary school, housing grades K—6(Cutchogue East Elementary School,located at 34900 NY 25,in the hamlet of Cutchogue,approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the subject property) and one junior-senior high school,housing grades 7—12(Mattituck Jr./Sr.High School,located at 15125 NY 25,in the hamlet of Mattituck, approximately 2.3 miles west-southwest of the subject property). Based on publicly-available resources of the New York State Education Department (NYSED)42 for the 2012—2013 school year,the total district enrollment for the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD was approximately 1,388 students.According to school budget information on Newsday's website43,the total adopted budget for the 2014- 2015 year is$39,674,885,of which$35,348,994(or approximately 89 percent) comes from the local property tax levy. As the subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped,no school-aged children reside at the premises. � ^�Cutchogue Fire District,Cutchogue Fire Department(accessed August 2014);available from http:llwww.cutchopuefiredept.orpl. 42 New York State Education Department,Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD(accessed August 2014);available from http:lldata.nvsed.pov. a3 Newsday,Schools Database,(accessed August 2014);available from http:llschools.newsdav.comllonp-islandldistrictsl. 179 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Correspondence dated September 26,2014(see Appendix C)was forwarded to Superintendent Dr.Anne Smith,notifying the district about the proposed project and requesting information relative to public school facilities in the area of the subject property. To date,no response from the school district has been received. Other Community Facilities Additional community facilities and houses of worship are present in the vicinity of the subject property,including the following: > Cutchogue United States Post Office,located approximately 0.12-mile south of the subject property. > Our Lady of Ostrabrama Roman Catholic Church,located approximately 0.14- mile west of the subject property. > Sacred Heart Church,located approximately 0.18-mile south of the subject property. > Cutchogue Free Library,located approximately 0.23-mile south-southwest of the subject property. > North Fork Reform Synagogue,located approximately 0.24-mile south- southwest of the subject property. > Cutchogue Presbyterian Church,located approximately 0.23-mile south- southwest of the subject property. Utilities Electrical Energy Supply As the subject property is currently undeveloped,there is no existing energ,y use on the premises.However,the property is located in the service area of the electricity provider PSEG Long Island.A summary of the consultations with the PSEG Long Island with respect to the development of the subject property can be found in Section 3.3.2,below. Water Supply As discussed in Section 2.2.1 above,the subject property is currently undeveloped, and, as such,there is no potable water usage at the site.The site also is not currently connected to SCWA community water facilities.However,the Southold Water Supply Plan Map, dated June 1,2006,provides for public water service to the subject property.The subject property is within SCWA Distribution Area 30.A discussion of consultations with the SCWA with respect to the development of the subject property can be found in Section 3.3.2,below. 180 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Property Tax Revenues In 2014,the combined assessed value of the subject property was$13,800, as per the Town tax bill(see 2014 Tax Bill in Appendix I). Table 24,below,identifies the various taxing jurisdictions and current(2014) property tax revenues paid by the subject property,totaling approximately $18,645.60. Table 24- Existin 2014 Propert Tax Revenues Taxing Jurisdiction 2014 Tax Rate Current Existing Taxes (per$1000 AV) Assessed Value County of Suffolk 17.962 $13,800 $247.88 Town of Southold 263.111 $13,800 $3,630.93 Mattituck-Cutchogue School District 878.990 $13,800 $12,130.06 New York State MTA Tax 0.548 $13,800 $7.56 Cutchogue Library 76.334 $13,800 $1,053.41 Cutchogue Fire District 69.044 $13,800 $952.81 Solid Waste District 20.931 $13,800 $2gg.g5 Waste Water District 1.114 $13,800 $15.37 Real Property Tax Law 22.159 $13,800 $305.79 Out of County SCCC Tuition Tax 0.938 $13,800 $12.94 Total Existin Pro ert Tax Revenues $18,645.60 Source:Town of Southold 2014 Tax Bill from egov.basny.com 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts This section of the DEIS discusses the availability of services to the subject property and within the general vicinity, as well as potential impacts on those services,based on consultations with the various providers.In addition,projected property tax revenues that would be generated by the proposed project are presented. Police Protection As indicated in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS,the subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Police Department.As indicated in Section 3.3.1, correspondence was sent to the Police Department informing the department about the proposed project and requesting information regarding personnel,equipment and additional information the department believes would be of assistance in the preparation of the DEIS(see Appendix B). In a response dated October 23,2014, Chief Martin Flatley indicated that the main concern the Police Department would have with development of the subject property would be potential increase in vehicular traffic in the Cutchogue hamlet center.Specifically,the letter noted that the Griffing Street and Depot Lane intersections with NY 25 and the Depot Lane intersection with CR 48 can be difficult intersections.A traffic impact analysis was performed for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development and indicated that 181 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� the proposed project would not change the LOS at any of these intersections from the No Build to the Build conditions during the a.m. and p.m.Peak Hours. During the Weekend Peak Hour,the LOS would change from E to F at the NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach;and from LOS B to C at the CR 48 and Depot Lane northbound and southbound approaches. The projected delays would be less than 10 seconds at these unsignalized intersections and thus,would not pose a significant adverse impact on traffic within the proposed project vicinity(see Section 3.1.2 of this DEIS for a discussion of Traffic Impacts). The letter also stated that the Police Department would anticipate an increase in calls for service from the added residents at The Heritage at Cutchogue. However,it should be noted, and as discussed in greater detail in the Projected Property Tax Revenue subsection of this DEIS,the proposed development would provide between$163,463 and$197,202 in property taxes to the Town, annually, which should help to off-set the potential costs in providing additional police protection to the proposed development(between approximately$159,832 and $193,571 a year higher than the existing condition).Moreover, as the proposed project would likely include a large percentage of seasonal residents,it is anticipated that the demand on the Police Department would decrease for a portion of the year. In addition,the proposed project provides a gated entrance that would restrict access to the community, and exterior lighting would be provided throughout the subject property to allow for adequate visibility and increase site security.Furthermore,the units would be furnished with home security systems that would alert emergency services providers to conditions requiring their presence at the site. Based on the above information,it is not anticipated that the proposed development would pose a significant adverse impact on police protection of the Police Department. Fire Protection and Ambulance Services As indicated in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS,the subject property is within the service area of the Cutchogue Fire Department.As indicated in Section 3.3.1,two rounds of correspondence have been sent to the Cutchogue Fire Department informing the Department of the proposed project and requesting information regarding personnel, equipment and additional information(including proposed hydrant placement)that the Department believes would be of assistance in the preparation of the DEIS(see Appendix C). A preliminary response was received on October 26,2015 and raised the following concerns: > The property exit road surfaces are inadequate for our heavy vehicles and may become mired down. As indicated on the proposed site plan,as well as sheet C-6 Site Details I(in the Site Plan submission package),the specifications of the proposed 182 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� GrassPave2 pervious pavers can accommodate 5,700 pounds per square inch (psi),which is more than enough to support the outriggers of an emergency vehicle, such as a fire truck. In fact,product documentation(see Appendix L)indicates that a 100-foot ladder truck was lifted up by its outriggers and no depressions or ruts were caused by either the tires or the outriggers. > There should be a 2nd entrance/exit to the development to allow for proper response of emer�ency vehicles. As shown on the proposed Site Plan,the proposed project provides one primary entrance at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street, with two emergency access points;one each from Bridle Lane and Spur Road.The primary access point for the development is on the south side of the subject property, and the two emergency access points are on the west side of the property. As the north and east sides of the property are landlocked,with no street frontage,there is no other appropriate location for site access,over and above the three access points provided, as described above. Moreover, as demonstrated on the proposed fire truck circulation plan(see Appendix A),there is ample circulation for emergency vehicles onto and within the site. > From experience on the north fork with other rescue department issues, we would like to see some sort of inedical/nurses station within the confines of the property to handle some of the minor medical complaints your residents may have. The proposed project is for a condominium community with age-restrictions. It is not proposed to be an assisted-living facility or nursing home. As such, there is no reason to anticipate an increased number of health-related emergencies at the proposed development. Thus,it is respectfully submitted that the proposed site plan and the materials to be used in the subject project address the preliminary concerns of the Cutchogue Fire Department. Based upon the property tax analysis included in the Projected Property Tax Revenue subsection of this DEIS,the Cutchogue Fire Department is expected to receive between approximately$42,895 and$51,749 annually from the proposed development.This is between approximately$41,942 and$50,796 a year higher than the existing condition. This additional tax revenue is expected to assist in off-setting the cost of the provision of additional fire protection and ambulance services to the proposed development. Furthermore,the proposed buildings would be constructed to the latest New York State Building and Fire Code and the clubhouse would also be sprinklered. All access drives would be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting equipment. In addition to the main driveway,there would be emergency 183 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� access-ways to Bridle Lane and Spur Road,which would consist of grass areas with a load bearing sub-surface. In addition,a Fire Truck Circulation plan has been prepared(see Appendix A),which demonstrates the ability of the emergency apparatus to maneuver through the proposed site, as well as ingress/egress to the subject property. The condominium units would be comparable to buildings found elsewhere in the Town and would not represent new types or sizes of structures that present specific training or special tactical/equipment considerations.As such, and because the proposed project would likely serve a large seasonal population,it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact on fire or ambulance service within the community. Public School Districts As indicated in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS,the subject property is served by the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD. As noted above, correspondence was sent to the UFSD notifying the district about the proposed project and requesting information regarding schools that would serve The Heritage at Cutchogue,enrollment data,per pupil expenditures,bus routes in the area of the site, and long-range planning studies(see Appendix C). To date,no response has been received. The Stipulation of Settlement, which is discussed in detail in Section 1.1.1 of this DEIS, specifies that the occupancy of the residential units must be limited to those 55 years of age or older and that only children or grandchildren who are 19 years of age or older may reside with occupants of the condominiums.As the proposed project would involve the development of age-restricted condominium units for 55+year old residents,The Heritage at Cutchogue would not generate any school-aged children. Therefore, as discussed below, all school property taxes generated would be surplus for the school district. Based upon the property tax analysis,below,the proposed project would generate between approximately$546,090 and$658,805 per year for the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD,therefore the school district would yield an increase of between approximately$533,960 and$646,675 in annual revenues over the existing condition without a related increase in service costs. Based on the foregoing,no significant adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to public school districts. ...........................�-----------------.................................................................................................................-�------------.................. Other Community Facilities The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is anticipated to have positive impacts on other community facilities in the vicinity, due to increased patronage of the facilities,such as the Cutchogue Post Office and the various area religious institutions.In addition, between approximately$47,424 and$57,212 in new property tax revenues for the 184 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Cutchogue Free Library would be generated by the proposed project. As such,the proposed project would not pose a significant adverse impact on such facilities. Utilities Electrical Energy Supply Correspondence was transmitted to PSEG Long Island on October 27,2014 requesting confirmation that electricity service is available to serve the subject property for The Heritage at Cutchogue development(see Appendix C).In correspondence dated November 4,2014,PSEG Long Island indicated that it would provide service to the proposed development in accordance with the tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required(see Appendix C). In addition to electricity,The Heritage at Cutchogue would utilize natural gas for heating.Correspondence was transmitted to National Grid on October 27,2014 regarding the availability of natural gas to service the proposed development(see Appendix C). To date,no response has been received. As electric capacity is available to serve the site, it is expected that there would be no significant adverse impact to this utility provider. Furthermore,energ,y conservation measures,as discussed in Section 4.1 of this DEIS would be incorporated into the design of the proposed development to minimize potential impacts associated with energ,y use. Water Supply The proposed development would include new water main connections to the public SCWA water supply, as required by the Stipulation of Settlement at Paragraph 26. Specifically,in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement,the Town would allow the extension of SCWA water supply mains and connection of such mains to the subject property. Moreover,the June 1,2006 Southold Water Supply Plan Map provides for public water service to the subject property.As indicated in Section 2.2.2,The Heritage at Cutchogue is expected to require 22,500±gpd of potable water, plus approximately 43,500 gpd during irrigation season. It should be noted that various water efficiency measures would be employed to reduce potable water demands,including the use of native,low-maintenance plant species to reduce irrigation demand,limiting irrigation areas and drip irrigation systems and low-flow plumbing fixtures installed within the residences at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue. Based on the proposed water usage of 22,500 gpd(approximately 0.01 percent of SCWA's annual pumpage, as described in more detail in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS),it is not expected that the proposed project would pose a significant adverse impact to SCWA's ability to serve the site or to the overall availability of water in the area. 185 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Projected Property Tax Revenues Consistent with fiscal impact methodology,44 the property tax revenues have been determined by considering what revenues would be generated if the development were completed and occupied today. This approach recognizes that development often requires several years to be completed and that inflation would increase costs and revenues over time. It assumes that the rising costs of public services would be matched by an essentially comparable increase in revenues through increases in the tax rate, all other things held constant. The proposed project would result in the development of 124 age-restricted(55+) condominium units. The increased market value of the property with these improvements would result in an increase in the property tax revenues.Therefore, the proposed development is expected to generate higher revenues to various taxing jurisdictions in Suffolk County and the Town. As described in Section 1.3.1,The Heritage at Cutchogue would include 52 units (Unit Types A-1 and A-2 and C)with a maximum of 1,999 SF in livable area and 72 units(Unit Types B-1 and B-2)with a maximum of 1,599 SF in livable area.The 1,999 SF units would have two-stories and the 1,599 SF units would be a mix of one-and two-story structures.Although at this time the exact breakdown of one-and two- story 1,599 SF units is unknown,for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 36 of the 1,599 SF units would have one-story and 36 would have two-stories.In order to provide a comprehensive estimate of potential taxes that would be generated by the development,Tables 25 and 26 below show projected taxes based on both high(Table 25)and low(Table 26)market value estimates for the units.The high market value estimates for the two-story 1,999 SF units(Unit Types A-1 and A-2 and C-1),the one-story 1,599 SF units(Unit Type B)and the two-story 1,599 SF units (Unit Type B-2)are$550,000,$500,000 and$485,000,respectively, and the low market value estimates are$450,000,$425,000 and$400,000,respectively. Based on the Town's 2014 residential assessment ratio of 1.17 percent,45 the assessed value of the 124 units based on the high market value estimate would be$ 749,502($6,435,$5,850,and$5,674.50,respectively,per unit). The assessed value of the 124 units based on the low market value estimate would be$621.270($5,265, $4,972.50 and$4,680,respectively,per unit).Tables 25 and 26 show the high and low estimates of projected property taxes that would be generated by the overall proposed development. � ^�The Fiscal lmpact Handbook,Robert Burchell and David Listokin,1978 a5 NYS ORPTS Municipal Profile,New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services(accessed June 2015):available from http:llorpts.tax.nv.povlcfapps/Mu ni Prolradrarhistorv.cfm?swis=473800. 186 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 25- Pro'ected Tax Revenues for The Herita e at Cutcho ue (Hi h Estimate) 2014 Tax Rate Taxing Jurisdiction Assessed Value Tax Revenue (per$1000 AV) County of Suffolk 17.962 $749,502 $13,462.55 Town of Southold 263.111 $749,502 $197,202.20 Mattituck-Cutchogue School District 878.990 $749,502 $658,804.80 New York State MTA Tax 0.548 $749,502 $410.73 Cutchogue Library 76.334 $749,502 $57,212.49 Cutchogue Fire District 69.044 $749,502 $51,748.62 Solid Waste District 20.931 $749,502 $15,687.83 Waste Water District 1.114 $749,502 $834.95 Real Property Tax Law 22.159 $749,502 $16,608.21 Out of County SCCC Tuition Tax 0.938 $749,502 $703.03 Total Projected Property Tax Revenues $1,012,675 Table 26- Pro'ected Tax Revenues for The Herita e at Cutcho ue (Low Estimate) 2014 Tax Rate Taxing Jurisdiction Assessed Value Tax Revenue (per$1000 AV) CountyofSuffolk 17.962 $621,270 $11,159.25 Town of Southold 263.11 $621,270 $163,463 Mattituck-Cutchogue School District 878.99 $621,270 $546,090.10 New York State MTA Tax 0.548 $621,270 $340.46 Cutchogue Library 76.334 $621,270 $47,424.02 Cutchogue Fire District 69.044 $621,270 $42,894.97 Solid Waste District 20.931 $621,270 $13,003.80 Waste Water District 1.114 $621,270 $692.10 Real Property Tax Law 22.159 $621,270 $13,766.72 Out of County SCCC Tuition Tax 0.938 $621,270 $582.75 Total Projected Property Tax Revenues $839,417.20 The increased market value of the subject property with the proposed condominium development would result in an increase in property tax revenues ranging from approximately$839,417 to$1,012,675, depending on the ultimate market value of the units,with school district taxes ranging from approximately$546,090 to approximately$650,805. The proposed development would generate over 50 times higher revenues to the various taxing jurisdictions serving the subject property as compared to the current condition. Therefore,the proposed project would have a positive impact on tax revenues collected by each taxing jurisdiction. Furthermore, as previously described,the cost of services to the taxing jurisdictions,including school,fire and police,would be outweighed by the anticipated tax revenue generated by the proposed project. 187 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� In addition to the projected tax revenues,the proposed project would generate for the Town,it is anticipated that construction of the proposed development would create approximately 238 full-time equivalent(FTE) construction jobs and a minimal number of FTE permanent jobs. 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation To minimize potential impacts associated with the provision of community services, the following measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project: > The proposed condominiums would have home security systems installed. > The community would be gated,with restricted access. > Two emergency access drives would be provided at the western boundary of the subject property, adjacent to the Bridle Lane and Spur Road(unopened)public rights-of-way, for use by emergency responders. > The proposed buildings would be constructed to the latest New York State Building and Fire Code. > The clubhouse would be sprinklered. > All access drives would be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting and other emergency service equipment. > Exterior lighting would be provided throughout the subject property to allow adequate visibility and increase site security. > The proposed condominium units would not generate any school-aged children, but the school district would receive between approximately$546,090 and $658,805 in annual property taxes. > The proposed development would result in property tax revenues ranging from approximately$839,417 to$1,012,675,generating revenues to the various taxing jurisdictions serving the subject property over 50 times higher than under the current condition. 188 3.3 Community Facilities and Services �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, Open SpacelCommunity Character and Public Health 3.4.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS includes a description of the aesthetic character of the subject property and surrounding area, along with representative photographs.The existing conditions of on-site and surrounding open space areas and the established surrounding community character are also addressed.In addition,the existing noise environment at the subject property, as it relates to public health,is characterized and relevant Town Code provisions are presented. Aesthetics Partial views of the subject property are available at the site entrance at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street, and from dead ends at Bridle Lane and Spur Road.The subject property can also be viewed from Depot Lane; however, as from most vantage points,views of the site's interior are obscured by existing vegetation at the perimeter of the site. Photographs representing the visual character of the subject property are provided below;additional photographs of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood are also included in Appendix H and described in Section 3.2.1 of this DEIS. 189 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� �,,, � � � �� w;� �� ;^�'� µ4�� rc„'k�%".:. ii.. .� :"�� . � A;. a�.' e.�.1 t ; �;�; � e ��, ��1IN i f,�f View of the entrance to the subject property,facin� View of the subject property, at the far end of the northwest from the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane photo�raph,facin�southwest,from across a field on and Griffin�Street. Depot Lane. �u, �y. "a �`�� .. �, `a .., . � �pb �„ .�� - � �-d`�r� `�,�'r'� ' ,�Y�,�"��" i, ��'k 4'.a. � �,h aW�. f .;Y 'N . � ��rcw»,,.Vti� k'�'J� � � � � s, �4� r�..f:$,�dn, �, ,�J,� ��Q aN.� -y X Y�� . c �� ,rG '` s w „' Y P :� y5° Rx;;� � �tM r � � �"� � ��r S'�` a�'" �,� ��.�� 9 !�� ;^ ,,�; i��U � w ��li��r�� ¢ ��^ ��`�� a� �"��y"4� � � ,n, ,N, r (�, p � ��p� �,,, ^� Views of the secondary successional ve�etation,facin�north from the southern portion of the interior of the site. � �,r,f ��'., � w , , ��' �r,�,-.� , � � }� ' i � Ili � i4 ��a �� d �h. i � � �b � 4�.� w � �� `wNtd awWa„�p Nry � a a. �� ,� � � {�� I � Yr � �� i� � ��"t'ry� a �. �' Im ,�� ! � �F ��n �, o- � a a � a� �;n �! ^I ;� i `,r� „',,, � � ,� , »�,w � r�. � ,�i��w�� ,. ,., .o � „�,�,�*�r.�°'+�/:,, View of the subject property,facin�northeast,from View of the subject property,facin�northeast, the dead end at Spur Road. from the dead end at Bridle Lane. 190 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Subject Property The subject property is currently undeveloped and contains secondary successional vegetation throughout the site.Direct views of the subject property are available from across a farm field along Depot Lane, and include the existing on-site vegetation,which obscures the visibility of the property's interior.The most direct public view of the subject property is from the entrance gate at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street at the southern border of the site.The views are of an overgrown,unpaved driveway.From this perspective,woodland vegetation can be seen giving way to a more open area in the interior of the property containing successional growth. There are no public roadways located directly north of the subject property, and,therefore,public views are limited.While there are also no significant views of the property from the west,there are two roads that come to a dead end at the subject property. The views of the subject property from the end of Bridle Lane and Spur Road are limited by the dense vegetation at the site's perimeter. Otherwise,views of the property are from adjacent residential properties to the north and west.Based on the foregoing,public visibility of the site is limited. Surrounding Area The visual character of the area surrounding the subject property varies from rural and suburban residential with some agricultural(i.e.,vineyard)to typical suburban hamlet center with dense strip development as one moves away from the Cutchogue hamlet center.Residences in the vicinity of the subject property generally have traditional local architectural features with wood shingles and pitched roofs. There is some variation among structure shapes, sizes and colors of residences,allowing for diversity in the visual character.Immediately to the west of the subject property, views along Highland Drive are of single-family residential houses,with lawns and other landscaping elements, such as trees and hedges.To the north of the subject property, along Evergreen Drive,views are of a vineyard,followed by a heavily wooded single-family housing development.Residences in this development are more set back from the road,providing a slightly more rural character.Further north, along the south side of CR 48,there are wide-open views of vineyards,with intermittent single-family homes. The subject property is not visible from CR 48, as it is blocked by intervening parcels. Views to east of the subject property, along Depot Lane, consist of single-family homes, agricultural fields and some institutional uses, including a cemetery and a Knights of Columbus meeting hall.Generally, along CR 48 and Depot Lane, the views are largely pastoral and extensive. Immediately south of the subject property, along Schoolhouse Lane,views are of suburban-looking single-family residential development,with one-and two- story residences with lawns and street trees, clearly visible from the roadway. Views along Griffing Street limited and enclosed due to the dense vegetation located along the roadway. Further south, along NY 25,the visual character is typical of hamlet centers on the North Fork,with a cluster of small-scale retail,service and office uses,religious institutions, and some single-family residences of traditional local architectural styles.The structures in the hamlet center vary in heights and fa�ade treatments,from red and 191 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� white brick to shingled building fronts.The visual character of the hamlet center is also influenced by the presence of street lamps and street furniture along NY 25. Representative views of the area in the vicinity of the subject property are shown in the photographs below. p ,�' f �� , . `.. x ��' ;fi�� ;�� lM �� 4� �� ° ��2p�� V� � � �� '` � `�j��' ��g � ��r u ��h , � ,.,,� ' ��'� y'� ;i � � � ��y, d,�.� �,. r,,,�;� View of the sin�le family residences alon�Hi�hland View of a vineyard and the entrance to the Woods Road,facin�north. subdivision on Ever�reen Drive,facin�southwest. � ��,� � �,.. i `�, . �,. •„,„�,e: ,y„„; �- ' R ;,, , �„ .. w � u�, we�, j n. r,� "� ' % + �� f ;_' ,� a.„�,,,_w,,, , ..,., View of a vineyard alon�CR 48,facin�northeast. View of sin�le family residences alon�Depot Lane, facin�southeast. 192 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� , a � �� , , i � � � �„. ...... ... �� W��'�� PA F , �'i , � �kN '�n � � :: � ° �� °u"�'�d w N . a q I �"^.„., �IN �ll , r ;� df x ��M� � � �""�� . o-,� 4.... 1 i r� �,�("i., re��p t�wF � �l View of vineyards alon�Depot Lane,facin�south. View of reli�ious uses alon�Depot Lane,facin� east. � , � � � �' � � � ��d i�� rti 8�� i�ry,D� � r I� �III, ��w� ��p � x � �� V"��9�. i,r '"��; "'�° �A� � ;*°. � � � „ i . .u,r. i �m� � i., . .. ��..v'��w � (;' qr { � „�/�//% aY7�'�d��h�i�1�"� � ,.m . � � vt.a �� i�leN , ": � .a,,,,., e� ar . ,� - 7 �I�fii °� S I i r_�, � View of sin�le family residences alon�Schoolhouse View of dense ve�etation alon�Griffin�Street, Road,facin�southwest. facin�southwest. �� ; r., � ; ��, �. , . � n , ' � � t � ,r. o� �""� � �r .� � � s�� ti t i i � +� ��. at),�r��y, '�w°„�ww„ ��, �� .. W � � �., , � � �� . tk� . � �,o- . � f n ` �� . .o �, \ :q� . I 5( X !� .��A / „�/9�i��1 y � � �.� � d� i, ' � i ✓i � i " 1� r�/'�"'ArN � ,,..„,� , ,• ,� , :� um � ./, ,U(IVl l Pf � " � i ��„� � „n,� _ � y � "" '"kn��. �I 'I liii i j i ii �' i � um �I'��i��i''� ��r ��M;{I��',pi�� View of the Cutcho�ue Post Office, in the hamlet Representative view of the hamlet center of Cutcho�ue, facin�north from Griffin�Street. on the north side of NY 25,facin�northeast. 193 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Open Space Resources Although undeveloped,the subject property is privately-owned and zoned for residential development, and thus, does not currently provide any open space opportunities or recreational facilities for use by the public. The subject property is located within 500 feet of playing fields associated with the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD Central Administration Office property. The nearest open space area for public passive recreational purposes is the Downs Farm Preserve,located less than one mile from the subject property.The preserve consists of 51+acres of woodlands and tidal wetlands, and is located along the south side of NY 25. Community Character As identified in Section 3.2.1 and in the Aesthetics subsection above,the 45.99±-acre subject property is situated amongst a variety of land uses,including single-family residential, agricultural,institutional and commercial uses. As the subject property runs lengthwise from near the Cutchogue hamlet center at the property's southern boundary,northward to the less dense area of the hamlet south of CR 48 at its northern boundary,the surrounding community character likewise is varied. Residential uses are typical throughout the area,including several large single-family residential developments in the vicinity of the subject property.The community character of the immediate area surrounding the southern portion of subject property can be described as having a traditional hamlet center feel,with single-family residences,religious uses,retail and service uses and education uses all located in relatively close proximity to one another. To the south of the subject property, undeveloped woodlands east of Griffing Street provide a rural feel directly south of the property.This is followed by a shift to hamlet development,with the Cutchogue Post Office,buildings containing commercial uses,the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic church and parish residence,the Our Lady of Mercy Regional School, and single- family residences on approximately one-acre lots. The character surrounding the northern portion of the subject property is typical of the East End of Long Island, combining a mix of suburban and rural characteristics, including single-family residences on larger lots,interspersed with agricultural uses or otherwise open space areas.More specifically, community character to the north of the subject property is dominated by an active agricultural operation located northwest of the subject property, a single-family residential subdivision on one-acre lots,known as The Woods,on Evergreen Drive,to the north, and farmland in active production to the northeast.Additional agricultural lands,scattered single-family residential development and related vistas along CR 48 round out the character north of the subject property. 194 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The character east of the subject property is also influenced by active farmlands, and, the single-family residences throughout the area south and east of the subject property provide a residential character. West of the subject property,the community character is predominately residential, and is dominated by large single-family residential developments. Overall, along the arterials,the character of the community is generally commercial with some residential development,with higher density concentrations at the hamlet centers,surrounded by less dense residential and agricultural uses as one moves farther from the hamlet centers. Public Health Noise Noise is defined as unwanted or excessive sound.Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities such as sleep,work,or recreation.The individual human response to noise is subject to considerable variability since there are many emotional and physical factors that contribute to the differences in reaction to noise. Human perception of sound is affected by amplitude,frequency and distance from the source, as well as by the number and duration of sound events in a given period of time. Sound levels are measured in units known as decibels(dB).The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale,not a linear one, such as the scale of length. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all audible sound frequencies,human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting," written as dBA. For comparative purposes,Table 27,below,identifies typical noise levels (dBA)for various source types and environments: 195 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Table 27- Noise Levels of Common Sources Sound Source Sound Pressure Leuel dB(A) Air Raid Siren at 50 feet(Threshold of Pain) 120 Maximum Level at Rock Concerts(Rear Seats) 110 On Platform by Passing Subway Train 100 On Sidewalk by Passing Heavy Truck or Bus 90 On Sidewalk by Typical Highway 80 On Sidewalk by Passing Automobiles with Mufflers 70 Typical Urban Area 60-70 Typical Suburban Area 50-60 Quiet Suburban Area at Night 40-50 Typical Rural Area at Night 30-40 Isolated Broadcast Studio 20 Audiometric(Hearing Testing) Booth 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 Source: City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual,Mayor's Offce of Environmental Coordination,City of New York, March 2014,p.19-3. Prevention and Control of Noise Pollution Law of Southold Town Chapter 180 of the Town Code,entitled Prevention of Noise, sets forth the following general restriction on causing noise disturbances within the Town: "No person or persons owning leasing or con�irolling the operation of any source of noise on any lot or structure within the Town shall permit the establishment of a condition of noise pollution. Except as p�rovided in§180-6, the use of amplifiers, speaker or other machines or devices capable of rep�roducing amplified or airborne sound firom the premises, dwelling or building within the Town shall be considered noise pollution and shall be p�rohibited at all times." Specifically,the Town prohibits the following levels of noise pollutions according to the following schedule in�180-6: "No person shall create or cause to be emitted any noise pollution which when measured on a sound-level meter from the property line of a complainin�property owner exceeds the followin�standards: A. Sunday throu�h Thursday: (1)From 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dBA; and (2)From 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dBA. B. Friday and Saturday: (1)From 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dBA;and (2)From 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dBA." 196 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� The Town Code makes certain exceptions to the above-referenced schedule,with respect to construction activities.Specifically,�180-7.A(2)allows for"construction activities between 7:00 a.m.through 7:00 p.m. and the associated use of construction devices or the noise produced thereby,provided that such activities and such equipment and their use comply with the other provisions hereof." As the subject property is unoccupied,there are currently no sources of potential noise disturbance. Existinq Noise Environment The subject property is situated such that it is bounded by vacant land,farmland and single-family residential properties.At the nearest(southernmost)point,the subject property is approximately 1,070 feet from NY 25 and approximately 670 feet from Depot Lane. Based on field observations, ambient noises at the subject property consist mostly of sounds from wildlife existing in the area(i.e.crickets,tree frogs, and birds). Occasional noise can also be heard from the southernmost portion of the property from passing trucks or heavy vehicles on NY 25.From the easternmost boundary of the subject property,faint,intermittent vehicle noise can be heard from Depot Lane. In addition,it is likely that from within the subject property,noises would, at times, be heard from the residences bordering the property(e.g.,landscape equipment, music,loud talking,etc.). The nearest sensitive noise receptors to the subject property are the approximately 14 residences and the RV camp that are adjacent to the subject property boundary. The residences are located along Highland Road,Bridle Lane and at the southern end of Evergreen Drive.There is also a farmhouse adjacent to the northwest corner of the subject property and an RV camp located adjacent to the southeast corner of the subject property. Based upon existing community character,it would be expected that existing ambient noises in the vicinity would consist of vehicle traffic from the adjacent roadways, sounds from area wildlife, and potential noises from residences (e.g.,landscape equipment, children playing,music,loud talking,etc.). 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts This section of the DEIS includes an assessment of the potential visual impacts of the proposed project, as well as potential impacts upon open space resources and established community character.In addition,potential impacts related to noise and construction impacts,as well as consistency with applicable regulations, are presented. 197 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Aesthetics As indicated in Section 3.4.1,the subject property is currently undeveloped and contains early-to mid-successional vegetation that provides few views of seasonal vegetation from the surrounding area. As also discussed in Section 3.4.1,the visual character of the area surrounding the subject property is varied, depending on the proximity to the Cutchogue hamlet center.Overall,throughout the area,residences generally have traditional local architectural features with wood shingles and pitched roofs. As described in Section 2.3 of this DEIS, and demonstrated in Figure 6,the subject property,formerly utilized for agricultural purposes,is now host to early-through mid-successional habitats,including limited successional woodland habitat. The overwhelming majority of the subject property consists of successional shrubland, with limited successional hardwoods at the northern and southern edges of the property.As such,upon implementation of the proposed project,the views associated with the subject property,i.e., shrubs,vines and low-growing species, would be changed from cleared property to landscaped and maintained property, complimentary to the proposed development and surrounding community. Upon implementation of the proposed project,public views of the subject property from surrounding areas would be altered, as the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue units would occupy approximately half of the 45.99±-acre site, and the site entrance at Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Lane would be opened up and expanded. 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 would continue to be obscured and be similar to the existing condition.As Bridle Lane and Spur Road would be emergency access roads,vegetation would be cleared from these areas and there would be views past gates and into the interior of the subject property. With respect to height, all proposed buildings would adhere to the maximum height restriction of the HD zoning district,with the clubhouse as the tallest structure at 35±-feet in height. All of the residences would be between one and two stories, similar to the height of the existing residences in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition,the sizes of the proposed units,with 1,599±SF and 1,999±SF in livable floor area,would be similar in mass to the single-family residences in the area. Elevations have been prepared by the project architect(see Appendix J)to provide a reference for considering the potential visual impact of the proposed condominium units. The architectural design of the residential units would be harmonious with the vernacular style of the surrounding residences. The buildings would feature roof- lines with multiple peaks and dormers,and fa�ades in a mix of wood shingles and stone.As shown by the elevations,the proposed units would vary in appearance,but would be consistent in character, so as to provide a coherent,but not static visual 198 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� character.Stone chimneys,front porches with columns and french doors are incorporated into each proposed unit to provide architectural variation and interest. The internal site layout of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is intended to maximize views of the proposed open space areas from the all of the residential units. Garages have been incorporated into the proposed units to minimize the extent of paved parking areas, and unattractive views thereof. The proposed internal driveway would be edged with Belgian block pavers.The area around the pool and tennis courts would be screened from adjacent properties and thus,would only be visible from the interior of the site. Landscape plantings throughout the site and surrounding the community entry are also proposed to heighten the aesthetic quality of the proposed residential community. As shown on the Landscape Plan in Appendix A,the applicant intends to plant a variety of native species of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to frame lawn areas,provide shade at common areas, and define and decorate the site entry and main access drive and provide a landscaped site interior. As stated,a vegetated buffer would be provided around the perimeter of the site,including a three to five foot planted berm along the northern,eastern and western property boundaries to screen views of the proposed project from surrounding areas.Moreover,new planting of native species would be provided throughout the subject property.These planting areas,together with the proposed lawn areas would comprise 23±acres(50± percent)of the 45.99±-acre subject property under post-development conditions,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement.An additiona17.79±acres would include landscaping around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways.The proposed landscaping is expected to create an attractive environment for residents of the proposed development, and their visitors, as well as to help provide aesthetically-pleasant views of the subject property, although limited,from the surrounding areas in keeping with the existing community character. A Lighting Plan has also been developed and is included in Appendix A of this DEIS. All proposed fixtures would comply with�172 and�280-117 of the Town Code, and would be downward-facing and shielded as necessary to provide a secure environment for the residents,while reducing the potential for glare or off-site light spillover, as explained below. Pole mounted light fixtures would be provided along the roadways and in parking areas. Each residence unit would have light fixtures over the front porch,garage and back patios and lighting would be provided in the front and rear of the clubhouse as well as recreational lighting for the pool deck and tennis courts. The Layout and Materials Plan and Lighting Plan located in Appendix A of this DEIS,provide details of the proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric analysis of the subject property. To evaluate the proposed lighting design and the potential off-site impacts,the Lighting Plan provides lighting levels,expressed in foot-candles(fc),at various points in a grid pattern across the site. As shown,maximum photometric levels at the subject property boundaries are 0.0 fc indicating that all lights will be screened as necessary to ensure there would be no spillover onto neighboring properties.The 199 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� proposed lighting has been designed to provide adequate lighting throughout the subject property for the purposes of visibility and site security. All pole mounted lighting fixtures would not exceed 14 feet in height, as required by the Town Code.However,the Town Code does allow for recreational lighting to exceed the 14-foot maximum height,but requires that light is reasonable screened from view and compatible with the existing or potential use of neighboring properties and that no outdoor recreational facility be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. The proposed Lighting Plan,provided in Appendix A, depicts these conditions and the development would adhere to the timing restrictions. Overall,no significant adverse aesthetic impacts are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed project. Open Space Resources As indicated in Section 3.4.1,the subject property is undeveloped and privately- owned, and thus, does not currently provide any open space opportunities or recreational facilities available for use by the public. The Heritage at Cutchogue development has been designed to provide 50 percent of the 45.99±acre subject property as open space, as required by the Stipulation of Settlement.These open space areas are comprised of: > a vegetated buffer within the 75±-foot setback along the perimeter of the subject property > a 5,174-foot±(0.98-mile)nature trail covered with permeable material > street trees along the proposed main driveway > landscaping and lawn areas, surrounding the condominium units and related amenities,as well as within the interior of the subject property As indicated in Landscape Plan(see Appendix A)the entire boundary of the subject property would be planted with a vegetated buffer and the northern and western property boundary would be planted with a vegetated berm to provide a visual barrier between the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development and the surrounding uses. In addition,23±acres of open space areas,including native plantings and turf grass,would be created on the subject property.The Landscaping Plan indicates extensive landscaping throughout the subject property,including street trees along the main driveway within the development. These vegetation features would add to the open space and green areas on the subject property. The proposed Open Space Plan(see Appendix A)shows the proposed nature trail, which meanders through the interior of the subject property as well as along the northern and eastern property boundaries.The trail traverses the subject property, 200 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� and includes connections to the clubhouse,tennis courts, and pool,to encourage pedestrian activity on-site. Through the provision of landscaped open space and walking and nature trails on- site,open space resources would be available to residents of The Heritage at Cutchogue.Furthermore, approximately half of the site,or 23±acres would be maintained with native landscaping and lawn areas, as depicted on the Landscape Plan(see Appendix A of this DEIS). Overall,implementation of the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on open space,as it would not remove publicly-accessible open space,but would provide open space resources for the residents of the proposed community. .................................................................................................................................................................�---------------------------• Community Character As identified in Section 3.4.1,the 45.99±-acre subject property is situated amongst a variety of land uses,including single-family residential, agricultural,institutional and commercial uses,which contribute to a community character that is a mix of rural and suburban. Although the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue includes greater density than what currently exists in the immediate vicinity,the southern portion of the subject property is located in an area of the Town that already contains a relatively higher level of residential and commercial density,including several large single-family residential developments in the vicinity of the subject property. Moreover,as discussed in Section 3.2.1,the HD District,within which the subject property is located,was created to foster higher densities within appropriate areas(i.e.,hamlet centers and HALO zones).Therefore,the development of the subject property with condominium units would be characteristic of the density patterns that have already been established in this area and that are encouraged through the prevailing zoning. As noted in Section 3.4.1, the character of the surrounding area varies from the northern to the southern portions of the subject property.Near the Cutchogue hamlet center at the property's southern boundary there are traditional hamlet uses in relatively close proximity to one another,while surrounding the northern portion of the subject property is farmland that is intersperse with single-family residences on larger lots.As residential uses are common throughout the entire surrounding area, the proposed development would continue this pattern. 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, 201 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� eastern and western property boundary that would assist in screening the site from the surrounding area. Overall,the landscaping and condominiums within The Heritage at Cutchogue community would be contextual with the surrounding architecture and environment of the hamlet of Cutchogue. Some design elements that would enhance the community character include: > Well-landscaped public areas to include native plant species. > Integration of walkways and nature trails to encourage pedestrian access. > Location within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center to encourage The Heritage at Cutchogue residents to patronize area businesses and interact with the community. > A mixture of housing types (one and two stories)to meet community needs of the 55+population. > A variety of architectural design and styles instead of uniform suburban sprawl. Developing the subject property into a multiple condominium-unit development would change the character of the subject property;however, such development would be in character with the residential nature of the surrounding area and would be consistent with the higher-density residential development that is permitted on- site and in close proximity to the hamlet center. Moreover, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2,in the discussion of the project's consistency with relevant comprehensive plans, as the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would be within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center,it is expected that the proposed development would foster pedestrian activity in the area,thereby enhancing economic activity and the vitality of the hamlet center. Public Health Noise Construction Noise Construction activities may result in temporary increases of nearby sound levels due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project.The proposed development is expected to generate typical sound levels from construction activities,including foundation construction,truck movements,heavy equipment operations, and general construction activities.Heavy machinery, such as front end loaders,graders,bulldozers, and backhoes,would be used intermittently throughout the proposed project's construction. The noise generated would be similar to other construction projects in the Town,and all phases of construction would comply with the restrictions specified in the local noise ordinance, such as time of day, and level of noise permitted. Every reasonable 202 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� attempt will be made to minimize construction noise impacts.Construction noise control can be accomplished by the use of equipment with their original noise controls and procedures.As construction noise impacts would be temporary, and construction would comply with all relevant provisions of the Town Code,the proposed project is not expected to pose significant adverse impacts to sensitive receptors during the construction period. 203 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Post-Development Noise Environment As indicated in Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS,the nearest sensitive noise receptors would be the approximately 14 residences and the RV camp that are located adjacent to the subject property boundary. While existing noises generated from the subject property are likely limited to sounds from wildlife,upon implementation of the proposed project, potential noises from the residential units at The Heritage at Cutchogue may include additional noises similar to those described as being generated currently in the community from residential uses(e.g.,landscape equipment,music,loud talking,etc.).Therefore,the proposed project would not be anticipated to generate significant adverse noise impacts,given the residential nature of the development, and thus,would not pose a significant adverse impact to sensitive noise receptors. Prevention and Control of Noise Pollution Law of Southold Town The Town's noise ordinance was used as guidance for the construction-related noise evaluation. 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. Further,under post-development conditions,The Heritage at Cutchogue would also comply with the Towri s noise schedule in�180-6 of the Town Code, as presented in Section 3.4.1. Thus,no impacts associated with noise generation from the proposed development are expected. Temporary Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts Air quality in the study area would not be substantially affected by project construction because of the temporary nature of site development construction and the confines of the construction area. Emissions from the operation of construction machinery(CO,NOx,PM,SOx, and VOC)are short-term and not expected to be significant. Construction Vehicle Emissions.Vehicular criteria pollutant emissions can occur as a result of traffic and/or added trip length from private vehicles that encounter roadway diversions or detours associated with the proposed project, as well as from emissions from the actual construction vehicles. For the construction of the proposed development,there are no anticipated road closures or diversions. Therefore, an air impact analysis for this aspect of construction(i.e.private vehicles)was not required. 204 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Construction vehicles also emit criteria air pollutants through their engine e�aust. The impacts from construction vehicles are expected to be minimal because the prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines would be implemented. Fugitive Dust.There is the potential for fugitive dust to be created during the construction period due to site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation and site grading.Appropriate measures would be taken to minimize dust, such as the application of water to cleared areas. Construction Phasing and Schedule During the construction period,which is expected to occur over four phases with each phase taking about 1-11/z years,the proposed project would comply with all applicable Town safety standards and regulations. Phase 1 of construction would begin by implementing all erosion and sediment control measures as outlined in the SWPPP. In addition all clearing,grubbing, and earthwork related to soil management activities would be completed prior to construction of any infrastructure. This includes construction of the necessary berms to provide screening of construction activities from neighboring properties. Following earthwork activities,the proposed internal road base and all drainage, water,electric and gas subsurface utilities,would be constructed,followed by the model units(one each for units A-1,A-2,B-1 and B-2)and an additiona130 housing units. Generally, construction of the units would begin at the southern part of the property and move northward. All pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping related to the completed units would be included in this phase. Phase 1 would also consist of the construction of the clubhouse,all related recreational amenities(i.e.,the pool and tennis courts), and infrastructure. Phases 2 and 3 would each construct an additiona131 units along with the related pavement, drainage,utility connections and landscaping. Phase 4 would build out the remaining units and all related infrastructure. Each phase would be constructed just north of the previously constructed units. Construction access to the site will be from the main entrance off of Schoolhouse Lane. All construction staging, contractor parking, and material staging will take place on site in accordance with the approved SWPPP. The project's General Contractor will be required to maintain all erosion and sediment control measures throughout construction until work is complete and final stabilization is achieved. Construction activities would comply with Chapter 240,Article X of the Town Code., Specifically,the applicant would supply the Town Engineering Office and 205 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Superintendent of Highways with a schedule of construction indicating the beginning and completion dates of phases of work. The development of The Heritage at Cutchogue would also comply with any requirements the Town Engineering Office may recommend,per§240-39,in order that the appropriate safeguards are in place during construction. As construction equipment loading/unloading,materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking would be located within the subject property,no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding roadways or properties are anticipated. Moreover,the applicant would coordinate with the appropriate utility companies, other applicable regulatory agencies(i.e.,SCDHS,Fire Commissioners,etc.)and the Town Engineering Office on the placement of water mains and hydrant connections, fire wells, placement of underground electric,telephone or television cables, placement of underground lines/main, and installation of all underground drainage structures.Finally,traffic flow on public streets and highways would not be restricted or endangered by construction operations, as required by Chapter 161, Article II of the Town Code. 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation No significant adverse impacts have been identified with respect to aesthetics,open space resources, community character and public health.However,to minimize potential impacts,the following features have been incorporated into the project design: > 23±-acres,or 50 percent of the subject property,would be maintained as open space, and landscaped with native plant species and turf grass,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement with an additiona17.79±acres for plantings around buildings and within the right-of-ways adjacent to roadways. > Walkways and nature trails (±0.98-miles)would be incorporated to provide recreational resources and to allow for pedestrian access throughout the site. > Location within walking distance of the Cutchogue hamlet center would encourage residents to patronize local businesses and interact with the larger community. > A mixture of housing types would meet community needs of the 55+population. > A variety of architectural design and styles would be provided within the community to avoid uniform suburban sprawl. > A vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the subject property would assist in attenuating noise generated by the future residents. 206 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� > All proposed lighting fixtures would comply with�172 and�280-117 of the Town Code,and would be downward-facing and fitted with reflectors to reduce the potential for glare or off-site light spillover. > Implementation of a Soil Management Plan to address impacted soils at the subject property. Although no significant adverse impacts to public health during construction have been identified,the following measures would be taken to minimize and potential temporary impacts: > Construction equipment would be required to have installed and properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems. > Construction activities would be performed at the times permitted by the Town, in accordance with the noise ordinance in Chapter 180 of the Town Code. > During construction,emission controls for construction vehicles emissions would include, as appropriate,proper maintenance of all motor vehicles,machinery, and equipment associated with construction activities, such as,the maintenance of manufacturer's muffler equipment or other regulatory-required emissions control devices. > Appropriate methods of dust control would be determined by the surfaces affected(i.e.roadways or disturbed areas)and would include, as necessary,the application of water,the use of stone in construction entrances and roads, and temporary and permanent vegetative cover. > The project would be constructed in accordance with Chapters 161 and 240 of the Town Code. > During construction,potential adverse impacts would be mitigation through implementation of the Soil Management Plan. 207 3.4 Aesthetic Resources,Open Space/Community Character and Public Health �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 3.5 Archaeological Resources 3.5.1 Existing Conditions This section of the DEIS presents the results of the Phase IA and Phase IB archaeological investigations prepared for the subject property. The reports are included in their entirety in Appendix K of this DEIS. Phase IA and Phase IB archaeological investigations were conducted for the subject property on August 8 and September 20,2007, and incorporated into a report, entitled Phase I Archaeolo�ical Tnvesti�ation for the proposed Herita�e at Cutcho�ue Subdivision Cutcho�ue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York,and dated October 2007,by Tracker Archaeolog,y Services,Inc.The purpose of the investigation was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Investigations included a literature review and a field survey,consisting of a walkover of the subject property and 767 shovel test pits 30 to 40 centimeter(cm) diameter and 10 to 20 cm deep,taken at 15 meter intervals across the subject property. Material from the test pits was screened through wire mesh for artifacts. The investigations resulted in the following findings: > A paleo Indian point was recovered in the vicinity of the subject property > Prehistoric sites are near the vicinity of the subject property > Indian trails were located in the vicinity of the subject property > A Contact Period wigwam is situated in the vicinity of the subject property > No map documented structures were on or adjacent to the subject property > An historic Native American site was reported in the vicinity of the subject property The field survey and shovel test pits recovered the following: > One prehistoric quartz point tip > One quartz flake > Scattered eighteenth to nineteenth century artifacts,including: ➢ One blue transferprint whiteware ➢ One blue decorated creamware ➢ One lead glaze earthenware ➢ Two Jackfield-like ceramics ➢ Six flower pot fragments 208 3.5 Archaeological Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� ➢ One brown transferprint whiteware ➢ One olive green bottle glass ➢ One undecorated whiteware At the culmination of the Phase IA Investigations by Tracker Archaeolog,y Services, Inc.,the consultant determined that based upon the prehistoric sites and Indian trails located in the vicinity: > The study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites > The subject property had a moderate potential for native American Historic sites > The subject property had a low potential for European-American sites The Phase IB Investigation found: > Isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered during the excavation of 767 shovel tests > No further work is recommended with respect to archaeological investigations at the subject property 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts Based upon the foregoing, as the archaeological consultants did not recommend further investigation of the site,it is not anticipated that the proposed project would have any significant adverse impacts with respect to archaeological resources. 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation Based upon the results of Phase IA and Phase IB Investigations of the site, significant adverse impacts with respect to historic and archaeological resources are not anticipated.As such,no mitigation measures are proposed. 209 3.5 Archaeological Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � Other Required Sections 4.1 Use and Conservation of Energy This section of the DEIS includes a discussion of energ,y sources to be used and the means to reduce consumption incorporated into the design of the proposed project. The results of consultations with the respective energ,y utility providers for the proposed project are indicated and letters of service availability are included. Existing Conditions As the subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped,there are no existing demands for energ,y at the subject property. Anticipated Impacts Energy Providers Based upon the proposed redevelopment of the subject property, a request for electric service availability was sent to PSEG Long Island on October 27,2014.In a response dated November 4,2014,PSEG Long Island indicated that it"would provide service to the proposed development in accordance with the tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required" (see Appendix C). Correspondence was sent to National Grid on October 27,2014 regarding natural gas service to the proposed development(see Appendix C).To date,no response has been received. As demonstrated above,the availability of electricity for The Heritage at Cutchogue has been confirmed by the service providers,such that no significant adverse impacts upon energ,y supplies are anticipated. Since natural gas would be provided by a 210 4.1 Use and Conservation of Energy �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� private utility company,it is not expected that the proposed project would cause capacity issues for the utility. Proposed Energy Efficiency Measures The Heritage at Cutchogue is proposing to incorporate various energ,y conservation measures into the design of its residential units including the following Energ,y Star features: > Energy Star-rated kitchen appliances > Energy Star-rated bath fixtures > window and doors meeting Energ,y Star guidelines > boilers meeting Energ,y Star guidelines > air conditioning systems meeting Energ,y Star guidelines In addition,as the proposed residences are within walking distance of the hamlet center,fewer vehicles trips(and less energ,y use)by community residents to patronize local businesses are expected. Based upon the foregoing,implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to create a significant impact related to energ,y use. 211 4.1 Use and Conservation of Energy �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 4.2 Cumulative Impacts The Final Scope(see Appendix B) calls for consideration of potential impacts due to implementation of the proposed project in combination with other pending projects in the surrounding area.Given the duration of the evaluation process for the proposed project, the status of proposed projects has varied.The most recent information available indicated that there is only one proposed project in the vicinity of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue.Such project is the proposed four-lot subdivision of property,owned by Baxter,on the south side of Schoolhouse Lane, east of Griffing Road(SCTM Parcle No. 102-5-9.4). Information obtained from the Town's website,which was accessed October 27,2015, is unclear about the specific proposal for the four-lot Baxter subdivision.However, based on available material, a combination of retail and residential uses may be proposed for all four lots. Given the limited information available, and the uncertain nature of any future use of Baxter property,it is not possible to provide an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue and the four-lot subdivision. 212 4.2 Cumulative Impacts �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided The environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project, as well as the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project,have been described throughout Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this DEIS. Those impacts that cannot be either entirely avoided or fully mitigated are described in this section of the DEIS. Short-Term Impacts There would be several temporary(short-term)construction-related impacts that cannot be completely mitigated. These impacts are associated with site preparation and development(including grading,excavation,installation of utilities, and construction of buildings and parking facilities). It is anticipated that these impacts would cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project. Specific impacts are identified below: > Soils would be disturbed by grading,excavation, and mounding activities during site redevelopment. > Despite the use of extensive and strategically-placed erosion and sediment control measures,minor occurrences of erosion may occur. > There is the potential for minor releases of air contaminants that would occur from construction equipment and emissions of fugitive dust during dry periods, although dust would,for the most part,be controlled by covering of soil piles and watering down of the site. > Operation of construction equipment, trucks and worker vehicles may temporarily impact traffic in the area of the project site. > The visual quality of the area may be temporarily degraded by the presence and operation of construction equipment on the project site. > Increases in noise levels at the site boundaries may result from construction activities. However, construction noise would be minimizes and would occur only during hours permitted by the Town Code. It is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in four phases with approximately 3lunits constructed in each phase, construction of each phase taking between 1-to- 11/z years.Although construction would occur over a period of four to six years, construction activities would not occur continuously throughout that time period, and various mitigation measures, as identified in Section 3.4.2,would be implemented to ensure that construction would not significantly impact the surrounding area. 213 4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts associated with project implementation have been identified within the various analyses contained in this DEIS. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate most of these long-term adverse impacts. Those adverse long-term impacts that cannot be fully mitigated are set forth below. > The addition of impermeable surfaces to the subject property, such as roadways, parking and structures, would increase runoff on the subject property. However, runoff would be contained and recharged within the property boundaries through the installation of a comprehensive stormwater management system consisting of drywells and DRAs. > The proposed residential condominium units and community amenities would utilize additional potable water and energ,y, and generate more sewage,as compared with existing conditions. > Solid waste would be generated at the site, although same would not adversely impact local or regional solid waste management practices. > Site development would result in the removal of vegetation on-site. However, the use of native vegetation and the comprehensive nature of the landscaping plan would help mitigate impacts associated with vegetation removal.Further, no vegetation or habitat was identified on-site that is considered unique to the subject property or identified as rare,threatened or endangered. > 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. > Traffic would be added to surrounding roadways,but no significant changes to traffic patterns or Level of Service are expected to occur. Although long-term unavoidable adverse impacts on natural resources,traffic and utilities have been identified,no impacts have been determined to be significant. 214 4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The proposed development of the subject property would require a commitment of natural and manmade resources as well as time. Overall,the currently undeveloped site would now be committed to residential development.Specifically, approximately 45.99±acres of natural vegetation is proposed to be removed from the site.In addition,28.3±acres of Soil Group 1 agricultural soils would be made unavailable for cultivation in the future, although it is noted that the site has not be used in agricultural cultivation for over 30 years. Approximately 15.17±acres would be covered by impervious surfaces including buildings and internal roadways, and approximately 23±acres of open space would be planted with low-maintenance native plant species and turf grass,in conformance with the Stipulation of Settlement. Certain additional resources related to the construction aspects of the development would be committed. These resources include,but are not limited to, concrete, asphalt,lumber,paint and topsoil. Mechanical equipment resources would be committed to assist personnel in the construction at the property. The operation of construction equipment would require electricity,water resources and fossil fuels. Furthermore,the construction phase of the proposed project would require the commitment of manpower resources as well as time. In addition,during the operational phase of the proposed development,electricity, water resources and fossil fuels would be used for heating,cooling and other purposes. 215 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects Growth-inducing aspects are generally described as the long-term secondary effects of the proposed project. Since the site is located in a developed and developing portion of the Town,it is not expected that the proposed community would induce additional growth in the area. To the contrary and consistent with Town public policy,The Heritage at Cutchogue project is proposed,in part, to fill a need for a specific type of residential use(i.e., an age-restricted community)that would serve the existing and projected future senior population in the area,including the seasonal population, (see Section 1.1 of this DEIS). As the proposed project is a residential community for seniors,there would be less of an overall demand upon community facilities or services(see Section 3.3)than if the property were developed with non-age-restricted residential uses,as explained below. Although there is a potential for increased demand on emergency services due to the age of the future residents,because the residential use of the property is expected to be seasonal(as many of the residents are anticipated to be snowbirds), the demand is not expected to exceed available capacity.In addition, since it is proposed to be a senior development,no expansion of educational facilities would be required, and no growth-inducement would occur. Furthermore,as identified in Sections 2.2 and 3.3 of this DEIS,the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts upon utility providers(i.e.,water,electric,natural gas). As described in Section 1.3 of this DEIS,the infrastructure that would be required (i.e., septic systems and water main extensions)would support only the proposed development and would not include any utility expansions/extensions that would support other development or that are not already anticipated. The traffic study prepared to evaluate the potential transportation-related impacts of the proposed project does not identify the need for significant road widenings or the extension of roadways(see Section 3.1 and Appendix G). Finally, as discussed in Section 4.5,the development of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would not cause or result in any significant additional development of other similar facilities. The proposed development does not require a change of zone and is at a scale consistent with the prevailing HD zoning district.As reflected in the Town Code�280-1,the HD zoning district was implemented to provide mixed housing uses and higher residential density in appropriate areas in and around the major hamlet centers.The future development or redevelopment of any other parcel in the Town for any use other than a single-family residence,in accordance with HD zoning,would still be subject to site plan approval at the discretion of the Planning Board and subject to a separate application and environmental review process,likely similar to that of the proposed project. Site-specific review of future proposed 216 4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� projects would provide a means for control over and comprehensive environmental review of any potential application requesting development of any use other than a single-family residence. It is noted that any such future application for development or redevelopment does not necessarily represent induced growth. As demonstrated herein,implementation of the proposed action is not expected to induce additional growth within the community,or result in any significant adverse environmental impacts associated therewith. 217 4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � Alternatives As explained in Section 1.1.1 of this DEIS,the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B)is the document that sets forth several development parameters for the proposed action. As also explained in Section 1.1.1 of this DEIS,the conceptual design of the proposed project, as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, incorporates various design elements into the proposed project that the Final Scope required to be analyzed as alternatives(see Appendix B). Accordingly,two alternatives set forth in the Final Scope are no longer applicable to the current proposed project, as contemplated in the aforesaid settlement. Specifically,the Alternative Design and Reduced Unit Alternative have been omitted,as such alternatives are actually incorporated in the conceptual plan and development parameters made part of the Stipulation of Settlement.These omitted alternatives are as follows: > Alternative design to include clustering of detached and attached units to create meaningful open space and maximize vegetative buffers—this alternative is no longer relevant as the proposed project,pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement,provides a cluster design of detached and attached units that achieve the aforesaid open space and vegetative buffer objectives. > Reduction in the number of units—this alternative is no longer relevant as the Stipulation of Settlement establishes a maximum unit count of 130,which, due to zoning and development constraints,has been further reduced to 124 units, and the applicant respectfully submits that any further reduction of such unit count would render the development infeasible. As such,this section examines the SEQRA-mandated "No Action" alternative,the partial or full preservation of the subject property alternative, and alternative designs for wastewater treatment. 218 5.0 Alternatives �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 5.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative involves leaving the subject property in its present state. Under this alternative,the subject property would remain vacant and undeveloped, consisting of early-mid-successional growth vegetation with areas of invasive plant species,with the periodic removal of trees for overall site maintenance and/or personal use by the property owner. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would forego the various beneficial impacts of the proposed project discussed throughout this DEIS. Most notably,there would be no provision of a residential development at this location for the senior population,which is not readily available in the Town;the substantial increase in property tax revenues expected to result from implementation of the proposed project would not be realized,and there would not be up to$2 million contributed to the Town,which would help to create affordable housing opportunities that are sorely needed in the Town. In addition,the No Action 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 also achieves several goals of the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.Moreover,the No Action Alternative would not result in the remediation of the contaminants at the subject property due to past agricultural use. This alternative would also not resolve pending litigation among the Town and the subject property owner and applicant that has been suspended as a result of the Stipulation of Settlement, and would be resolved if development proceeds as contemplated in the settlement. 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. It is also important to note that this alternative would not meet the objectives of the applicant,which is to develop the site with a permanent,high-quality residential development consistent with the current HD zoning designation,while being economically feasible. The No Action Alternative is inconsistent with the applicant's right to develop, does not meet the objectives of the applicant, does not provide housing options to an underserved population and is not viewed to be a feasible alternative by the applicant.Nevertheless, despite this alternative not being feasible,SEQRA requires that this option be evaluated in the DEIS.The No Action Alternative is evaluated, below,with respect to the areas of potential impact evaluated elsewhere in this DEIS. 219 5.1 No Action Alternative �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� $OIIS Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not require disturbance to the land.As such,the site would remain unchanged.Thus,there would be no significant adverse impact to soils.However,the residual contamination from past agricultural activities on the subject property would remain, and would not be addressed in accordance with regulatory requirements as the subject property would not be developed. Water Resources Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not require site disturbance. Thus,there would be no impact to area drainage, surface water or to groundwater quantity or quality. In addition,there would be no water demand or sewage generation from the site. Vegetation and Wildlife Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not require disturbance of the land. As such,the site would remain unchanged, and,thus,there would be no impact to vegetation and wildlife.However,invasive species would still persist within specific areas of the subject property and these areas would likely grow in size over time. ...........................�-----------------.................................................................................................................-�------------.................. Transportation No additional traffic would be added to the roadway network with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. However,the traffic study calculated the intersection capacity for the 2020 No-Build condition by projecting the 2014 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of 1.8 percent per year to determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development(see Appendix G). The 1.8 percent annual growth factor used was based on the results of the NYSDOT LITP 2000 planning study and is specific to the Town. General growth,without the proposed project,would continue to result in a decrease of the p.m.peak hour LOS from E to F and the weekend peak hour LOS from D to E at the intersection of NY 25 and Depot Lane from the southbound approach.The remainder of the studied intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better under the No-Build condition. 220 5.1 No Action Alternative �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Land Use,Zoning and Plans Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not involve any change in land use and, similar to the proposed project,would not change zoning.The No Action Alternative would not achieve the goals of providing senior housing,nor would it provide up to$2.0 million to the Town,which would help create opportunities for much needed affordable housing—two objectives that were expressed in many of the land use plans that were analyzed in Section 3.2 of this DEIS. Community Facilities and Services The existing demands on community services and facilities(i.e., school district, police,fire and ambulance services,electrical energ,y supply and water supply) would remain the same under the No Action Alternative as in the existing condition. However,no additional tax revenue would be generated by the subject property as would occur with the proposed project. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Aesthetic Resources, Open SpacelCommunity Character and Public Health The aesthetics of the site would not change from the existing condition upon implementation of the No Action alternative. There would likewise be no significant changes to open space, community character or public health under the No Action Alternative.As there would be no changes to open space and community character, the subject property would remain underutilized and would still not provide open space resources for public use. Archaeological Resources As with the proposed project,the No Action Alternative would have no impact upon archaeological resources. 221 5.1 No Action Alternative �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 5.2 Partial or Full Preservation The Partial or Full Preservation Alternative is similar to the No Action Alternative in that it involves leaving the subject property undeveloped,but the Preservation Alternative depends on the purchase of all or part of the subject property by the Town or some other entity for preservation purposes.Due to the current elevated levels of arsenic and mercury found at the subject property from the former agricultural use,public access to the site would be prohibited unless the Town or some other entity remediated the property so that it would be suitable for passive recreational use. As with the No Action Alternative,preservation of the subject property would forego an opportunity for high-quality senior housing options,as well as the provision of $2.0 million to the Town,which would help create opportunities for affordable housing.Preservation of the entire subject property would not result in substantial tax revenues for the Town, as is the case with the proposed project and the subject property would not be remediated per regulatory standards. 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 achieve several goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan. It is also important to note that the Preservation Alternative would not meet the objectives of the applicant,which is to develop the site with a permanent,high- quality residential development consistent with the current HD zoning designation that would be economically feasible. Moreover,the Town has not offered to purchase the subject property for preservation despite the fact that this alternative was identified in the Final Scope issued in 2007,over seven years ago.As such, and because of the elevated levels of contaminants found at the subject property,which would prohibit public use of the site without remediation,the Preservation Alternative is not viewed to be a feasible alternative by the applicant. 222 5.2 Partial or Full Preservation �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� 5.3 Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment Although the proposed clustered sanitary system design meets the population density requirements set forth in Article 6 of the SCSC, and is therefore permitted, four wastewater treatment design alternatives were analyzed as a part of this DEIS. The first alternative is the construction of an on—site sewage treatment plant(STP). Constructing an STP would result in a more densely clustered development, as there would be significant setbacks required between the STP and the proposed units, as well as the neighboring private wells. Further clustering of the units would diminish the quality of the development for residents. Moreover, adding an STP facility to the project would decrease the quantity of open space provided on site,thereby preventing the project from meeting the 50-percent open space requirement. Additionally,the costs of constructing and maintaining an STP(estimated at several million dollars for construction alone),would be prohibitive,in relation to the size of the project, and render the project financially infeasible. It has been suggested that there is public concern related to disposal of pharmaceuticals in the project sanitary system, and that an STP would address this issue. However,STP technolog,y does not treat or remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater,and would not,therefore,address pharmaceutical disposal issues. The second alternative to the proposed sanitary treatment systems is the use of larger clustered sanitary systems,which would service more than two to four units. These systems would be located in large open areas, at distances greater than 500 feet from some of the units. Such larger clusters are depicted on Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement. Constructing such larger clustered systems is not,however,feasible from an engineering standpoint. First,SCDHS standards require the service lines for the systems to be sloped a minimum of two percent. To achieve this slope over 500 feet would require the service lines to be ten feet(or more)below the surface,which, at best,would put the leaching pools within the minimum required separation from groundwater, and, at worst,would place the leaching pools in the groundwater. Regardless of whether the leaching pools met the groundwater separation requirements, several hundred pools would be required to provide the design storage necessary to service 124 units. Finally,the larger systems shown in E�ibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement are shown within large open areas that have always been intended for use as Drainage Reserve Areas to handle stormwater runoff. The 223 5.2 Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� larger clustered systems would thus significantly reduce the area available to manage stormwater during heavy rain events. The proposed action provides the minimum amount of leaching pools by maximizing effluent storage depth and providing,in most cases,more than the minimum required separation from groundwater,thereby enhancing filtration of the effluent. As previously discussed, concerns by the Town related to the impacts of nitrogen, potentially present in sanitary effluent, caused the applicant to investigate additional methods of sanitary treatment,which led to a third alternative. The third alternative is to install one of the sewage treatment technologies outlined in the SCDHS General Guidance Memorandum#32 Conformin�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. As shown in the sanitary flow calculations,in accordance with published SCDHS flow rates, this project is anticipated to exceed the 15,000-gpd maximum requirement. Based on discussions with the SCDHS,the County is currently in the process of having these systems approved,by the NYSDEC,for 30,000 gpd flow rates. However, such approval is not likely unti12016. Even if these technologies do receive approval for the increased flow rate,the project would still be required to adhere to specific setback requirements that,like a regular STP,would hinder the development in its current configuration, as well as reduce open space below the minimum requirement required by the Stipulation of Settlement. The fourth alternative that was explored is related to a Pilot Program for single- family residences in the Suffolk County Reclaim Our Water Initiative pilot study currently being performed by the SCDHS for single-family treatment units that are anticipated to take the place of a standard septic tank,while treating effluent similarly to a STP. As noted,this is not currently an approved option by the SCDHS, although, after discussion with the SCDHS wastewater department,it is anticipated that certain units will be approved for use in early 2016. As such,the applicant considers these units a tentative alternative that can be further investigated,once the SCDHS completes its pilot study. It is noted that the applicant is willing to consider installation of these units,provided they fit into the current project scope, and the cost of installing and maintaining the units is not prohibitive. 224 5.2 Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� � References Andrle,RF.and J.R Carrol,eds. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press. Bull,J. &J.Ferrand Jr. 1994. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Eastern Birds, Eastern Region. Alfred A.Knopf. Cleary Consulting. Town of Southold Hamlet Study. Prepared for Town of Southold Town Board.July 2005. Connor,P.F. 1971. The Mammals of Long Island,New York. New York State Mus.& Sci.Service Bull. No.416. Cramer Consulting Group,Inc. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study.Prepared for Town of Southold Town Board.Apri11999. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey. Groundwater for New York: Water Levels.Accessed October 1,2014.Available from http://nwis.waterdata.us s.�; �ov/nv/nwis/�;wlevels?. Dunn Engineering Associates,P.C.,et.al.North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation. Apri12002. Edinger,G.J.,D.J. Evans,S.Gebauer,T.G.Howard,D.M.Hunt, and A.M.Olivero (eds.). 2002. Ecolo�ical Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecolo�ical Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Federal Emergency Management Agency.Flood Map Service Center.Accessed September 2014.Available from https://msc.fema.�;ov/portal. 225 References �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Ferrandino&Associates,et.al. Scenic Southold Corridor Mana�ement Plan. Prepared for the Town of Southold.Apri12001. Gibbs,J.P.,A.R Breisch,P.K.Ducey,G.Johnson,J.L.Behler and RC.Bothner. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press. Highway Capacity Manua12000,Transportation Research Board,Washington,D.C., 2000. Highway Capacity Manua12010,Transportation Research Board,Washington,D.C., 2010. Koppelman,Lee and the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Lonx Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Mana�ement Plan.Hauppauge,N.Y.:Nassau- Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978. Lanyon,W.E.,R.G.Van Gelder and R.G.Zweifel. 1970. The Vertebrate Fauna of the Kalbfleisch Field Research Station(Dix Hills,New York)of the American Museum of Natural History. Kalbfleisch Field Research Station. Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Lon�Tsland Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan. Hauppauge,N.Y.:Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1992. Long Island Regional Planning Board.Lon�Tsland Se�ment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Proxram. Hauppauge,N.Y.:Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982. McGowan,KJ. and K.Corwin. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breedin�Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press. McKenney,M. and RT.Peterson. 1998. A Field Guide to Wildflowers:Northeastern and North-central North America(Peterson Field Guides). Houghton Mifflin Company. Monti,Jack,Jr.,Como,Michael, and Busciolano,Ronald. Water-table and Potentiometric-surface altitudes in the Upper Glacial,Ma�othy, and Lloyd aquifers beneath Lon�Tsland,New York,April-May 2010. U�.S.Geological Survey,2013. Available from http://nv•water.us s.�; �ov/projects/�;isunit/Lon�; Island SIM3066.htm1. Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC. Town of Southold Water Supply Mana�ement�Watershed Protection Stratexy. Prepared for the Town of Southold.June 2000. Newcomb, L. 1989. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little,Brown and Company. 226 References �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1975. New York State Freshwater Wetland Map No.20 of 39,Suffolk County. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. 2014. New York State Prohibited and Re�ulated Tnvasive Plants. New York City Mayor s Office of Environmental Coordination. City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual. City of New York,March 2014.Available from http://www.n,��;ov/html/oec/html/cec�r/technical manual 2014.shtml. New York Codes,Rules and Regulations.25-AA,�304-A.Accessed October 2014. Available from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nvcode/AGM/25-AA/304-a. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.2014 New York A�ricultural Land Classification—Suffolk County.January 2014.Accessed October 2014. Available from http://www.a�;riculture.nv.gov/AP/a�;services/soils/2014/suff 14.p df. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Lon�Tsland Aquifers. Accessed September 2014.Available from http://www.dec.nv.gov/lands/36183.htm1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Reducinx the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development. Albany,N.Y.:NYSDEC, 1992. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Responsiveness Summary for Public Comments Received on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Dischar�es from Construction Activity Permit No. GP-0-15-002 Tssued Pursuant to Article 17, Titles 7,8 and Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law.2010.Available from http://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/water pdf/�,,pconsrespon.pdf. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(prepared by Center for Watershed Protection).New York State Stormwater Mana�ement Desi�n Manual.August 2010.Available from http://www.dec.nv.gov/chemical/29072.htm1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(prepared by New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee).New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.August 2005.Available from http://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/water pdf/esccover.pdf. 227 References �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services.NYS ORPTS Municipal Profile. Accessed November 2014.Available from http://orpts.tax.nv.gov/cfa�ps/MuniPro/rar/rarhistorv.cfm?swis=473800. New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Data Reports. Peconic Estuary Program. Comprehensive Conservation and Mana�ement Plan. Sponsored by the USEPA.SCDHS.November 2001.Available from http://peconicestuary.org/ccmp/index.php. Peter J.Smith&Company,Inc.Lon�Tsland North Shore Herita�e Area Mana�ement Plan. Prepared for the Long Island North Shore Heritage Area Planning Commission.November 2005. Peterson,RT. 1998. Eastern Birds. Mariner Books. Petrides,G.A. 1986. Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs:Northeastern and North-Central United States and Southeastern and South-Central Canada(Peterson Field Guides). Houghton Mifflin Company. Southold Town Blue Ribbon Commission.Final Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold.Town of Southold Town Board,July 2002. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force.Final Report and Recommendations. Town of Southold,New York.June 1994. Southold Town Transportation Commission. Seaview Trails. Town of Southold,New York. 1994. Suffolk County Code.Chapter 760. Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Revised November 2011.Available from http://www.suffolkcountvnv.gov/Portals/0/Do cuments%20 and%20Forms/He alth%20Services/s anitarv%20co de/Suffolk%20 Countv%20 Sanitarv%20 Co de.� df. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewa�e Disposal Systems for Other Than Sin�le Family Residences, Table 1,Project Density Loading Rates&Design Sewage Flow Rates.Revised December 1,2009. Suffolk County Department of Health Services,Department of Environmental Quality. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Mana�ement Plan.2011 and re-issued January 2014.Available from http://www.suffolkcountvnv.gov/Dep artments/HealthServices/Do cuments an dForms.aspx#dlto�. 228 References �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� Suffolk County Growth Factors (analyzed by NYSDOT Apri12001 using LITP 2000 Model). Suffolk County Water Authority.Suffolk County Water Authority 2014 Drinkin�Water Quality Report. 2014.Accessed August 2014.Available from http://65.36.213.246/dwc�r2014/water-c�ualitv-report-2014-scwa v2.htm1. Town of Southold. Economic Development Plan. 1997. Town of Southold. Southold 2020—The New Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold DRAFT. 2011-2014.Available from http://www.southoldtownnv.gov/index.aspx?N ID=126. Town of Southold. Town of Southold Housinx Needs Assessment.June 2005. Town of Southold,et.al.Local Waterfront Revitalization Pro�ram. November 2004. Town of Southold Code.Available from http://ecode360.com/S00452. Town of Southold Land Preservation Department.Farmland and Open Space Protection.Accessed September 2014.Available from http://www.southoldtownnv.gov/index.aspx?N ID=116. Town of Southold Town Board. Community Preservation Project Plan. Prepared by Town of Southold and Peconic Land Trust.July 1998. Town of Southold Town Board. Community Preservation Project Plan—January 2006 Update. Prepared by Town of Southold.January 2006. Town of Southold Town Board. Draft Generic Environmental Tmpact Statement for the Southold ComprehensiveTmplementation Strate�y.Prepared by Town of Southold,et al.May 2003. Town of Southold Town Board. Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strate�y. Prepared by Peconic Land Trust and Town of Southold.January 2000. Trip Generation Manual,9t"ed.,Institute of Transportation Engineers,Washington, D.C.,2012. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydrolo�ical Soil Groups for Suffolk County,New York.Accessed August 2014. Available from http://efot .�;sc.e�;ov.usda.�;ov/references/public/NY/hs�; suffolk.pdf. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. National En�ineerin�Handbook, Part 630:Hydrolo�y. 2009. 229 References �l�j��piF, ��+e r►� �� I� United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geo�raphic(SSURGO)Database for Suffolk County,New York.2013. Available from http://data ag tewav•nres.usda.�. United States Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Suffolk County,New York. Washington,D.C.:United States Department of Agriculture, 1975. United States Department of Energ,y and United States Environmental Protection Agency. Workin�with ENERGY STAR as a Community Developer.Accessed October 2,2014. Available from http://www.ener�vstar.�;ov/index.cfm?c=bldrs lenders raters.nh benefits developers. \\nylidata\projects\29305.00 k�3eritage CutchogueAdoas\VARIOUS\DFsLS\REVISED DEIS 10-15 The Heritage atCutchogue.docx 230 References