HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEIS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE
HAMLET OF CUTCHOGUE,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK
PROJECT LOCATION: 45.99±acres on the north side of the Griffing Street and Schoolhouse
Road intersection,in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold,
Suffolk County,New York
SUFFOLK COUNTY
TAX MAP NUMBERS: Section 1000-102.00-01100-33.003.
APPLICANT: The Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC
1721-D North Ocean Avenue
Medford,New York 11763
Contact: John M.Wagner, Esq.,Partner
Certilman Balin Adler&Hyman,LLP
(631)979-3000
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O.Box 1179
54375 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Contact: Donald Wilcenski,Chairman
(631)765-1938
PREPARER&CONTACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared by:
Town of Southold Planning Department
Southold Town Annex
54375 State Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
Contact: Heather M.Lanza,AICP,Planning Director
(631)765-1938
With technical input from:
Applicant's Civil Engineering,Environmental Consultant
VHB Engineering,Surveying and
Landscape Architecture,P.C.
100 Motor Parkway,Suite 135
Hauppauge,New York 11788
Contact: Kevin Walsh,P.E.,Principal
Ginny Watral,Senior Technical Advisor
(631)787-3400
Applicant's Architect-Site Planner
Charles W.Kuehn,Architect
P.O.Box 641
Northport,New York 11768
Applicant's Legal Counsel
John M.Wagner, Esq.
Certilman Balin Adler&Hyman,LLP
100 Motor Parkway,Suite 156
Hauppauge,NY 11788
DATE OF PREPARATION: August 2016
AVAILABILITY OF
DOCUMENT: This document,together with the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS),is the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS). It has been prepared for the Lead Agency. Copies are
available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead
Agency,54375 Route 25,Southold,New York 11971, and at the
Cutchogue New Suffolk Free Library,located at 27550 Main Road,
Cutchogue,New York 11935.This FEIS is also available
electronically at the following address:
hiLLLWww �uthc)Idtow111� L.
DATE OF FILING:
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)for The Heritage at Cutchogue.
This FEIS incorporates,by reference,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this proposed
action, dated October 2015.The above-referenced DEIS was the subject of a Town of Southold Planning
Board Public Hearing on January 11 and February 22,2016,and written comments on the DEIS were
accepted until March 11,2016.
The Written Correspondence and Public Hearing Transcript are provided in Appendices A and B of this
FEIS,respectively.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................I
1.1 Format of FEIS.........................................................................................4
DEIS Comments and Responses.............................................................................................6
2.1 Comments in General Support of the Proposed Action .......................11
2.2 Comments in General Opposition of the Proposed Action ..................12
2.3 Responses to Substantive Comments...................................................15
2.3.1 Soils............................................................................................15
2.3.2 Water Resources (WR)...............................................................17
2.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife (VW)....................................................30
2.3.4 Transportation, Safety and Access (TSA)...................................35
2.3.5 Land Use and Zoning(LUZ)........................................................50
2.3.6 Communities Facilities and Services/Socioeconomics (CFS).....58
2.3.7 Aesthetics (A).............................................................................62
2.3.8 Process (P)..................................................................................64
2.3.9 General (G).................................................................................71
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Written Correspondence
Appendix B—Public Hearing Transcripts
B-1 —January 11,2016
B-2—February 22,2016
Appendix C—April 15,2016 Correspondence, Board of Town Trustees
Appendix D—Article 19,Adopted by Suffolk County Legislature,Alternative Wastewater Treatment
Appendix E—New Well Location Map
Appendix F—Architectural Floor Plan—Corrected
Appendix G—Traffic Signal Programing Sheets
Appendix H—Revised Plans
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 —Site Location Map.............................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 -Anticipated Sanitary Waste Generation...........................................................................66
Table 2—Level of Service Summary—Unsignalized Intersections-AM Peak Hour......................45
Table 3—Level of Service Summary—Unsignalized Intersection—PM Peak Hour.......................47
Table 4—Level of Service Summary—Unsignalized Intersection-Weekend Peak Hour..............48
Table 5-Consistency with Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Zoning................................................52
Table 6-Applicable Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for the HD Residence
ZoningDistrict...................................................................................................................52
Table of Contents
1100
Introduction
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)prepared in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(5), and in response to comments received
by the lead agency,the Town of Southold Planning Board(hereinafter the"Planning Board"),on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the proposed action, dated October 2015. The
proposed action consists of a request for site plan approval,which,upon implementation,would
culminate in the development of The Heritage at Cutchogue(hereinafter"The Heritage"), a 124-unit, age-
restricted condominium complex,to be situated on 45.99±acres at the intersection of Schoolhouse Road
and Griffing Street,in the hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County(the"subject
property," see Figure 1).
As presented in the DEIS, there is a Stipulation of Settlement between the Town of Southold(hereinafter
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. The Stipulation of Settlement is discussed in detail in
Section 1.1.1 Background and History of the DEIS, and is included in Appendix B of the DEIS. The
Stipulation of Settlement provides for the full scrutiny of the project under SEQRA.
As detailed in the DEIS,the project will include the following:
> 124 residential condominium units,each comprised of either one or two stories.
> 219,076 square feet(sf)of"floor area,livable" as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement
> 23±acres(50 percent) set aside for 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, and as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement.
Other features and amenities include:
> A 6,189-square-foot clubhouse with a maximum height of 35 feet,including an outdoor pool.
> An outdoor tennis court to be situated near the main entrance to the subject property.
1
> A 100-square-foot unmanned 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, and
outdoor recreation area.
2
Figure 1. Site Location Map
...................
rnp
n Coun
� dl
01 X e,
C tchoe
1
I
r %
\ Site d ds .
'S I n
Legendas
\\ ,
/..,...... u Et Hampton"
tl,
� .....,,�
The Heritage at Cutchogue "`��.� ""Riverhead
Parcel Map
South mpton
0 0.25 0.5 �
Mile ;.". r ".
Town of Southold Geographic Information System
August 19,2016
Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency
AREIS and Tax Map Copyright 2016,
3 Introduction
The DEIS for the proposed action was accepted by the Planning Board, as complete and adequate for
public review,on December 7,2015,and circulated to all the involved agencies and interested parties,
and a public hearing was held on January 11,2016,held open and continued on February 22,2016.The
DEIS comment period was held open until March 11,2016.
In accordance with 6 NYCRR§617.9(b)(8):
A final EIS must consist of..the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it;copies or a
summary of the substantive comments received and their source(whether or not the comments were
received in the context of a hearing);and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments. The draft
EIS may be directly incorporated into the final EIS or may be incorporated by reference. The lead agency is
responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS,regardless of who prepares it.All revisions and
supplements to the draft EIS must be specifically indicated and identified as such in the final EIS.
All written correspondence received during the comment period is included in Appendix A of this FEIS,
and the Public Hearing Transcripts are included in Appendix B.
Since the acceptance of the DEIS,the applicant has had multiple meetings with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services(SCDHS)regarding participation in a program to employ advanced
technology for sanitary waste systems at the subject property,which technology has been shown to
reduce nitrogen loading by 60 to 70 percent, as compared with conventional sanitary disposal systems
and therefore lessen impacts on groundwater and surface water resources. Several other changes to the
plans will also result in improved mitigation to impacts from this project to water resources,vegetation
and wildlife, community character, and transportation including but not limited to new landscape,
lighting,grading and soil management plans, and improvements to the intersection of Griffing Street and
Schoolhouse Road.
1.1 Format of FEIS
Among the comments received on the DEIS,multiple commenters expressed general support or
opposition for the proposed action(see Appendix A and Appendix B).While these comments are
included in the aforementioned appendices,they are not"substantive comments' as contemplated in 6
NYCRR§617.9(b)(8), and,therefore, are not individually addressed in this FEIS.
Each commenter who provided written correspondence in response to the DEIS was assigned a code
beginning with"C." Then,each comment was assigned a unique number(e.g.,C1-1 for comment 1 by
commenter 1). It should be noted that commenters may have submitted multiple correspondence,which
have been assigned individual codes. All written comments are provided in their entirety in Appendix
A. All verbal comments made during the public hearing held on January 11,2016, and continued on
February 22,2016,were assigned a code that begins with"H." Similar to the written comments,each
commenter who spoke at the public hearing was assigned a code(e.g.,H1). Then,each comment from
that individual was assigned a number(e.g.,H1-1 for comment 1 by commenter 1). It should be noted
that commenters who spoke at both public hearings have the same code throughout and, commenters
who only spoke at the February 22,2016 public hearing start at H2O.The hearing transcript,with
4
comment designations,is included in Appendix B of this FEIS. Section 2.0 provides a complete list of
commenters with their assigned code.
This FEIS includes two sections--Section 1.0 is the introduction to the document,which describes the
purpose of the FEIS, as well as what type of information is included in the document. Section 2.0
includes a summary of the general support(Section 2.1)and general opposition comments(Section 2.2)
and includes responses to all substantive comments made at the public hearing and in the written
correspondence received during the public comment period(Section 2.3).The comments and their
responses have been organized by topic in Section 2.3,as appropriate. Substantive comments were
primarily related to the following topics and have been categorized as such:Process(P);Water Resources
(WR);Soils(S);Vegetation and Wildlife(VW);Transportation,Safety, and Access(TSA);Land Use and
Zoning(LUZ);Community Facilities and Services/Socioeconomics(CFS);Aesthetics(A);and General(G).
The written and hearing comments have been paraphrased, since,in many cases, more than one
commenter made the same or similar comment.The respective codes above(i.e.,P-1), are followed by
each summarized comment and the code(s)(e.g.,C1-1)for the comment.
5
2 * 0
DEIS Comments and Responses
All written correspondence is included in Appendix A of this FEIS. The public hearing transcripts are
included as Appendices B-1 (January 11,2016)and B-2(February 22,2016)in Appendix B. The following
sections summarize the comments set forth in the written correspondence and verbalized during the public
hearings, and provide responses to substantive comments.The following is a list of commenters whose
substantive comments are addressed herein. Note that commenters who offered substantive comments in
more than one piece of written correspondence or at more than one of the public hearings,will appear in the
list multiple times.Both substantive and general comments,in either support or opposition of the proposed
action, are included in the list.
Written Correspondence
Commenter Code Comments
Tom Wacker C1 C1-1 through C1-9
Jacqueline Bingham C2 General Opposition
Tom&Nancy Gleason C3 C3-1 through C3-2
Bob Fox C4 C4-1 through C4-2
Suzanne E.Fox C5 General Opposition
Miriam and Michael Lastoria C6 General Support
Marion Wipf C7 General Opposition
Gerry Rosen,PD C8 C8-1 through C8-3
P.W.Grosser Consulting
6
Barbara McAdam C9 C9-1 through C9-12
Paul Silansky C10 C10-1 through C10-3
Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association
Stephen Tettelbach,Ph.D. C11 C11-1 through C11-29
Michael Evers C12 C12-1 through C12-4
Michael Nickich C13 General Support
John Touhey C14 C14-1
Thomas Palmer C15 C15-1
Bryan Knipfing C16 General Opposition
Suffolk County Water Authority C17 C17-1 through C17-2
Suffolk County Planning Commission C18 C18-1
Thomas J.McAdam C19 C19-1 through C19-9
Nancy Sawastynowiz C20 C20-1 through C20-7
Barbara McAdam C21 C21-1 through C20-4
Benja Schwartz C22 C22-1 through C22-4
Larry Mannino C23 C23-1 through C23-4
Stephen Tettelbach,Ph.D. C24 C24-1 through C24-3
Susan Brigham C25 C25-1 through C25-3
Joe Polashock/The Board of the New Suffolk C26 C26-1 through C26-3
Civic Association
Lauren K.Grant C27 C27-1 through C27-6
Alex and Sheila Bondarchuk C28 General Opposition
Anna Engelhardt C29 General Opposition
7
Robert and Mary Buoneto C30 C30-1 through C30-2
Frederic Endemann C31 General Opposition
Linda Auriemma C32 C32-1 through C32-6
Barbara Diachun C33 C33-1 through C33-2
Stephen Geraci C34 C34-1 through C34-4
Benja Schwartz C35 C35-1 through C35-12
Rose Ann Burns C36 General Opposition
Corinne Doubleday C37 General Opposition
Paul Auriemma C38 C38-1 through C38-3
Linda Auriemma C39 C39-1 through C39-2
Russ McCall C40 General Opposition
Robert S.DeLuca,President C41 C41-1 through C41-8
Group for the East End
William Lee C42 C42-1 through C42-5
Peter Lake C43 C43-1
Barbara Schnitzler C44 C44-1 through C44-3
Anne Murray C45 C45-1 through C45-6
Cynthia Lake C46 C46-1 through C46-9
William Cichanewies C47 C47-1 through C47-2
Town of Southold Planning Department C48 C48-1 through C48-42
Public Hearing—January 11,2016
Benja Schwartz H1 H1-1 through H1-23
8
Bill Toedter H2 H2-1 through H2-17
Steve Tettlebach H3 H3-1 through H3-14
Kevin McAllister H4 H4-1 through H4-7
Glynis Berry H5 H5-1 through H5-10
Mitchel Shahaty H6 H6-1
Robert Buoneto H7 H7-1
Pablo Rodriguez H8 H8-1 through H8-2
P.W.Grosser Consulting
Alex Wipf H9 H9-1 through H9-4
Steven DeMartino H10 H10-1 through H10-2
Karen Hoeg H11 H11-1 through H11-2
Bob DeLuca H12 H12-1 through H12-5
Marion Wipf H13 H13-1 through H13-5
Patricia Cato H14 H14-1 through H14-3
Dave Bergen H15 H15-1 through H15-4
Barbara McAdam H16 H16-1 through H16-15
John Cato H17 H17-1 through H17-2
Lisa Tettlebach H18 H18-1 through H18-10
Richard Jordan H19 H19-1 through H19-4
Fleets Neck Property Owners Association
Joe Polashock H2O H2O-1 through H2O-3
Al Krupski,Suffolk County Legislator H21 H21-1 through H21-4
Paul Romanelli H22 H22-Ithrough H22-4
9
Nancy Bertorelto H23 H23-1
Kelly Evers H24 H24-1 through H24-3
Lauren Grant H25 H25-1 through H25-3
Nancy Sawastynowicz H26 H26-1 through H26-7
Tom Wacker H27 H27-1 through H27-3
Edana Cichanowicz H28 H28-1 through H28-3
Ed Faszczewski H29 H29-1 through H29-5
Tom Foster H30 H30-1
Richard Jordan H31 H31-1 through H31-3
Linda Goldsmith H32 H32-1 through H32-5
10
2.1 Comments in General Support of the Proposed
Action
C6-Miriam and Michael Lastoria
> We would love to move to a home requiring much less work on our parts.
> We love Southold town and are involved in many of its activities—civic,philanthropic and religious.
We don't want to leave our town!
> The Heritage would be the perfect solution for us,and many other couples in the same situation.If
the Suffolk County Planning Commission is satisfied with the plans and you, at some point,are
satisfied with the plans that will make it possible for us to remain in our wonderful town,
independently and comfortably.
C-13-Michael Nickich
> My wife and I and many of our friends have hoped this project would come to completion as we
desire to live in such a community.
> Over the years there have been many compromises concerning this plan from both the town and the
developer. It would appear that significant progress has been accomplished recently.
> Please remember this project is only requesting what is and was legally allowed when this property
was purchased by the developer.
> As my wife and I have visited other areas,we are disappointed to see such wonderful communities
specifically developed for people in our position,but virtually none here in Southold town.
> There are many 55 and older people who love on the North Fork and would like to downsize to a
simpler lifestyle and remain in the place we love.
As with the written comments,each person commenting during the public hearing held on January 11,2016
and continued on February 22,2016,has been assigned a number in the order in which each comment was
received and is preceded with the letter"H."
H-6-Michael Shahaty
> I'm here to voice my support of this project.
> I think that there are aspects of this project that are very positive for the community.With that comes
the benefit of individuals who will come here after having, sold their home, which requires a great
deal of maintenance,into a community where they can live free of that burden.
> These people will be contributing to our community.This is not just for outsiders.There are plenty of
people like myself who fall into this age bracket who would like to stay here and retire,but I certainly
don't want to maintain a home.
> The proximity of the Village allows these people to contribute to the Village,or the Hamlet of
Cutchogue,the merchants, all the stores and the vineyards. These are people who want to be here
and contribute.
> The over-55 restriction will contribute a considerable amount of tax dollars to the community.
11
> This will contribute several hundred jobs initially, and there will be permanent positions that will be
made as well,that is also a contribution to the community.The developer has also pledged to put
$2,000,000 as a donation to the Town of Southold.
> If we have antiquated systems that exist,that place our environment in jeopardy,this project is not
guilty of that.
H22—Paul Romanelli
> It appears the developer is taking a leadership position in reducing nitrogen and coming up with
other solutions, so I'm in favor of moving forward with this if all the other issues can be resolved.
> Since this is a pilot program,perhaps the Town and Planning Board look at this for the future on all,
not just new but existing, cesspools and sewage systems as they age.
H23—Nancy Bertorelto
> I live in Cutchogue and have for 50 years, and I would love to be able to retire here and for my taxes
to go to the school.
> I think this is a very nice,extremely well though-out subdivision that I would certainly hope you give
consideration to.
H30—Tom Foster
> I'm an adjacent property owner to this project, and I don't mind having new neighbors.
> I don't have any opposition to the project.
> I think it's great what they are doing with the new septic systems and the open space.
2.2 Comments in General Opposition of the
Proposed Action
C2—TacQueline Bingham
> I am very concerned with how the development will impact the health of our surrounding waters,
both in the ground and in the bay.
> I feel very strongly that the developer install advanced septic systems or sewer treatment.
> I am concerned about the number of people who will use our beaches,where these new residents will
park and the overall traffic patterns which will be affected.
C7—Marion Wipf
> Too many units—causing density problems
> Too many cars—causing traffic problems
> Tremendous possibility of polluting our groundwater
C28—Alex and Sheila Bondarchuk
> We strongly oppose this project and the total negative impact it will have on Cutchogue village.
> The traffic congestion alone for such a long period of time while the building is in progress will be
substantial.
12
> We urge you to consider all the ways this could backfire on our way of life out here on the east end of
Long Island.
C29-Anna M. Engelhardt
> The proposed"Heritage at Cutchogue'would put demands on the water, sewage and traffic,
diminishing the areas' quality of life.
13
C31 —Frederic Endemann
> I have been living in the Cutchogue—New Suffolk area for 66 years.The area has reached a crisis
point in terms of traffic and tourism,especially in the summer and fall.Our rural way of life and our
groundwater and our creeks are already seriously threatened.
> The size and scope of the Heritage project will affect the two hamlets only in negative ways.
> The large scale Heritage plan seems targeted at second-home owners who would create a traffic
nightmare on the roads and serious pollution generated by the wastewater plan now under
consideration.
C36—Rose Ann Burns
> I reside in New Suffolk and am opposed to the Heritage project.
> I believe the standards of living that residents in Cutchogue,New Suffolk and all of Southold
currently enjoy will be severely compromised by this development.
> The density of housing and increased population,the related traffic problems,plus the demands on
the wastewater system, and the environmental hazards to our creeks and Peconic Bay,will severely
compromise our quality of life.
> It will change not only the character of the North Fork but the lifestyle of its residents.
C37—Corinne Doubleday
> The scale of the project seems very large(half the size of New Suffolk).
> I envision horrible traffic at the Cutchogue traffic light and too much congestion at our New Suffolk
beach and boat ramp.
> I am also concerned about sewage treatment,water use, and the water table.
C40—Russ McCall
> Allowing a huge development like the Heritage to move forward makes all the quiet, small attempts
at conservation in our town seem fruitless.
> Please deny this huge intrusion on the basis of water quality.
C44—Barbara Schnitzler
> Traffic flow,landscape,lighting,irrigation,paving materials, and signage are within your purview.
Please consider them carefully.
H22—Paul Romanelli
> I always had concerns about density,traffic and runoff.
H24—Kelly Evers
> I agree with concerns regarding the groundwater,the waterways,the drinking water,the natural
resources and protecting them in our area.
14
2.3 Responses to Substantive Comments
2.3.1 Soils
Impacts to soils associated with prior agricultural use, as well as how the soils will be handled upon
development of the subject property, are addressed in this section.
Comment S-1:There is a plan to remove the top one foot of Temik contaminated soils from all 46 acres and
bury it on site.The pesticide Temik contains arsenic,which left undisturbed poses no threat to humans or
animals.The procedure is supposed to be safe,but what if it becomes airborne and creates a health issue.
(C34-4)
Response S-1: Applications of arsenic on farmland are captured in the organic-rich topsoil. Arsenic is a
metal, and does not degrade over time. The laboratory data provided in the DEIS indicate that arsenic
concentrations on the project site vary, depending upon depth and location in the upper six inches of soil,
between 3.31 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg) and 17.5 mg/kg. The NYSDEC's Unrestricted Use Soil
Cleanup Objective(UUSCO)is the NYSDEC's most conservative soil standard and requires an arsenic
concentration no greater than 13.0 mg/kg. Furthermore,the NYSDEC's less-conservative permissible
concentration of arsenic is 16.0 mg/kg.
The soil management plan has changed in that the topsoil at the site will not be stripped and buried. Instead
the topsoil in the developable areas will be stripped and stockpiled in four areas,one for each phase of the
project. A natural vegetated buffer will be left around the perimeter of the site. Stockpiles generated at the site
will be covered with plastic to prevent dust. Topsoil at the site will remain on-site post development and will
be re-used. Based upon the previous data,it is likely that the mixing of the topsoil during the generation of
the stockpiles will reduce the concentrations of arsenic to below 13.0 mg/kg. Prior to being re-used,new tests
will be conducted on the stockpiles,which will be re-sampled and analyzed for arsenic. Stockpiles with
arsenic concentrations below 13.0 mg/kg(the most conservative NYSDEC standard;UUSCO)will then be re-
used on-site. If stockpiles are identified with arsenic concentrations above 13.0 mg/kg,then sand from on-site
construction activities(e.g.,installation of foundations,utility trenching,etc.), and/or imported organic-rich
topsoil will be mixed into the stockpiles to reduce the concentrations of arsenic and the topsoil will be re-
tested. Only topsoil containing concentrations less than 13.0 mg/kg, after mixing,will be permitted to be re-
used.
In addition, a more detailed soil management plan will be developed prior to any soil disturbance for review
and approval by the Planning Board, as will a Construction Health and Safety Plan that includes a
Community Air Monitoring Plan that would identify the key practices to be followed to ensure no impacts to
construction workers or residents of adjacent neighborhoods from the documented arsenic contamination on
the site. The revised soil management plan will include details about and best management practices for
15
minimizing the size of exposed areas and the length of time areas are exposed, as well as how stockpiles are
managed over time.It will also include details on the safe handling and disposition of soils that might contain
arsenic during the transplanting of trees on site. These safety measures will be incorporated into the Soil
Management Plan prior to any transplanting of trees so that the addition of trees to the buffers will not create
an adverse impact from arsenic.One example of a measure to be added to the Soil Management Plan to
mitigate any potential exposure to arsenic from transplanting activities is the use of canvas to collect soil that
may fall from the tree spade to keep it from being inadvertently distributed.
Comment S-2:The FEIS should include an assessment of the comments and findings from the NYSDEC and
SCDHS regarding their review of the proposed Soil Management Plan. (C41-9)
Response S-2:Neither the DEC,nor the SCDHS perform reviews of this type for local municipalities. It is left
to the Town/Lead Agency to make a determination as to the adequacy of the Soil Management Plan. As
indicated above in Response S-1,there is a plan in place to properly manage the arsenic concentrations in on-
site soils.
Comment S-3:Require removal of soil from the building site.Do not allow the developer to pile contaminated
soil in a concentrated area on the property. (C46-7)
Response S-3:As noted in Responses S-1 and S-2, applications of arsenic on farmland are captured in the
organic-rich topsoil, and arsenic is a metal that does not degrade over time. In addition,the NYSDEC's most
conservative soil standard(UUSCO)for arsenic is 13.0 mg/kg. The developer has a plan in place to properly
manage the arsenic concentrations in on-site soils located in the developable portions of the site and re-use
same on-site.
Comment S-4: The assessment and analysis of on-site soils that caused the development of the Soil
Management Plan are based on nine-year old data and insufficient number of samples per acre.The
comparison of soil sampling results to NYSDEC Part 375 should be completed after new data are provided
from new soil samples taken according to a sampling protocol approved by the Lead Agency.
Response S-4: The sampling and analysis conducted in 2007 were done in accordance with the SCDHS
guidance at that time. The subject property has not been actively farmed since prior to 1994. The metals
mercury and arsenic,which are naturally occurring elements and do not degrade,were identified in the 2007
soil sampling study in the highest concentrations at the upper portion of the soil column in the organic-rich
soils. The 2007 sample results are acceptable to use because arsenic and mercury tend to bind with the
organics in the soils and do not readily migrate.Thus,there would not be a significant change in arsenic or
mercury concentrations since 2007. As noted in Response S-1 above,new samples will be taken of the
stockpiled topsoil and no topsoil will be re-used unless it meets the most conservative levels identified in the
NYSDEC's Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objective.
Comment S-5: The remediation plan includes grading the top 12 inches of soil that contains arsenic and
mercury and placing the soil in a capped berm. Additional information should be provided to assess whether
irrigating the mounds will create a scenario where infiltrating irrigation water can mobilize existing
contaminants. (C48-12)
16
Response S-5:The two heavy metals(arsenic and mercury)identified in the soils are currently associated with
the upper(surficial) soil lithology. The presence of these metals is likely associated with the historic
agricultural usage. The metals introduced to farmed properties bind to the organics in the upper soils and
do not readily migrate.Nelson&Pope's laboratory data of multi-depth soil samples,included in the DEIS,
supports this premise, as the uppermost organic-rich lithology that is continually exposed to the elements
contained the highest concentrations of metals,indicating the metals are not moving into the groundwater. It
is further noted that 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.
Comment S-6:There is concern about the use of contaminated soils to construct berms because of, 1)potential
exposure to adjacent property owners, and 2)lack of a Community Air Monitoring Plan(CAMP)during site
construction. (C48-29)
Response S-6:As previously discussed,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is no longer proposing to create
berms, as the perimeter of the property will not be cleared and stripped, and soil mixing will take place
within the developable areas of the subject property(see the Soil Management Plan in Appendix H). The
SMP indicates that standard dust-suppression techniques associated with typical land clearing and
construction activities(e.g.,water truck)will be implemented. A Community Air Monitoring Plan will be
developed for Planning Board review and approval prior to any soil disturbance. See Response S-1 for more
details.
Comment S-7:The proposed project would have significant adverse impact upon the use of agricultural soils.
Irrespective of the current use,the proposal would result in the net loss of prime agricultural soils and soils of
statewide importance within the Town of Southold. (C48-32)
Response S-7:
As indicated in Section 2.1 of the DEIS, approximately 92 percent of the soils on site are classified as
productive agricultural soil. The site is not currently located within an Agricultural Conservation district,is
zoned for residential development, and has been so zoned since prior to the cessation of the former
agricultural use of the site.Development of the subject property for residential use,in accordance with its
zoning classification,makes agricultural use of the property infeasible.Therefore the loss of this agricultural
soil to active agriculture is an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated.
2.3.2 Water Resources (WR)
Water resources comments involve groundwater quantity,groundwater quality, surface waters, and sanitary
waste issues.
17
Comment WR-1:The addition of 37 cesspools is not going to help.Sewage is very closely related to the issue
of fresh water supply and these issues should be combined and considered as water supply and return.They
seem to think they have an unlimited supply of clean water. (H1-2,H28-1)
Response WR-1:To mitigate potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity, several steps are
proposed in this FEIS and revised plans.
1. Wastewater Treatment
The project will be using innovative/alternative wastewater treatments systems that have been approved
under Suffolk County's Innovative and Alternative On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems(I/A OWTS)
Program(aka Article 19).This program provides for new residential septic systems that will treat wastewater
so that nitrogen in the effluent is 19 mg/L or less.These systems reduce total nitrogen in the effluent by 60—
70%as compared to conventional standard septic systems,and will help mitigate impacts to water resources
from nitrogen pollution. The systems will be monitored for performance and maintenance by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services.There are six systems currently permitted, and another eight being
tested in the next year.One or more of these systems will be used instead of the standard septic systems
originally proposed for this project.
2.Reduction in irrigation
Based,in part,on comments received, the site plan has been revised(see Appendix H)such that the entire
property is no longer proposed to be cleared, and natural,vegetated buffers will be maintained around the
perimeter of the property. These buffer areas, as well as some of the interior portions of the site proposed as
drainage reserve areas,will not be irrigated.The Overall Planting Plan(included in Appendix H of this FEIS)
has also been revised to include a reduced total irrigation zone of 319,103 sf, down from the initial proposed
total irrigation zone of 442,573 sf. A 281,533 sf turf area will require a maximum of 0.08 GPD per sf,the
equivalent of 0.9-inch depth of water per week during peak summer season. A 37,570-sf shrub bed area will
require a maximum of 0.06 GPD per sf,the equivalent of 0.7-inch depth of water per week during peak
summer season. Reduced irrigation values of 0.08 and 0.06 GPD per sf for turf areas and shrub areas,
respectively, are the result of the following:
(a) specifying improved turf species with deeper root systems and greater drought tolerance,thus
requiring less irrigation than conventional turf species;
(b) specifying native and adaptive plantings with moderate to high drought tolerance,which also
require less irrigation;
(c) incorporation of organic matter soil amendment(i.e. composted leaf mold), at a ratio of one part
organic matter to two parts native topsoil,to increase soil water-holding capacity;
(d) specifying 3-inches depth of coarse mulch on all planted material;and
(e) utilizing soil moisture sensors,tied into the irrigation system,to water, as needed,only during times
of low soil moisture.
The reduced total anticipated water demand for irrigation is 25,000±GPD during the peak summer season,
which is approximately early May through October. The amount of water demand in the first season or two
may be higher to account for the temporary irrigation of evergreens for screening in the buffers.These will be
native tree species that will require only enough irrigation to establish them, and temporary irrigation will be
used for this purpose.
18
3.Separate well for irrigation
A separate well will be used for irrigation to reduce the use of water from the Suffolk County Water
Authority's system.
Comment WR-2:We are pumping out far too much water from our aquifers than is being replaced.Levels of
clean water are dropping while areas of polluted groundwater and saltwater intrusion are growing. (1-12-3)
Response WR-2:In response to this concern,the proposed landscape areas have been modified such that
approximately 6.52±-acres of existing trees and vegetation will remain around the perimeter of the property
and will not be irrigated,and changes in the Overall Planting Plan(see Appendix H)will reduce required
long-term irrigation by approximately 43 percent(i.e.,from 43,500 gpd to 25,000 gpd).Also see Response WR-
1 for more details.
Comment WR-3:The proposed project estimates daily water use of 22,500 gallons per day(gpd)and almost
twice that(i.e.,43,500 gpd)for irrigation.We must demand more sustainable water practices.Allow irrigation
for the first couple of years to establish plantings and then none.Or only allow irrigation if some kind of
reuse of water were implemented. (1-12-4,1-13-6,1-15-8,H12-3,C32-4,H1-9,1-14-5,C38-2,C45-3,C46-5,C48-11)
Response WR-3:In response to this concern,the proposed landscape areas have been modified such that
approximately 6.52±-acres of existing trees and vegetation will remain around the perimeter of the property
and will not be irrigated (some temporary irrigation would be used in this area to establish additional
planting of native evergreens for screening), and changes in the Overall Planting Plan(see Appendix H)will
reduce required long-term irrigation by approximately 43 percent(i.e.,from 43,500 gpd to 25,000 gpd).Also
see Response WR-1 for more details.
Comment WR-4:At over 60,000 gallons of water added to the ground each day,how water moves,or
hydrology,will be affected. (1-12-5)
Response WR-4:The amount of water for long-term irrigation purposes has been reduced by approximately
43 percent(see Response WR-3), and overall water usage has been reduced by approximately 28 percent.
Comment WR-5:The project calls for burying arsenic-and mercury-tainted soils,but with the amount of
water introduced to the property,no one knows if these contaminants will be kept on the property or will be
spread to nearby wells.There are also Temik and other pollutants in the ground affecting some neighbors'
wells. (1-12-6,H29-2).
Response WR-5: As indicated in Section 2.1 of the DEIS,the concentrations of arsenic,in several samples,
exceed the corresponding New York State Department of Environmental Conservations(NYSDEC's)
regulations found in DER-10/Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation by a very small
amount.The levels of mercury in the soil on this site do not exceed the NYSDEC's most conservative soil
standard Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives(UUSCOs), and,therefore,further sampling, analysis
and/or soil management procedures associated with mercury concentrations in on-site soils are not
19
warranted.It is further noted that 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.
As shown in the revised Soil Management Plan (SMP)(see Appendix H), and as discussed in Response S-1,
topsoil is proposed to be stockpiled,tested for contaminants, and mixed on-site to reduce levels of
contaminants in accordance with the NYSDEC guidance.As such,there will be no burial of such soils.
Comment WR-6:We have clean groundwater now.There's a tremendous possibility of polluting our
groundwater.Will homes with good water today find themselves with undrinkable water in the future, and
how long will those changes take?If a homeowner with clean water for 30 years then finds contamination
down the road,who will be held responsible and pay for the cost of testing and remediation?Who will make
up for the drop in that property's value?(1-12-7,H13-4,H14-2,H16-4,H18-8,C27-1,C27-3)
Response WR-6:It must be recognized that potential impacts to groundwater currently at the site and on
Long Island,in general,exist even without development of the subject property.The SCDHS, as well as other
agencies,have begun to look at the impact of current development practices and existing sanitary sewage
disposal systems and their impact on groundwater resources.In beginning to address such impacts,the
Suffolk County Legislature has approved legislation to allow the SCDHS to permit advanced wastewater
treatment systems to assist in reducing nitrogen loading on groundwater resources. As indicated in Response
WR-1,the applicant has agreed to include advanced technology sanitary sewage disposal systems as part of
the development.Additional comments in this FEIS(see WR-21 and 26) address impacts to private wells;
these can be addressed by connecting to public water supply systems. The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue
meets sanitary sewage disposal requirements and also separation requirements of such systems from private
wells that are mandated by SCDHS.
Comment WR-7:The project calls for the use of traditional septic tanks,which do not reduce or remove
nitrogen in the groundwater,unlike a sewage treatment plant,which was ruled out by the applicant due to
open space constraints and cost. (1-12-8,H3-5,H4-1,C1-1,C24-2,C30-2,C33-2)
Response WR-7:As discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS, as well as stated by the applicant's attorney at the
February 22,2016 public hearing and noted in Response WR-1 herein,the applicant will install advanced
technology for wastewater treatment which will substantially reduce nitrogen loading in groundwater from
the proposed development.
Comment WR-8:The project here in 2015 is being examined and evaluated based on water tests from 2007.
Please refer to Appendix D,Testing and Soil Management Plan,Pesticides Report dated November 8,2007.
How can the Town make informed decisions based on such old data?(H2-9)
Response WR-8: 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.See
20
Response S-1 for more information about soil management and new testing that will occur before the topsoil
is re-used for any purpose on site.
Comment WR-9:The data from 2007 shows the level of nitrates in the drinking water tested was 2.8
milligrams per liter.The USEPA's acceptable standard for drinking water is 10 milligrams per liter.In order
to maintain healthy marshes to protect from storm surges and support all levels of life, and to prevent the
growth of large algae blooms,we need to have nitrate levels of about 0.5 milligrams per liter. (1-12-10,C48-37)
Response WR-9:The comment is noted. Also see Responses WR-1 and WR-3.It is further noted that
application of fertilizers at the time of planting is generally not recommended as it could stress newly planted
material. If fertilizers are to be applied,it will only be after they have been determined to be necessary by soil
test results. Due to Long Island's naturally sandy soils, the owners of this site will be required to use only
high organic-based nitrogen fertilizer with a low-Nitrogen nutrient ratio and high percentage of Water-
Insoluble Nitrogen(WIN),50 percent minimum.This practice will allow for slow release of nitrogen,driven
only by biological activity,typically in soil temperatures above 55°F, and will prevent nitrogen leaching--a
common problem from conventional synthetic-based nitrogen fertilizers.Covenants and restrictions with
these and other best management practices for maintaining landscaping with the least amount of nitrogen
and other fertilizer inputs will be imposed by the Lead Agency.These include requiring a maximum of 1 lb of
nitrogen per 1000 square feet in any one application with cumulative application of no more than 2 lbs per
1,000 square feet per year.
Comment WR-10: Eighty percent of groundwater flows into the marine systems surrounding Long Island.
The 2007 nitrate levels were 2.8 milligrams per liter, and we know that we're already at levels that are
poisoning our creeks and bays. Eight years later,that number is sure to be higher and using 37 septic rings
will cause further deterioration of both our ground and surface waters.Yet,the DEIS states, "It is anticipated
construction of the proposed project would have a positive impact on groundwater quality."This is a
ridiculous and unsupportable conclusion. (1-12-11,H15-4,C25-1,C41-2)
Response WR-10: The statement that the proposed project would have a positive impact on the groundwater
quality was poorly worded.What was meant to be stated was that the proposed project would mitigate
impacts to groundwater to the greatest extent practicable.To that end, as discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS,
as well as stated by the applicant's attorney at the February 22,2016 public hearing,the applicant has been in
discussion with the SCDHS to employ advanced technology for sanitary waste systems at the subject
property in order to assist in minimizing nitrogen loading to groundwater resources.The alternative sanitary
system to be used is anticipated to remove approximately 60-70 percent more nitrogen from sanitary waste
than conventional septic systems.See also WR-9 above for further mitigation of nitrogen being added to the
groundwater.
Comment WR-11:When talking about surface waters,the applicant states, "the proposed project would have
no impact on such resources."The applicant fails to understand and consider that what they do to the
groundwater affects the surface waters beyond, such as Wickham Creek and West Creek.The excess levels of
nitrogen generated by the project will increase the frequency and toxicity of harmful algal blooms and
21
endanger populations of scallops and other green life.(1-12-12,H3-7,H3-8,H4-3,H13-1,H15-1,C1-2,C24-1,
C26-1,C27-2)
Response WR-11:As discussed in Responses WR-7 and WR-10,the applicant has been in discussion with the
SCDHS(see Appendix D of this FEIS)to participate in a pilot program that will employ advanced technology
for sanitary waste systems at the subject property.
Comment WR-12:High-tech nitrogen-reducing wastewater treatment must be part of this project,if it is to
move forward. (1-12-17,H3-9,H4-2,H19-1,C20-2,C32-2,C38-1,C48-39)
Response WR-12:See Responses WR-1,WR-7 and WR-10.
Comment WR-13:The developer is just trying to get under the wire, as it relates to the Article 6 regulations,
because 22,540 gpd are allowed for the 46 acres, and 22,500 gpd are proposed. The developer also states that
there is conformance with these regulations,which is absolutely false.The Article 6 regulations are deficient.
Because the proposed flow is so close to what's permitted,the Board needs to pay close attention. (1-14-1,H5-
4,H11-1,H12-3)
Response WR-13:As indicated by the SCDHS,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue complies with Article 6
regulations.
Comment WR-14:The DEIS addresses alternative systems and a pilot program the County has initiated,
which is looking at residential-scale discharges,about 300 gpd or higher,but not the intermediate flow.This
is meaningless with respect to the big picture and the overall loading that would result from 124 units,which
the applicant states must be clustered to not impact open spaces and grades on flow rate.This should be
dismissed. (H3-2)
Response WR-14:See Section 5.3 of the DEIS and Response WR-1,WR-7, and WR-11 of this FEIS.
Comment WR-15:An H2M report finalized in June 2013 looked at the larger scale of flow in the commercial
or high-density residential up to 30,000 gpd.The County approved four new systems for 1,000 to 15,000 gpd.
The County acknowledged one system specifically,the Nitrex system,which can achieve denitrification
levels of three to four parts per million,or milligrams per liter, consistently.The developer's position that it
cannot use this system because project flow would be 22,500 gpd is false. It would require Suffolk County
Department of Health approval,Department of Public Works approval, and a sewage agency would have to
be established to ensure the homeowners association maintained proper oversight and management.This
development can seek advanced wastewater treatment at the highest achievable levels,but it has to be
pursued. (H4-4)
Response WR-15:See Section 5.3 of the DEIS and Responses WR-1,WR-7 and WR-10 for discussions
regarding the applicant's intention to work with SCDHS to install advanced sanitary systems,which remove
approximately 60-70 percent more nitrogen from sanitary waste than conventional septic systems.
22
Comment WR-16:They are only allowing 150 gallons for a 15,000-square foot unit.This should be compared
to development of the site if it were developed as separate lots. Each lot would be one-half acre and would
have a minimum of 300 gpd.By having a condominium organization,they are taking the intensity to the max,
whereas a house has a built-in safety measure that is eliminated when calculating wastewater.They have a
density that is four times what development on half-acre lots would be. (1-15-3)
Response WR-16:Under SCDHS regulations, sewage generation for a planned retirement community(PRC)
is calculated at 150 gpd for residential units between 600 sf and 1,600 sf, and 225 gpd for residential units
between 1,600 sf and 2,000 sf.There are no units proposed in the Heritage at Cutchogue that are larger than
1,999 sf.The 15,000 sf unit comment is noted,but incorrect.
Comment WR-17: Every single parcel, and any non-conforming lot size,which this would be,would need to
have the maximum nitrogen mitigation,to benefit the Peconic Estuary. (1-15-5)
Response WR-17:As discussed in Responses LUZ-1 and LUZ-12 in this FEIS,the proposed development does
not contain any non-conforming lots.Moreover,the applicant has committed to installing a sanitary
wastewater system which will reduce nitrogen loading in groundwater approximately 60-70%percent,
compared with the nitrogen loading from conventional sanitary systems approved by SCDHS. Also see
Response WR-1.
Comment WR-18:An alternative to putting the wastewater into pits,which isn't allowed anywhere else in the
country,is Geomat. It could irrigate and it treats water at the same time,because it gets the wastewater up in
the high level of the soil where there are more microorganisms that naturally treat wastewater. A study from
the Mass Test Center found that the shallow distribution also treats for pharmaceuticals and contaminants of
emerging concern.If the residents are limited to over 55,you can guarantee there are a lot of drugs going into
this water.So it would be a much healthier solution to have shallow distribution. (1-15-6)
Response WR-18: Literature regarding the GeoMatrix system has been reviewed.The system appears to be
an enhancement to the leaching component of the typical sanitary system,most likely falling into the category
of"Pressurized Shallow Drainfield" systems. While this system might be useful for this project, and
ultimately available after the SCDHS has tested it,the applicant will be choosing one of the systems that have
already been approved by the SCDHS at the time they are ready to begin development.See Response WR-1
for more detail. Also, prospective homeowners will be given notice on proper methods of disposal for
pharmaceuticals and instructed not to dispose of such materials in the wastewater disposal system.
Comment WR-19:The two huge pits look like sand-mining and creating income to pay for things.If they're
going to make a lake eventually,it should be lined.It's also reducing the filtering to the earth, separating
whatever is discharged to groundwater.I don't see any benefit in making these huge pits on the site.
Response WR-19:The two drainage reserve areas,which will be revegetated with a variety of native species
(see revised Overall Planting Plan in Appendix H), and are located in the middle of the site, are designed to
accommodate stormwater runoff on-site,in accordance with Town and NYSDEC regulations. These areas are
large shallow depressions(with a depth of approximately six feet),which contain diffusion wells(as
discussed in Section 2.2 of the DEIS),in open areas,that provide capacity for storage of stormwater runoff
23
during moderate to heavy rains, such as a 100-year rain event.There is no lining proposed for these drainage
reserve areas, as they are intended to recharge,not retain stormwater.
Comment WR-20:Require an environmentally sustainable development.For instance,the EPA has water
sense fixtures that totally reduce the water usage,which would also increase benefits of the septic system.
(H5-9)
Response WR-20: As discussed in Section 3.2 of the DEIS,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue will employ
various water efficiency measures to reduce potable water demands,including the use of native and
adaptive,low-maintenance plant species,the limiting of irrigation areas to reduce irrigation demand,which
has been further reduced in the revised Overall Planting Plan(see Appendix H),the use of drip irrigation
systems and soil sensors, as specified on the Overall Planting Plan and discussed in Response WR-3, and the
use of low-flow plumbing fixtures within the residential units and the community building.Also,with
respect to sustainability,the proposed clubhouse will include the use of solar panels to provide a renewable
energy source for the community.Other measures such as low-flow toilets will also be employed as per New
York State Building Code.
Comment WR-21:Five years ago my water was tested and the results were 12.4 milligrams per liter,which is
well over the limits allowed.Suffolk told me to hook up to water,which I did.My concern is the nitrate
levels;they are not getting any better,they are only going to get worse.I want my grandson to swim in clean
water at Pequash Beach. (1-17-1,C30-1)
Response WR-21:The comment is noted.As noted in Responses WR-1,the applicant has agreed to the use of
alternative wastewater disposal systems,which reduce nitrogen loading by 60-70 percent as compared to
conventional septic systems.Furthermore, see Response WR-9,which discusses the use of best management
practices with respect to the application of fertilizers for landscaping purposes.
Comment WR-22:The wastewater flow for the'B" condominium units will be 225 gpd,which excludes
basements. The total sanitary flow for the site,based on the various condominium sizes will be 25,200 gpd.
Maximum permissible flow is 22,540 gpd.Flow in excess of this amount will require treatment by either on-
site or off-site sewage treatment plants.The Health Department has published General Guidance
Memorandum Number 23,which states basements can be divided into finished or unfinished space.If
finished,each condominium could then be allocated 300 gpd because total finished area will be greater than
2,000 sf.As such, sewage flow generated from this project exceeds sanitary density. (H8-2)
Response WR-22:See Response G-5.The basements are not proposed to be finished and the windows have
been reduced in size to less than five square feet,so as not to comply with the New York State Building Code
for emergency access. Furthermore,the depth will be lowered from 9 feet to 8 feet in the basements,making
the finishing of these areas less desirable.In addition,there will be clear covenants filed for this project that
the basements will not be finished into livable floor area.Finally, the SCDHS has indicated,in
correspondence dated February 10,2016(see Appendix D of this FEIS),that the proposed development meets
Article 6 requirements with regard to the quantity of sewage permitted to be disposed of on the site.
24
Comment WR-23:The analysis done with respect to sewage treatment puts them within 40 gpd within the
range of the maximum flow capacity,but there is no mention of the clubhouse,which might have a kitchen
facility.When all of that is put together,in all likelihood the density will probably exceed the threshold for
some kind of treatment. (1-112-5)
Response WR-23:The proposed clubhouse would be utilized by residents of the Heritage at Cutchogue.As
such,the same people would be utilizing the clubhouse space as the residential units and there would be no
change in sewage disposal or water usage.
Comment WR-24:The DEIS includes the options for advanced treatment for wastewater.Glynis Berry is an
expert in this area;she's developed these systems.I encourage the applicant to talk to her about the
opportunities to use these systems. (1-115-2)
Response WR-24:The comment is noted, and the applicant has been in communication with SCDHS,the
authority that regulates such systems(see Appendix D of this FEIS for more information).
Comment WR-25:In July 2007 I received a letter from Robert J.Farmer, a Public Health Engineer with the
Suffolk County Health Department.He stated then that the sewage from the Heritage project would move
into Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor.Wickham Creek was finally reopened to shell fishing last year.
Why would we knowingly allow this to be the final destination for sewage?(1-116-2,H2O-2)
Response WR-25:The reference to Mr.Farmer's comment in the July 2007 correspondence,which is available
in the on-line files for this application,via the Town's website,is misleading in that it is taken out of context.
The exact sentence reads, "The sewage generated from this area will move southeasterly,which is the
direction of groundwater flow,towards Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor." This was stated by the
applicant in the DEIS, as well(see Section 2.2 of the DEIS). Technically,the sewage doesn't move at all.What
moves is the groundwater that seeps from the leaching field that contains nutrients like nitrogen.It's the
nitrogen-laden water that will move,very slowly over years,towards the direction of these water bodies.
There is no direct discharge to Wickham Creek or Cutchogue Harbor.Moreover, as previously stated in
Responses WR-1,the applicant has agreed to install an alternative sanitary system that would reduce the
amount of nitrogen loading by 60-70 percent from that which would be provided by standard sanitary
systems approved by SCDHS.
Comment WR-26:The Town should require that an assessment be made of the quantities and levels of toxins,
including nitrates,pesticides,herbicides and pharmaceuticals most likely to enter the groundwater from the
condominium complex via residences and property maintenance.With at least 300 residents living in these
condominiums,pharmaceuticals are clearly going to go into our groundwater, and folks using wells are
going to potentially be affected by that. (H18-9)
Response WR-26:The sewage disposal systems proposed to be installed at the site will be in compliance with
SCDHS standards,nitrogen discharge will be significantly reduced,use of fertilizers,pesticides, and
herbicides will be reduced due to the non-disturbance of large areas of the site perimeter that are naturally
vegetated, and fertilizer applications will be carefully managed(see Responses WR-1,WR-3,WR-7).In
25
addition,prospective homeowners will be given notice on proper methods of disposal for pharmaceuticals
and instructed not to dispose of such materials in the wastewater disposal system(see Response WR-18).
Comment WR-27:The developer stated that he couldn't reduce the number of units because it would be
unfeasible.If the developer is unprepared to commit to an advanced wastewater treatment system,such as
Nitrex that has been proposed at the Southampton development,that you may grant a conditional site plan
that would perhaps reduce the number of units to 72 or, a more advanced septic system could be introduced
on condition that it be approved by Suffolk County. (1-119-2,C35-9,C41-5)
Response WR-27:As noted in Responses WR-1 and WR-7,the applicant has agreed to install an advanced
technology sanitary system that is anticipated to reduce the amount of nitrogen loading by 60-70 percent
from that of a traditional septic system approved by SCDHS.
Comment WR-28:This project in and of itself should not have a significant impact on SCWA supply(minus
the irrigation). (C17-1)
Response WR-28:The comment is noted.With regard to irrigation,the proposed Overall Planting Plan has
been revised(see Appendix H) and the amount of irrigation water to be used has been reduced, as addressed
in Response WR-1.The applicant will also install a well or wells to provide irrigation water to the site,
thereby reducing demand on potable water.
Comment WR-29:Due to the sensitivity of chloride intrusion on the aquifer on the North Fork,the majority of
SCWA wells have a rated pumping capacity of 250 gpm or less.This proposed project's irrigation use would
essentially be the capacity of one well in the Southold Low Zone at SCWA's peak pumping period.The
SCWA urges the Town of Southold to impose conditions requiring the applicant to construct and maintain a
well of their own for irrigation purposes,to accommodate the additional 43,500 gpd of water usage for
irrigation. (C17-2)
Response WR-29:The proposed Overall Planting Plan has been revised(see Appendix H)and the amount of
irrigation required reduced to 25,000 gpd in the peak irrigation season,which has been determined to be May
through October, as discussed in Response WR-3.The applicant will install a well or wells to provide
irrigation water to the site,thereby reducing demand on potable water.
Comment WR-30:Dr.Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University(personal communication,January 2016)
estimates that the proposed"Heritage' development condominium complex would likely raise the loading of
nitrogen to the Peconic Bays from wastewater in Cutchogue from 40 to 50 percent.In addition,Alexandrium
and anoxia would be expected to worsen with increased nitrogen loading. (C24-3)
Response WR-30:The comment is noted;however,it is unknown what information was provided to Dr.
Gobler.It is also noted that the Overall Planting Plan and irrigation usage have been revised as noted in WR-1
such that anticipated water demand for long-term irrigation has been reduced from 43,500 gpd to 25,000 gpd
during the irrigation season,or approximately a 43 percent reduction, as noted in Response WR-3. The
applicant will install a well or wells to provide irrigation water to the site,thereby reducing demand on
potable water.In addition,as described throughout this section of the FEIS, an advanced sanitary system,
26
which is anticipated to reduce nitrogen loading by 60—70 percent, as compared to what would be produced
from traditional septic systems,will be installed by the applicant.
Comment WR-31:We have a great concern about this project,being on the downstream end of it.There is
paving and runoff from the parking areas,et cetera, and just a generally increased flow of water running
downhill from the Sound to the Bay. (H2O-1)
Response WR-31:In order to reduce pavement on the site,the emergency access at Bridle Lane will use grass
pavers and, although the material has not been chosen, the proposed nature trail would utilize pervious
material.The Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H of this FEIS) demonstrates that stormwater runoff would be
contained on-site,via drainage reserve areas and drywells,to accommodate a 100-year rain event. It is also
noted that the subject property is over one-half mile from the nearest surface water body,with roadways,
residential and commercial development, and farmland in between.
Comment WR-32:It's very encouraging to have the applicant and the Health Department really coming
together and be willing to do a pilot here,because the systems that are being proposed aren't approved.It's
going to be considered a pilot,and the County will do testing on the system to make sure that it performs the
way it should.So we are moving forward.These are systems that would not be single systems,but rather,
more units,three or four units, connected to each one, and that's what the proposal was and it has support
from everyone in the County.I ask that you hold their feet to the fire and make sure this comes to pass. (H21-
1,H27-3,H1-8,C41-1,C41-4,C44-2,C45-1,C46-4)
Response WR-32:The comment is noted.
Comment WR-33:I view the Heritage and its wastewater discharge, albeit into groundwater, as a point
source.Technically speaking,that's not accurate,it's not a point source,but 124 units is a lot of housing and
flushes, and a lot of nitrogen that is going basically in a very discrete area that will make its way to the bay.
(H4-6)
Response WR-33:The comment is noted.
Comment WR-34:The following information should be provided in the context of the DEIS for public
inspection and not relegated to discussions between the SCDHS and the applicant:
> A discussion and analysis focusing on nitrogen loading
➢ How many pounds of nitrogen will the project generate annually?
➢ How much total nitrogen will be reduced by one or more wastewater management alternatives?
➢ How might this impact groundwater quality and eventually surface water quality in nearby
Wickham's Creek?
> A discussion on the state of the ground and surface water quality within the project's contributing
subwatershed to Peconic Bay.
➢ For instance,Wickham's Creek is located approximately one half mile away and is designated as an
"Impaired Waterbody" (NYSDEC)
■ How might this project's wastewater impact existing conditions?
27
> An analysis with sufficient detail to provide a comparative assessment between the nitrogen impacts of
standard sanitary systems versus those associated with an advanced wastewater treatment plant/system.
> A site plan design that clearly shows the location of any proposed wastewater treatment plant/systems
and any associated leaching pools(as well as all required expansion areas).
> Discussion of potential private well impacts due to long-term nitrogen contamination down gradient
from the site(not just adjacent to the site)under conventional wastewater treatment installation and an
advanced treatment alternative.
> Information regarding the types of activities(including all events that will require kitchen and
wastewater generation)that will be permitted in the project's clubhouse.The DEIS should also clarify
whether the clubhouse will be available for use by outside parties(not just residents and their guests) as
such use is relevant to the SCDHS assessment of total wastewater generation and flow calculations.If
large parties, catering events and similar activities are permitted,the Town should include this
information in its assessment of the potential wastewater and overall site usage impacts(traffic,noise,
etc.)related to this building as part of the overall design. (C41-6,C48-9,C48-10)
Response WR-34: The total nitrogen load would be about 9.36 pounds per day using conventional septic
systems.This will be reduced by at least 60 to 70 percent using alternative innovative wastewater treatment
systems from the approved list of such systems under Article 19 of Suffolk County's new residential
wastewater treatment program.Using these new systems,the total nitrogen load from the septic systems is
expected to be somewhere in the range of 2.8 to 3.7 pounds of nitrogen per day.This significant reduction in
nitrogen will greatly reduce any impacts to groundwater and the surface water it eventually reaches.
The new systems will be located in a similar configuration and location to the conventional systems shown on
the current plans.The specific system has not yet been chosen due to the fact that the County's program was
adopted very recently(July,2016).The details will be worked out later in the site plan process. Potential
impacts to private wells are discussed in Response WR-6.The clubhouse will only be used by residents and
their guests.
Comment WR-35: We will experience negative effects on our farmland and farming practices.We will see
drainage and runoff issues during construction,there will be overwhelming impact on the water supply and
quality at the farm. (C42-2)
Response WR-35: In accordance with Town and the NYSDEC regulations, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan(SWPPP)will be prepared and approved prior to construction. The SWPPP will outline all measures
that will be required to prevent excess stormwater runoff from leaving the site and affecting neighboring
properties both during construction and after. Furthermore, as shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan(see Appendix H of this FEIS),the contractor will be required to implement erosion control measures
(e.g., silt fencing)to prevent sediment from leaving the site.It is noted that,prior to completion of each phase
of units and paving of the roadways,the related drainage system will be in place and functioning.Also see
Response WR-3 regarding reduced irrigation for the proposed project and Response WR-20 for a discussion
of other water conservation measures.
28
Comment WR-36: Neighboring streets flood during rainstorms yet the developer proposes that the roads in
the development be made up of impervious surfaces.The Planning Board should require that this issue be
studied, and prohibit extensive parking lots,roadways and lined decorative water features that prevent
groundwater from reaching recharging aquifers. (C45-2,C46-9)
Response WR-36:Any roadways constructed in the Town of Southold must comply with the provisions set
forth in Chapter 161 of the Town Code,entitled Highway Specifications,which provide the construction
specifications for asphalt roads,which are impervious.As shown on the Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H),
there are no extensive parking lots proposed. All construction also must comply with Chapter 236
Stormwater Pollution Prevention regulations that requires all development to contain storm water runoff on
site.
Stormwater runoff will be collected, stored, and infiltrated to groundwater via a private storm system of
catch basins,piping, drywells and drainage reserve areas. In accordance with the Town of Southold
standards,the project will provide a storage volume of two inches of runoff over the site. In addition to
meeting the Towns requirement,the project is also required to meet the requirements of the NYSDEC,which
mandates that the local municipality uphold the requirement that the proposed drainage system handle the
100-year rain storm event.
As a result,this project will require a SWPPP which demonstrates,through collection, storage and infiltration
analyses,that the 100-year storm event is recharged through the proposed system and the peak runoff
discharge does not exceed pre-development conditions during or after construction. A SWPPP will be
prepared for approval by the Town prior to the start of construction.
With respect to the comment regarding"lined decorative water features," it is assumed this is a reference to
the drainage reserve areas.These stormwater management facilities are not proposed to be lined water
features,but vegetated depressions in open areas that provide capacity for storage of stormwater runoff
during moderate to heavy rain events.The only impervious water feature in the proposed development is the
swimming pool.
Comment WR-37:Please provide the location of the new test well. Is one on-site test well the
acceptable/correct sampling protocol for groundwater testing over 45.99 acres?(C48-38)
Response WR-37: A map with the location of the new well is provided in Appendix E.The subject property is
not developed, and the purpose of the new well was to determine if arsenic, as a result of the former
agricultural use,was in the groundwater on the subject property.As the agricultural use was generally
throughout the property, and the arsenic use would have been specific to the property,the central location of
the well was appropriate for this test.No arsenic was detected at a concentration above laboratory methods
detection limits.
29
2.3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife (VW)
Comments related to vegetation and wildlife habitats, as well as wildlife itself, are addressed in this section.
Also addressed are comments regarding open space.
Comment VW-1:This project shows a disregard for the natural resources and wildlife.The project would
necessitate the entire site to be cleared.Nesting sites for birds,bats,feeding sites for land dwellers and other
animals will be removed.The applicant states the removal of all habitats will be mitigated by the creation of
three manmade habitat systems,which the NYSDEC does not believe can adequately replace a natural
system.The mitigation proposed for wildlife and loss of wildlife habitat is not to the greatest extent
practicable. (1-12-13,H12-3,H12-4,C48-1,C48-30)
Response VW-1:As shown on the revised project plans,the proposed action has been modified to preserve a
total of 6.52±-acres of existing ecological communities around the perimeter of the subject property,including
areas of the Successional Old Field,Successional Shrubland and Successional Southern Hardwoods ecological
communities identified in Section 2.3 of the DEIS. The existing ecological communities to be preserved
represent breeding and non-breeding habitat for a number of birds,mammals and herpetofauna species that
are observed or expected at the subject property.These areas will help mitigate the moderate to large impacts
to wildlife and vegetation that are likely to result from this project.
To further mitigate the adverse impacts to wildlife and vegetation, additional existing trees on the edges of
these natural areas with high wildlife value, such as oak species,will also be preserved to the extent
practicable and where they will not interfere with necessary grading and drainage. Existing native evergreens
and shrubs will be preserved and transplanted into and adjacent to the buffers, and throughout the site where
appropriate.Tree relocation will be included in the revised Soil Management Plan to ensure the safe handling
and disposition of soils that might contain arsenic during the transplanting process. (See Response S-1 for
details).
Additional changes to the phasing and soil management plans will also contribute to the mitigation of
potential significant adverse impacts to wildlife. As an example,preliminary revisions to the phasing plan
show that instead of the entire property being cleared and graded all at once(as initially proposed),the
property will be cleared and graded in four phases(see Construction Phasing Plan in Appendix H). Further
changes will include but not be limited to identifying the least destructive window of time for clearing to
avoid bird nesting periods,hibernation times for turtles and snakes, and other vulnerable times, and also
identify more specifically how much land will be cleared at any one time.
Comment VW-2:Box turtles have been seen the on the site and are a protected species,which the developer
admits that bulldozing the site will result in the loss of"some slower-moving" animals.Why does this have
to be the cost of development?Appendix F identifies a great number of protected species found on the
property. (1-12-14)
Response VW-2:The revised project plans include the preservation of 6.52±-acres of Successional Old Field
and Successional Shrubland communities,representing potential habitat for eastern box turtle(Terrapene
carolina). The community area(s)to be preserved include sparsely-vegetated clearings with sandy,well-
30
drained soils that represent potential nesting habitat for eastern box turtle.The existing ecological
communities to be preserved also represent breeding and non-breeding habitat for a number of birds,
mammals and herpetofauna species that are observed or expected at the subject property, as identified in
Section 2.3 of the DEIS.
Potential moderate to large impacts to eastern box turtle and other wildlife species will be minimized by
avoiding vegetative clearing during breeding and hibernation seasons, and by conducting wildlife sweeps
prior to clearing. Wildlife sweeps will be done prior to any clearing on site.
Comment VW-3:When the Town buys land to preserve as open space,it doesn't clear-cut the land.The same
standards of protection are not in place for the proposed project, as all of the proposed 24 acres of open space
would be cleared.How can there be a proposed"nature trail,"when all of the nature will be cleared?Also,
with regard to potential habitat,the Planning Board should freeze any further removal of any trees.
Hundreds,perhaps thousands have already been removed in the last several years. (1-12-15,H3-11)
Response VW-3:As detailed in the response to comment VW-1,the proposed action has been modified to
preserve a total of 6.52±-acres of existing ecological communities around the perimeter of the subject property
as open space,including areas of the Successional Old Field,Successional Shrubland and Successional
Southern Hardwoods ecological communities identified in Section 2.3 of the DEIS. Accordingly,the
proposed action does not propose to clear-cut the entire subject property. Rather,removal of existing trees
would be limited to those areas of the subject property that are proposed for development,while trees within
the buffer area(s)would be conserved. It is within the buffer area around the perimeter of the property that
the nature trail would be located.
Comment VW-4:The DEIS states potential roosting and foraging habitat for the federally-threatened northern
long-eared bat is supported within wooded portions of the property.In the vicinity of Crown Land Lane,less
than 200 yards from the subject property,bats about the same size as the northern long-eared bat have been
sighted, although they have not been specifically identified.Given the size of the subject property,it is likely
where they roost.The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service website quotes, "Why is the northern long-eared bat in
trouble?Loss or degradation of summer habitat via highway construction, commercial development, surface
mining and wind facility construction permanently remove habitat and are activities prevalent in many areas
of this bat's range.Forest management benefits northern long-eared bats by keeping areas forested rather
than converting to other uses." (1-13-10)
Response VW-4:Correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program(NYNHP)included in the
DEIS indicates that no agency records currently exist for northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis)
hibernacula(winter hibernation sites)or roost trees at or in the vicinity of the subject property.Nevertheless,
the revised project plans include the preservation of 6.52±-acres of treed communities,representing potential
roosting and foraging habitat for this species.
Comment VW-5:The Planning Board and Planning Department should authorize an independent assessment
by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the northern long-eared bat uses the subject property and
what recommendations it has with regard to development versus protection. (1-13-12,C21-4,C48-35)
31
Response VW-5:The northern long-eared bat is listed as federally-threatened by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service(USFWS)under section 4(d)of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973,due to significant
population declines as a result of the white-nose syndrome fungal disease.'According to the most recent
USFWS white-nose syndrome zone map,Suffolk County is included among the counties containing
hibernacula(winter hibernation sites)that are infected with white-nose syndrome. The USFWS final 4(d)rule
for northern long-eared bat(effective February 16,2016)2 includes certain prohibitions against incidental
taking,which is defined as killing,wounding,harassing or otherwise disturbing a species that occurs
incidental to, and is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Pursuant to the final 4(d)rule,
incidental taking of northern long-eared bat within white-nose syndrome zone counties(i.e.,Suffolk County)
is prohibited if it occurs within a hibernacula or if it results from tree removal activities that occur within 0.25
mile of a known,occupied hibernacula. Further,incidental taking of northern long-eared bat is also
prohibited if it results from cutting or destroying a known,occupied maternity roost tree or other trees within
a 150 foot radius from a maternity roost tree during the pup season(from June 1 through July 31).Any
proposed activity that would result in prohibited incidental taking of northern long-eared bat, as described
above,would require USFWS consultation and/or permitting. Activities which would not result in
prohibited incidental taking of northern long-eared bat,as described above, can proceed without USFWS
consultation or permitting.
The final 4(d)rule further indicates that information for the locations of known,occupied hibernacula and
maternity roost trees can be obtained from"state Natural Heritage Inventory databases."Correspondence from
the NYNHP,included in the DEIS,indicates that no agency records currently exist for northern long-eared
bat hibernacula or roost trees at or in the vicinity of the subject property.Accordingly,pursuant to the final 4
(d)rule,tree removal activities at the subject property associated with the proposed action would likely not
result in a prohibited incidental taking of northern long-eared bat.To be certain of this, a wildlife biologist
will be deployed on site prior to any tree-clearing to search for any signs of bat roosting or hibernacula.
Because a wildlife sweep may not detect the animals'presence, a further step for mitigation will be to avoid
all tree removal during the pup season from June 1 through July 31.
Comment VW-6:The unmistakable calls of the spring peeper, a frog,which is not considered threatened or
endangered,have been heard emanating from the subject property.As an amphibian,it requires water to lay
its eggs.The DEIS states there are no surface waters or wetlands present at or adjacent to the subject property.
This should be confirmed and site inspections should be done in the spring,when seasonal wetlands may be
present and spring peepers lay their eggs. (1-13-13,C23-3)
Response VW-6:Spring peepers(Pseudacris crucifer)are very small(0.5 to 1.5 inches in length),pale brown or
gray frogs with a distinctive X-shaped marking on their dorsal side.3 Although they occur in a variety of
vegetated habitats on Long Island, due to their diminutive size, spring peepers are rarely seen and are most
often recognized in the field by their distinctive,high-pitched"peep" call during the spring breeding season.
On Long Island,the spring peeper breeding season typically occurs over a four-week period between March
1 Federal Register Vol.80,No.63. Thursday,April 2,2015.
2 Federal Register Vol.81,No.9. Thursday,January 14,2016.
3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Amphibian Identification Guide. Available online at hpAccessed
May 4,2016.
32
and May.4 Spring peepers breed in well-lit, semi-permanent waters that support standing and submergent
vegetation.z Based upon these factors,on-site surface waters or wetlands that support standing water during
the spring season would be required for spring peeper breeding activity to occur at the subject property.As
reported in the 2015 DEIS,there are no mapped NYSDEC or USFWS NWI surface waters or wetlands located
at or adjacent to the subject property, and no such features were observed during the original field inspection
of the site in 2014.
Taking into account that the 2014 field inspection was conducted during autumn, two spring season surface
water/wetland inspections of the subject property were conducted by VHB on March 15 and April 15,2016,in
order to coincide with the spring peeper breeding season. The two surface water/wetland inspections
included observations of site hydrology,vegetation and soils conducted pursuant to United States Army
Corps of Engineers(USACE)and NYSDEC wetland identification protocols.The entire subject property was
inspected for several hours on both dates,with particular attention given to an area of uneven topography
(i.e.,pits,trenches and berms associated with historical site usage)located within a wooded area at the
southeastern portion of the subject property, as well as an area at the northwestern portion of the subject
property where potential evidence of an historical irrigation pond or well pit has been reported. No surface
waters or wetlands were noted during the two field inspections,nor were indicators of wetland hydrology,
obligate wetland vegetation or hydric soils observed. With respect to the site soils in particular,multiple
hand-auger soil borings conducted at the southeastern and northwestern portions of the subject property
revealed non-hydric,upland soil profiles dominated by sands and loams. These field observations are
bolstered by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)Soil Survey Map for the subject property
(included as Figure 3 in Section 2.1 of the DEIS),which indicates that the subject property is comprised of
well-drained and excessively-drained sandy and loamy soils.
As noted during the spring 2016 field inspections,the closest potential surface water/wetland feature
observed in the vicinity of the subject property is a groundwater recharge basin owned by New York State
and located approximately 425 feet to the southwest of the site. No surface waters were observed within the
recharge basin at the time of the March 15 and April 15,2016 field inspections.
Also notably absent during the two field inspections were any occurrences of the distinctive call of the spring
peeper, despite the fact that the inspections occurred during the spring breeding season.
A separate inspection of the subject property was conducted on April 4,2016 by Town Board of Trustees
President John M.Bredemeyer III, as summarized in Mr.Bredemeyer's April 15,2016 memorandum to Town
Planning Chair Donald Wilcenski(see Appendix C of this FEIS). Similar to VHB's multiple site inspections,
no surface water or wetland features were identified by Mr.Bredemeyer during the field inspection, as
indicated in the text of the aforementioned memorandum:
"Found were no wetlands whatsoever, or standing water anywhere onsite, even though the area had received
nearly 2.0"of rain the previous week."
4 Gibbs,J.P.,et al. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press.
33
Based upon the foregoing,no surface waters or wetlands with the potential to support breeding populations
of spring peepers were observed during three 2016 field inspections of the subject property conducted by
VHB and the Town within the spring peeper breeding season.
Comment VW-7:The claims in the DEIS that the proposed site plan provides 50%open space are false. The
so-called open space in between the proposed construction perverts the essence of the idea of open space.
Space enclosed inside a building such as a courtyard is not open,neither is space between two buildings.The
DEIS should require a comparative assessment of an alternative site plan which substantially protects the
site's many existing environmental assets and sets aside contiguous and meaningful blocks of undeveloped,
natural open space that could help mitigate the overall impact of this proposal. (C35-4,C41-7,C42-5).
Response VW-7: Section 280-4 of the Town Code defines"open space,"in pertinent part, as"[any...area of
land...essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or
enjoyment or for the use or enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open
space..."The designated open space on the project plans complies with this definition.
In addition,,the proposed action has been modified to preserve some of that open space, a total of 6.52±-acres
(14±percent of the total site area), as existing,natural land at the perimeter of the subject property,including
vegetated Successional Old Field,Successional Shrubland and Successional Southern Hardwoods
communities. An additional 7.3±-acres of the open space area will be landscaped habitat vegetated with
native plant species. In total the natural areas to be preserved and the proposed landscaped areas would
comprise 13.82±-acres or 30±percent of the existing site area.
Comment VW-8:To better determine the impacts to natural resources,provide the existing tree inventory on
a plan that shows the relative size of the trees and their species on an overlay of the overall site plan. (C48-3)
Response VW-8:See Appendix H of this FEIS for the tree inventory overlay on the Revised Site Plan.
Comment VW-9:The DEIS indicates that"...the majority of wildlife present within or expected to utilize the
subject property are considered to be generally more mobile(e.g.,blue jay,eastern gray squirrel,etc.), and
therefore,would avoid elimination and be displaced to adjacent and nearby areas of undisturbed habitat."
Please identify the nearby areas(in acreage and distance from on-site habitat)of undisturbed habitat suitable
for the species displaced. (C48-34)
Response VW-9:As also indicated in the DEIS:
"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."
34
Moreover, as discussed in Responses VW-1 and VW-3,the project has been revised such that existing
vegetation will remain around the perimeter of the subject property.As such, some undisturbed habitat areas
will remain on the subject property, which will provide some mitigation to the moderate to large impact to
habitat.
Comment VW-10:The biodiversity of the naturalized habitats that have developed over the past 30 years
cannot be replaced to the level of pre-development conditions through landscaping and soil manipulation.
Please provide proposed maintenance practices and survivability terms of the planted species. (C48-36)
Response VW-10:See Responses VW-1 and VW-3 for discussion regarding plan revisions that now maintain
natural vegetation around the perimeter of the property, and WR-9 for discussion of best management
practices to be utilized in the planting plan(also see Overall Planting Plan in Appendix H of this FEIS).As
part of the site plan,the Planning Board will require the developer be responsible for all required vegetation
to survive at least three years or be replaced.After the three years,the condominium association will be
responsible for maintaining the vegetation as approved in the site plan. Also see Response VW-9.
Comment VW-11:The DEIS states, "However,this list(of mammals occurring on site)is not intended to be
an all-inclusive inventory of on-site mammals."Why is the list incomplete and are more field studies
planned?What mitigation is proposed to lessen impacts to mammals and birds using the site?
Response VW-11:The DEIS was prepared in accordance with the Final Scope(see Appendix B of the DEIS),
which states in pertinent part, "An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in
this section of the DEIS."With regard to potential impacts to mammals and birds, as discussed in Responses
VW-1 and VW-3,the proposed project has been revised such that existing vegetation will remain around the
perimeter of the subject property.
Comment VW-12:There is a note on the Overall Planting Plan referencing"existing trees to remain,"
however,no trees are identified on the plan as existing.What percent of the total number of plants to be
planted are native?What percent are drought tolerant?(C48-42)
Response VW-12:The"existing trees to remain' comment was originally an error.However, as discussed in
Responses VW-1 and VW-3,the Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H of this FEIS)now maintains existing trees
and vegetation around the perimeter of the property.Using drought-tolerant vegetation in the landscaping
plans is part of the water conservation efforts being made to mitigate impacts to water.The exact percentage
of drought-tolerant vegetation will be determined during the final stages of the site plan process.
2.3.4 Transportation, Safety and Access (TSA)
Comments related to potential traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways and throughout the hamlet of
Cutchogue,parking, site access and site and area circulation are addressed below.
Comment TSA-1:The developer's repeated assertions that the proposed development is not going to cause
any significant adverse traffic impacts is nonsense. Even the developer admits there may be a reduction in
35
service and the possible addition of a stoplight.If so,will the taxpayers or the developer be responsible for
the cost of the new traffic lights?(H1-3,H18-5)
Response TSA-1:The potential impacts to transportation as a result of the proposed development have been
comprehensively evaluated in a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)Report included as Appendix G of the DEIS
and summarized in Section 3.1 of the DEIS text. The TIA Report concluded that"[t]he Traffic generated by
the proposed development can be accommodated by the adjacent roadway network. The trip generation for
this project was conservatively developed using a general condominium use,which roughly doubles the
number of proposed site-generated trips during all study periods."With regard to any"reduction in service,"
it is noted that the northbound approach to the signalized intersection of CR48 and Depot Lane would see a
delay increase of one second in the a.m.peak hour,resulting in a change in level of service(LOS)C in the No-
Build condition to LOS D in the Build condition.This additional one second delay will not be noticeable to
drivers.
In short,the results of the TIA Report indicate that no traffic lights are necessary for mitigation of impacts
from the proposed development.
Comment TSA-2:Traffic now is so bad,we have rush-hour traffic year round.What will all the extra cars
from a high-density project do to the small village of Cutchogue?(1-113-3,C20-7,C26-3,H26-7,H27-1)
Response TSA-2: As concluded in the comprehensive TIA Report and indicated in Section 3.1 of the DEIS
text, "[t]he proposed 124 units of residential condominiums would generate moderate amounts of traffic
during the a.m.,p.m., and Saturday midday peak periods," and"[t]he Traffic generated by the proposed
development can be accommodated by the adjacent roadway network."
Comment TSA-3:You are all well aware of the fatal traffic accident that occurred at Depot Lane and Route 48
where four young women were killed;yet,you want to give a green light to a condo development that would
bring over 300 additional cars to the area,less than one-half mile south of that accident. (H16-5)
Response TSA-3: The potential impacts to transportation as a result of the proposed development,including
as they pertain to traffic safety,have been comprehensively evaluated in the TIA Report included as
Appendix G of the DEIS for the Heritage at Cutchogue and are summarized in Section 3.1 of the DEIS text.
The development of the site, as proposed,will not result in adverse safety impacts in the study area. The
basis of the reference to 300 additional cars in the comment is unknown. As stated in the TIA Report
(Appendix G) and Section 3.1 of the DEIS,peak hour trip generation at the site would be a maximum of 79
trips in the Saturday midday peak hour,which is a conservative(high)estimate of the actual trips expected to
be generated.
Comment TSA-4:The traffic seen on Main Road in Cutchogue is also a nightmare. Even if you sync the traffic
lights,the current volume is too great and would cause a constant traffic jam in the center of Town. (1-116-6,
C19-6,H29-3)
Response TSA-4: The potential impacts to transportation as a result of the proposed development have been
comprehensively evaluated in a TIA Report included as Appendix G of the DEIS for the Heritage at
36
Cutchogue and summarized in Section 3.1 of the DEIS text. As stated in Section 3.1,the TIA utilized a
standard Condominium/Townhouse trip generation rate from the ITE manual. A Senior Housing trip
generation rate,which would also be appropriate for this project,would result in nearly 50 percent less traffic
during the peak hours.
The TIA Report concluded that"[t]he traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated
by the adjacent roadway network. The trip generation for this project was conservatively developed using a
general condominium use,which roughly doubles the number of proposed site-generated trips during all
study periods." It is noted that the northbound approach to the signalized intersection of CR48 and Depot
Lane would see a delay increase of one second in the a.m.peak hour,resulting in a change in level of service
(LOS)C in the No-Build condition to LOS D in the Build condition.However,this additional one second
delay will not be noticeable to drivers.The analysis performed concludes that the development of the project,
as proposed,will not result in the traffic conditions alleged in the comment.
Comment TSA-5:Cutchogue has the greatest number of wineries of any hamlet on the North Fork.Those
wineries and the agritainment industry have,in the last nine years,brought an explosion of cars, stretch
limos,party buses, additional runs of the Hampton Jitney and other buses,bicyclists by the score where no
bicycle lanes exist,to a roadway not designed to handle this kind of traffic. (1-116-7,C19-3)
Response TSA-5: The comment is noted.It is also noted that the uses described in the comment are different
than the age-restricted residential use proposed. Moreover,the commercial traffic mentioned in the comment
would not be anticipated on Schoolhouse Road and Griffing Street,where no wineries are located.Finally, as
concluded in the TIA Report in the DEIS, "The traffic generated by the proposed development can be
accommodated by the adjacent roadway network. The trip generation for this project was conservatively
developed using a general condominium use which roughly doubles the number of proposed site-generated
trips during all study periods."
Comment TSA-6:Previous traffic studies have labeled Depot Lane and Griffing Street failing and dangerous
intersections at Main Road,yet you are asking the public to sanction the addition of 10 percent of
Cutchogue's population to this immediate area. (1-116-9,C19-5)
Response TSA-6: The potential impacts to transportation,including as they relate to safety, as a result of the
proposed development have been comprehensively evaluated in the DEIS. The TIA Report concluded that
the adjacent roadways can accommodate the proposed development.The basis for the statement in the
comment regarding a 10 percent increase to the population of Cutchogue's population is unknown.
However,it should be stated that vehicle activity in the hamlet is in large part unrelated to the local
population, and is the result of visits to and trips through the hamlet by motorists who reside elsewhere.
Therefore,even a 10 percent increase in residents would not result in a 10 percent increase in trips in the area.
Comment TSA-7:Ironically,today's agenda includes Mr.Baxter's subdivision on Griffing Street,four more
lots slated for development right in the middle of all this action. (1-116-10)
37
Response TSA-7:The Baxter Subdivision was identified by the Town of Southold Planning Department and
considered in the analysis of the No-Build Condition within the TIA Report included as Appendix G of the
DEIS.
Comment TSA-8:If New York State has etched Main Road in stone,who will make the study and creation of
new traffic routes,patterns and roads that will ensure the safety of Cutchogue residents and visitors a
condition for the developer before allowing this project to move forward?How will fire and rescue crews get
to residents all over Cutchogue through a currently dangerous and crowded Hamlet Center?A complete and
honest evaluation and redesign of our roadways should be required. (1-116-11,C21-3)
Response TSA-8: The traffic levels associated with the development of the Heritage at Cutchogue do not rise
to the level that would require the redesign of any roadways or the creation of any new routes. The potential
impacts to transportation facilities and conditions, as a result of the proposed development,have been
comprehensively evaluated in the DEIS. The TIA Report concluded that the existing adjacent roadway
network can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development.With regard to potential
impacts to emergency services,the analysis performed to gauge the impacts of the project show either no
additional delay to through traffic on Main Road or CR 48, at the study intersections,or very small increases
in delay,measured in tenths of a second during the peak periods studied.
Comment TSA-9:A traffic study conducted by the developer on Columbus Day weekend, "to be
conservative,"is highly suspect when the addition of 300-plus cars will be present during spring and summer
months-the high season for the anticipated residents of the Heritage to be in full force.How much can really
be learned by looking at something once,or two days in one month?The summer is significantly higher,
particularly on weekends, and the date that they picked for the Sunday,Riverhead had their annual county
fair,which draws a lot of people and may have diluted a typical October Sunday in Cutchogue. (1-116-12,H18-
2,H19-4)
Response TSA-9: The basis of the comment's reference to 300-plus cars is unclear since even the very
conservative estimate of peak period trip generation utilized in the TIA Report,which was performed as part
of the DEIS,places peak hour trips at approximately one-fourth of this number(i.e., 79 in the Saturday
midday peak hour). While a portion of residents at the Heritage at Cutchogue are expected to be seasonal,
the study assumed full year-round occupancy and full trip generation in all of the analyses performed and,
therefore,represents worst-case conditions. The October Sunday was not a typical Sunday,but was over the
course of the busier Columbus Day weekend. The count program was performed outside of the summer
season, as counts performed during the summer season would not have captured the significant levels of
peak period traffic associated with school operations. In regard to the fair in Riverhead,it is noted that
Riverhead is over ten miles away from Cutchogue and any impacts of the fair on traffic levels in Cutchogue is
speculative.
Comment TSA-10:The developer is not concerned about two emergency access points at Spur Road and
Bridle Lane to one day be permanently opened to dump condo traffic into a residential area of over 60 homes
on Highland Road and Crown Land Lane to endanger children and residents who have been safe for over 40
years.The residents of Highland,Crown Land Lane and Schoolhouse Road are being asked to acquiesce to a
condemnation of sorts,because our neighborhoods will be destroyed when these points are permanently
38
opened to all kinds of vehicular traffic.Where are the conditions that take into account the safety of
Cutchogue residents who already live in the area?I'm also concerned that those roads are going to be used
for construction. (1-116-13,H16-14,H18-7,C19-4)
Response TSA-10: The emergency-only access point to Spur Road has been eliminated from the development
plan(see the Revised Site Plan in Appendix H of this FEIS),leaving Bridle Lane as the alternate emergency-
only access.An emergency-only access point is a safety measure recommended by emergency services
providers and is not a site access point. The developer of the site has no intention of converting this
emergency-only access to a site access and,in fact, could not do so without approval from the Planning
Board. The site plan approval would identify this access as emergency-only. The proposed development will
be provided more than adequate access via the single access point to the south on Schoolhouse Road.
Furthermore,no construction trucks will be allowed to use the emergency access as a point of entry to the
property.
Comment TSA-11:The DEIS states that an impact was shown at three intersections;Main Road and North
Street,County Road 48 and Depot Lane,Main Road and Depot Lane.It also states,on page XXIII of the
Executive Summary, "In addition,the delay change for these intersections with a decrease in level of service
would not be noticeable to drivers.Any increases in delay at the study intersections are deemed
insignificant."I totally disagree. (H18-3)
Response TSA-11: The methodologies and procedures utilized in the performance of the TIA in the DEIS are
in keeping with standard industry-accepted practices for the performance of such studies. Traffic conditions
are not constant and typically vary day to day,even in the same hour. Small changes in delay will not be
noticeable to motorists as they travel through the study area. It is also noted that the trip generation for this
project was conservatively developed using a general condominium use,which roughly doubles the number
of proposed site-generated trips compared to the trip generation rate for a Senior Housing development,
during all study periods. Moreover,only the northbound approach to the signalized intersection of CR48 and
Depot Lane would see a delay increase of one second in the a.m.peak hour,resulting in a change in level of
service(LOS)C in the No-Build condition to LOS D in the Build condition.However,this additional one
second delay will not be noticeable to drivers.
Comment TSA-12:The Town should require the developer to assess the impact of increased traffic volume
from the proposed development in percentages. Also,the percent change in wait times to make turns,
particularly left turns, should also be evaluated.Traffic flows to and from Highland Road and Crown Land
Lane should be evaluated in the same manner. (H18-4)
Response TSA-12: The methodologies and procedures utilized in the performance of the TIA for the Heritage
at Cutchogue are in keeping with standard industry-accepted practices for the performance of such studies.
The development of the site, as proposed,will not cause any increases to traffic levels on Highland Road and
Crown Land Lane because there are no access points between the site and those roadways(other than a
single emergency-only access) and no destinations to which the residents of the Heritage at Cutchogue would
travel.Moreover, as previously discussed in Responses TSA-1,4 and 11,the only change in LOS would be at
the northbound approach to the signalized intersection of CR48 and Depot Lane, which would see a delay
increase of one second in the a.m.peak hour,resulting in a change in level of service(LOS)from LOS C in the
39
No-Build condition to LOS D in the Build condition.However,this additional one-second delay will not be
noticeable to drivers.
Comment TSA-13:I live on Pequash, down by the water, and in the summer,they are parked all over the
place.Which is great,I love to see young families out.But,I would hate having another 300 cars backed up.
(1-119-3,H27-2,H31-2)
Response TSA-13: The basis of the reference to 300 additional cars in the comment is unknown. As noted in
the TIA and Section 3.1 of the DEIS,peak hour trip generation at the site would be a fraction of this figure(a
maximum of 79 trips in an hour,even with a very conservative[high] estimate of actual trips generated).
With regard to beach parking on Pequash Avenue,the applicant has no control over such conditions.
Comment TSA-14:How will the heavy equipment,trucks,etc.enter and exit the Heritage property?It is
unimaginable that they will be using Schoolhouse Road,Griffing Street,Highland Road,Crown Land Lane or
Bridle Road.These roads are narrow with no shoulder or sidewalks, and are used by people to get to the
Village, and large trucks and other vehicles to avoid the Village. (C19-7,C33-1,H29-1)
Response TSA-14: The proposed construction at the Heritage at Cutchogue will likely not involve the import
or removal of large amounts of soil, as the site has been designed to be"balanced"with regard to cut and fill.
Therefore,it is expected that the number of heavy trucks will be less.The development of the site will require
truck trips for many purposes,including but not limited to the delivery of clean topsoil if necessary to
mitigate arsenic in existing topsoil, delivery of concrete,landscaping materials and trees, delivery of building
materials, as well as heavy equipment for site work(preparation of roadways and foundations,etc.).
Construction workers and tradesman generally arrive at the site daily in personal vehicles or vans.
The proposed site entrance at Schoolhouse Road will serve as the construction entrance during the course of
this work,unless an arrangement can be made with the neighbor to the east to provide direct access to Depot
Lane.A separate dedicated temporary construction truck route is actively being sought over land to the east
so that trucks can have direct access from the site to Depot Lane,however this requires an unrelated private
landowner to agree to this, and cannot be guaranteed. The developer of the site will exercise control over
deliveries and truck trips and will work with the Town to determine the most appropriate routes to use
between the project site and major roadways prior to the commencement of any site work.Construction
routes will be reassessed prior to the beginning of each phase of development to help mitigate the potential
moderate to large impacts on quality of life and transportation and pedestrian safety from construction traffic
to the greatest extent practicable.This reassessment will include a detailed list of expected number and size of
trucks for each phase of development.
Comment TSA-15:The Town of Riverhead planned and zoned Middle Road for condominiums,which is a
bypass to County Road 58,where most of the shopping is done in Riverhead. There are several
condominium developments that have access to Middle Road. The traffic is regulated with enough north-
south routes to move traffic off Middle Road. Southold needs a fresh approach to traffic safety if condos are
the future of the town. (C19-8)
40
Response TSA-15: The comment refers to Town policy that is outside the control of the developer of the
Heritage at Cutchogue project. The potential impacts to transportation, as a result of the proposed
development,have been comprehensively evaluated in the TIA Report included as Appendix G of the DEIS,
and summarized in Section 3.1 of the DEIS text. The TIA Report concluded that"[t]he traffic generated by the
proposed development can be accommodated by the adjacent roadway network."
Comment TSA-16:I don't feel potential traffic impacts to Schoolhouse Road have received enough attention.
When I see other big projects like this,they are built on roads that are better equipped to accommodate them
than Schoolhouse Road(e.g.,Sunrise Highway,Nicolls Road,Route 48).Schoolhouse Road is a small
residential street without sidewalks and a blind corner that is located at the area proposed for the Heritage
entrance.This development would grossly and negatively impact the lives of the families that live on
Schoolhouse Road, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods.It would be unsafe and irresponsible to allow
this project. (H24-2,C47-1)
Response TSA-16:The potential impacts to transportation, as a result of the proposed development,including
as they pertain to traffic safety,have been comprehensively evaluated in the DEIS. The development of the
site, as proposed,will not result in adverse safety impacts in the study area. Specifically,the site traffic
anticipated to utilize Schoolhouse Road is presented in graphic form in Section 3.1 of the DEIS. The analysis
performed included the rigorous evaluation of two intersections on Schoolhouse Road, among eight
intersections studied in detail in the TIA Report. At each of the Schoolhouse Road intersections,very small
(tenths of seconds)increases in delays are anticipated.
Comment TSA-17:Think about the 240 cars and look at your parking in Cutchogue.It's a lovely little hamlet.
You go to the pharmacy,the deli,the library.At any one time,you might have 30 cars downtown.Well,there
really isn't much space for them.There is not much parking down there. (H32-3)
Response TSA-17:The basis of the comment's reference to 240 cars is unclear, since even the very
conservative(high)estimate of peak-period trip generation utilized in the TIA,performed as part of the DEIS,
reports peak hour trips at one-third of this figure(79 in the Saturday midday peak hour). Additional parking
demands that would develop in the business district as a result of the Heritage at Cutchogue,would be
limited. In addition,the Southold Hamlet Study,performed in 2005, concluded that there is adequate parking
in the Cutchogue business district. It is also noted that the proposed residential community is strategically
situated within walking distance of the hamlet center, so as to allow project residents to walk to and from the
hamlet center, and thereby reduce trip generation and parking needs in the hamlet center.
Comment TSA-18:Most of the traffic analysis is based on computer models.They spent eight hours
examining the existing traffic a couple of years ago.The three-year period used in the analysis of traffic
accidents was also a few years ago and did not include the limousine crash.They really need to come more
than one weekend in October and more than eight hours,if they really want to tell us there's not going to be
any traffic impacts. (H1-24,C35-8,C46-3)
Response TSA-18:As stated in the DEIS,the methodologies and procedures utilized in the performance of the
TIA Report for the Heritage at Cutchogue including field observations,are in keeping with standard
industry-accepted practices for the performance of such studies. The potential impacts to transportation, as a
41
result of the proposed development,have been comprehensively evaluated in the DEIS. The TIA Report
concluded that"The traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated by the adjacent
roadway network. The trip generation for this project was conservatively developed using a general
condominium use which roughly doubles the number of proposed site-generated trips during all study
periods." In short,the results of the TIA are very conservative.
Comment TSA-19:Backup documentation(ATR counts,historical count data)should be provided that
provides support as to how the peak hours of the traffic network were determined and how Sunday was
determined as the most conservative day. (C48-13)
Response TSA-19:The time periods selected for the performance of traffic counts and evaluation are the
traditional peak periods for trip generation associated with a residential use and are standard in the industry
for studies to evaluate the potential impact of residential development,based on studies of residential sites.
These periods include 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.on weekdays and correlate to the time
periods when residential developments are known to produce the highest level of trips. These also
correspond to typical peak commuting periods as they are directly related,with a trip either from or to a
place of residence involved in any commute. Likewise,the weekend midday peak hours of 10:00 a.m.to 2:00
p.m. are intended to capture the Saturday peak hour of trip making at residential developments. Each of
these three time periods allows the analysis performed to contrast the No-Build traffic conditions,without the
development,to build conditions,where the maximum peak hour trips are generated by the development.
The Sunday traffic counts were chosen over Saturday due to the fact that,on that particular weekend,
significant rain was forecast on Saturday,which would have likely reduced traffic volumes on that day. The
use of Sunday avoided this. In addition,the poor weather on Saturday may have resulted in increased traffic
levels on Sunday due to trips to the North Fork that were postponed from Saturday.
Comment TSA-20:Why was the intersection of Main Road(NYS Route 25) and Crown Land Lane eliminated
from the list of intersections to be analyzed.If for the same reason as NYS Route 25 and Highland Road,it
should be so stated. (C48-14)
Response TSA-20:The intersection of Main Road at Crown Land Lane was not included as a study
intersection in the TIA,performed as part of the DEIS, due to the fact that no site traffic is expected to use
Crown Land Lane. Therefore,there is very low potential for any impacts, as only a small amount of site
traffic would travel through the intersection of Main Road and Crown Land Lane, and would not make any
turns there. The subject property does not have any access to Crown Land Lane or the roadways to which it
connects other than an Emergency-Only access, which will only be used in emergency situations.
Comment TSA-21:The official traffic signal timing plans(from NYSDOT or the appropriate transportation
agency)for the signalized intersection of NYS Route 25 and New Suffolk Road should be provided. (C48-15)
Response TSA-21:The Traffic Signal Programming Sheets for the NYSDOT intersection of Main Road at New
Suffolk Road are included in Appendix G of this FEIS. With regard to the intersection of CR 48 and Depot
Road,that intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works(SCDPW),
and was activated in October of 2015,very close in time to the writing of the TIA developed as part of the
DEIS. Prior to finalizing the TIA for the DEIS,the SCDPW was contacted to obtain the signal timing for this
42
intersection.At that time,SCDPW indicated that the timing sheets were not finalized and not available.
Therefore,for the purpose of the TIA in the DEIS,the signal timings used were the result of field timings of
the actual signal in operation,obtained from field visits once the signal was operational.
As such,based on the modest levels of site traffic anticipated at this intersection, as demonstrated in the TIA,
and the new signalized intersection operating at very good levels of traffic service, any deviation from the
field-measured timings would not have any noticeable effect at this location.
Comment TSA-22: The DEIS states that rear end and right angle accidents are most prevalent in the study
area and that these results are expected for an arterial roadway through a business district"when speed
limits change and driveway activity increase along the roadway."Please clarify the speed limit reference.
Does it refer to speed limit changes along a single roadway?(C48-16)
Response TSA-22:The statement noted in the comment,from page 20 of the TIA(see Appendix G in the
DEIS),was intended to reference the generally lower travel speeds and greater degree of movement into and
out of the through-traffic stream, due to adjacent land use access and parking activity in a business district. It
would have been more appropriate to state"when travel speeds change and driveway activity increases."
Comment TSA-23:The Existing Conditions LOS and Delay results should be checked for accuracy as some of
the results presented in the LOS tables do not match the result descriptions in the text(see page 99 of the
DEIS).(C48-17)
Response TSA-23:A review of page 99 of the DEIS reveals errors in two of the six bulleted items regarding
the existing unsignalized intersection level of service results when compared to the analysis results presented
in Tables 7,8 and 9 of the TIA in Appendix G of the DEIS. The revised corrected bullet entries are below.
> NY 25 and Depot Lane-operates under LOS A for the eastbound left-turning lane and LOS C for the
southbound approach 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 B for the
southbound approach 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 B for the southbound approach in the weekend peak hour.
The minor changes to individual levels of service for some movements in these areas do not result in any
substantive differences in the existing conditions and correlate with the results reported in the Tables.
Comment TSA-24:The southbound approach of the intersection of NYS Route 25&Depot Lane is shown to
experience an increase in delay from 56.7 to 62.9 seconds(LOS F) during the PM peak hour and a decline in
LOS from LOS E(delay of 48.6 seconds)to LOS F (delay of 57.7 seconds)during the Weekend peak hour from
No Build to Build conditions.These increases in delay and decline in LOS should be identified as impacts.
(C48-18)
43
Response TSA-24:These changes in delay and approach LOS are discussed in detail on page 47 of the TIA
(see Appendix G of the DEIS). Specifically,on page 47 of the TIA,with regard to the weekday p.m.peak
hour,it states:
From the Existing condition to the No-Build condition to the Build condition, the NY 25 and Depot Lane
southbound approach goes from LOS E to LOS F to LOS F. The change in delay is under 7 seconds from the
No-Build condition to the Build condition;this increase is not significant enough at an unsignalized
intersection to warrant mitigation.
It further states,with regard to the weekend peak hour:
During the Weekend Peak Hour,as seen in Table 9,from the Existing condition to the No-Build condition to
the Build condition, the NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach goes from LOS D to LOS E to LOS F.
The change in delay is less than 10 seconds from the No-Build condition to the Build condition;this increase is
not significant enough at an unsignalized intersection to warrant mitigation.
Finally,the TIA, also on page 47, addresses conditions in both of these peak hours as follows:
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.In the No-Build condition to the Build condition, the NY 25 and North Street southbound
approach goes from LOS B to LOS C. This change in delay is less than 10 seconds and an acceptable level-of-
service(LOS C)is maintained during all peak hours at this approach;therefore, no mitigation is recommended.
Based on the foregoing,the increases in delay found in the analysis results are not significant, and are
overstated given the way the approach generally operates as two lanes rather than one.
Comment TSA-25:The DEIS concludes that traffic volumes at NY 25 and Depot Lane would not satisfy the
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Signal Warrant.A preliminary review of both the PM and Weekend peak hour
Build volumes indicate that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant(MUTCD Warrant 3)would be satisfied for both
peaks;however,more weight can be given to the Four-Hour warrant than the Peak Hour warrant. The
warrants do not define the need for a traffic signal but merely indicate that further engineering studies are
needed to determine if the installation of the traffic signal is justified.(C48-19)
Response TSA-25:MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrant 3,Peak Hour,is typically reserved for large commercial
and industrial sites at which large numbers of vehicles either enter or exit over a brief time period.The
MUTCD states that Warrant 3 "shall be applied only in unusual cases" and makes no mention of any
residential development or general business district to which this warrant should be applied.Thus, although
the Build volumes indicate that the Peak Hour Warrant would be satisfied,the surrounding development
does not support the use of this warrant in this scenario.Given that Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
44
and Warrant 2,Four-Hour Vehicular Volume are not met and that there is no substantial accident history at
this location,there is currently no warrant that satisfies consideration of a traffic signal at this location.
With regard to the potential for widening of the southbound approach on Depot Lane at NY 25, as indicated
on page 47 of the TIA included in Appendix G of the DEIS:
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.
The minor widening of the southbound approach would involve disruptions to traffic flow due to the
construction and significant cost to provide an improvement that would provide marginal benefit given that
it generally operates as two lanes under the existing condition. Therefore,this widening is not warranted.
The DEIS was circulated to all involved agencies as part of coordinated review,including the NYSDOT.The
NYSDOT did not provide comments on the document during the comment period.
Comment TSA-26:The DEIS does not identify any planned roadway improvements in the study area.
However,the intersection of CR48 and Depot Lane is presented as an unsignalized intersection under
Existing Conditions and signalized under No Build and Build conditions.Signalization of this intersection
should be identified and analyzed as a planned area roadway improvement. (C48-20)
Response TSA-26:The Existing Condition evaluation in the TIA(see Appendix G of the DEIS),represents the
snapshot in time when the existing condition data(mainly traffic counts)was collected. The No-Build
conditions represent conditions at a future time coincidental with the anticipated operation of the proposed
use,but without the anticipated traffic from the proposed use included. While the traffic counts were
performed in October of 2014,when the traffic signal was not yet present,the TIA was written in October of
2015,and the traffic signal had just been installed and activated. While it is true that the installation of the
traffic signal could have been referred to as a planned area roadway improvement,it was in fact already in
place and operational at the time of writing of the study. The fact that it was evaluated as operational in the
future No-Build condition is therefore correct. A statement in the TIA that would have identified the signal
as a planned area roadway improvement would not have changed the analysis scenarios.
Comment TSA-27:The DEIS and TIA do not identify the southbound left-turn and right-turn movement
delay and LOS results at the intersection of NY 25 and Griffing Street beyond Existing Conditions.The delay
and LOS results for the southbound left-turn and right-turn movements at this intersection should be
presented for all conditions. (C48-21)
Response TSA-27:Tables 7,8 and 9 from the TIA have been revised to include lane group specific delay, and
level of service information,for the southbound approach on Griffing Street at NY 25. The revised tables are
included below.
Table 1 — Level of Service Summary— Unsignalized Intersections-AM Peak Hour
45
Critical
Intersection Approach/ Lane Group Existing 2014 No Build 2020 Build 2020
Movement
EB L+ U 9.0 A
CR 48&Depot Lane WB L+ U 9.8 A
NB Approach 17.4 C
SB Approach 14.4 B
Schoolhouse Road&Depot Lane EB Approach 9.9 A 10.1 B 10.3 B
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 L 17.7 C 19.8 C 20.8 C
SB R 11.4 B 11.9 B 12.5 B
WB L 8.2 A 8.3 A 8.3 A
NY 25&Case's Lane
NB Approach 13.8 B 15.0 C 15.4 C
Site Access&Schoolhouse Road& NB L - - 7.4 A
Griffing Street SB L 9.6 A
46
Table 2- Level of Service Summa - Unsi nalized Intersection- 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
Schoolhouse Road&Depot Lane EB Approach 9.9 A 10.2 B 10.5 B
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 L 24.1 C 28.8 D 32.3 D
SB R 12.2 B 12.9 B 13.2 B
NY 25&Case's Lane WB L 8.6 A 8.8 A 8.8 A
NB Approach 17.7 C 20.4 C 21.2 C
Site Access&Schoolhouse Road& NB L - - 7.5 A
Griffing Street SB L 9.6 A
47
Table 3- Level of Service Summary- Unsignalized Intersection -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
Schoolhouse Road&Depot Lane EB Approach 10.1 B 10.3 B 10.6 B
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 L 25.6 D 31.2 D 35.5 E
SB R 12.1 B 12.7 B 13.1 B
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 Road&Griffing NB L - - 7.4 A
Street SB L 9.5 A
The drop in LOS from D to E on the southbound Griffing Avenue approach,noted in the comment,is due to
a minimal 4.3 second increase in delay,for this movement,from the No-Build to the Build Condition.This
increase is not significant and the LOS decrease from D to E is a result of the No-Build delay being very close
to the LOS D to E threshold, and not as a result of any significant increase in delay.Therefore,no mitigation is
required here.
Comment TSA-28:The DEIS states that the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA)indicates that 14
minutes is the minimum response time by fire personnel.Documentation that verifies this should be
provided. (C48-22)
Response TSA-28:The response time identified by the NFPA was obtained via the internet
hit 0.It is
further noted that the reference to this response time in the DEIS was incorrect and should have read as
follows:
Moreover,the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA)indicates that response time for fire
personnel,in a rural area with fewer than 500 people per square mile, should be less than 14 minutes,
with the start of such response time being at the completion of the dispatch notification.Chief Flatley
48
projected a four-minute response time;thus, any minor increase in response time due to this project
would maintain a response time well below the NFPA standard.
Comment TSA-29:Stop signs are not generally recognized by transportation professionals as a traffic calming
measure.More generally recognized traffic calming measures(e.g., speed humps, speed tables,mini-
roundabouts,etc.)should be investigated and considered for recommendation. (C48-23)
Response TSA-29:While stop signs are not generally recommended as a method to control speeds,the
presence of stop signs in this location, and in this instance,will work to control speeds. It should be noted
that this is a private, age-restricted community that will not be subject to any level of through traffic. In
addition,the roadway configurations, developed with input from the Town Planning Staff,include horizontal
alignments(curves)and control features(stop signs)specifically intended to control speeds. The inclusion of
more intrusive measures such as speed humps, speed tables,etc.is not advisable,particularly in an age-
restricted community.
Comment TSA-30:Recommendations to improve pedestrian and traffic safety at the intersection of the site
access,Schoolhouse Road and Griffing Street,include stop signs for all three approaches, a crosswalk from
the east side of the site driveway across Schoolhouse Road, and sidewalks along the east side of Griffing
Street to connect to the Post Office and hamlet center. (C48-24)
Response TSA-30:The recommendations for a three-way Stop-controlled intersection at the site access
location, and the provision of a crosswalk to span the width of Schoolhouse Road at the east side of this
intersection will be completed by The Heritage to help mitigate impacts from traffic.Further mitigation will
be provided by The Heritage through the realignment of the intersection to make the site driveway,
Schoolhouse Road and Griffing Street meet at right angles.This will help mitigate traffic impacts by calming
traffic. With regard to sidewalks connecting the Heritage at Cutchogue to the hamlet center,the development
of the pending Baxter subdivision will include sidewalk on its frontage on Griffing Street,in accordance with
town standards,which the applicant will connect to, completing the sidewalk from Schoolhouse Road to NY
25.
The Heritage at Cutchogue will,however,build the sidewalk along the east side of Griffing Street to complete
the connection to NY 25 if it has not been built at the time the Heritage is ready to begin Phase 4 of this
proposed development,to ensure that any moderate to large traffic and pedestrian safety impacts are
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable prior to full buildout of the project.
Comment TSA-31:Who would be responsible for the costs and implementation of any
improvement/mitigation measures at locations identified as experiencing impacts?(C48-25)
Response TSA-31:All mitigation identified as necessary to mitigate impacts to traffic conditions,as a result of
the development of the Heritage at Cutchogue,will be paid for and implemented by the developer.
Comment TSA-32:What route will construction vehicles travel,and what impacts might this have on local
streets?How many construction vehicles per hour?Per day?Over what time period?For how long?Has the
option of a construction route directly from the property to Depot Lane been explored as mitigation to the
impacts of construction vehicles traveling over local streets?Is it possible to lease land for a temporary
construction road to Depot Lane?(C48-26)
49
Response TSA-32:It is anticipated that the construction of the Heritage at Cutchogue will take place in phases
over an approximately five-year period. The details of the number of truck and construction vehicle trips to
and from the site will be provided to the Planning Board prior to each phase of development and an
appropriate construction route will be determined by the Board in consultation with the Southold Town
Transportation Commission.The construction route(s)will be determined by the Planning Board based on
mitigating the expected moderate to large impacts to community character,the quality of life and pedestrian
and traffic safety for the areas through which the trucks will travel.
It is noted that the site's design is intended to be"balanced,"in that it is not anticipated that large amounts of
fill or surplus will be necessary.This will result in a smaller number of heavy trucks than if there were large
amounts of fill or surplus soil to be moved in or out of the site.See Response TSA-14 for more information.
The ideal construction route to mitigate those impacts listed above is over the land to the east for direct access
to Depot Lane.The applicant will make a good faith effort, documented in writing, to provide a temporary
construction route to Depot Lane.This option,however, cannot be guaranteed due to the fact that the land
over which this route would travel is in private ownership.
2.3.5 Land Use and Zoning (LUZ)
Comments related to the zoning, density of development, and character of the area are addressed in this
section.
Comment LUZ-1:If this site plan is approved,the current mix of rural and suburban will be tipped by the
addition of a new high-density,urbanized area.There is no vested right to develop high-density residential
use on the subject property.To say that the zoning allows 200 units would be funny if this was not serious.
(H1-4,H12-3,H13-2,C20-4,C32-1,H28-2)
Response LUZ-1:Paragraph 2(a)of the Stipulation of Settlement specifically provides that"the Contemplated
Development will include,after completion of all development phases,no more than 130 residential units,
each comprised of one or more stories, all of which units shall be condominium units." Thus,the Stipulation
of Settlement allows for up to 130 units to be approved, although the applicant is currently proposing only
124 units.
The subject property is located in the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District,the purpose of which,
pursuant to§280-20 of the Town Code,is as follows:
"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."
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
50
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,as
well as certain accessory uses.
Moreover,Paragraph 38 of the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B of the DEIS),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. These include,but are not limited to:no more than 130, age-restricted for 55-years of age and older,
residential condominium units;no more than 245,000 sf of"livable floor area," as defined by the Town
Zoning Code,exclusive of accessory uses;and development in accordance with the use, area, dimensional,
parking,drainage and other regulations applicable to the Town's HD zoning district, as provided by the
Stipulation of Settlement.Accordingly,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development has been designed
to comply with(1)the Town Code and other provisions of law and land regulations that existed prior to the
aforesaid 2009 local laws,and(2)the aforesaid development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement.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, 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.
> The Heritage at Cutchogue project would be consistent with the use,area,bulk, dimensional regulations
and parking requirements of the HD zoning district as demonstrated in Table 23 in Section 3.2 of the
DEIS,which is reproduced herein, and as provided by the Stipulation of Settlement.
51
Table 4- Consistency with Bulk, Dimensional and Parking Zoning
Regulations of the HD Residence Zoning District
Regulation Code Requirement The Heritage at
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 Floor Area 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
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 presented in Table 6 below.
Table 5-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
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, as previously indicated,to the extent that the project does not comply with current
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 is
also noted that, as discussed in Section 1.1.1 of the DEIS,entitled Background and History,the earliest version
of this applicant's proposal was for 202 units,the density of which was based on correspondence, dated
52
March 29,2007,from the Town Attorney(see Appendix C of the DEIS),which indicates"1 unit per 10,000
square feet,with 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.
Comment LUZ-2:Currently,the Town of Southold enjoys a residential density of about.5 homes per acre,or
one home for every two acres.That number is important both to the number of residents in the Town and the
land's ability to deal with the wastewater generated. Experts have said the ideal density would be about one
home per five acres for traditional septic systems.The proposed project is 124 units on approximately 46
acres,which is approximately 2.7 units per acre.That is five times over the Towns current density and not a
number or trend that we can support with antiquated septic systems. (1-12-2)
Response LUZ-2:As discussed in Response LUZ-1,the proposed density of the Heritage at Cutchogue would
comply with the parameters set forth in the Town Code for the Hamlet Density(HD)zoning district, as well
as the Stipulation of Settlement(Appendix B of the DEIS). Moreover, and as discussed in the Water Resources
(WR)section of this FEIS,the impacts to groundwater from septic systems will be mitigated by the
installation of innovative alternative sanitary systems that will reduce the amount of nitrogen in sanitary
waste 60-70% below that produced by the typical sanitary systems that are currently permitted by the
SCDHS.
With regard to housing density, pursuant to the United States Census Bureau New York:2010 Population and
Housing Unit Counts,2010 Census of Population and Housing Issued June 2012 (CPH-2-34)
(htt s://www.cextod/cex2010cph-2-34.pdf),the land area of the hamlet or CDP of Cutchogue is
9.72 square miles,with 2,062 housing units in 2010,which results in a housing density of 212.1 per square
mile.The addition of 124 units for Heritage at Cutchogue would increase the housing density to 224.9 units
per square mile,which is only an approximately six percent increase.
Comment LUZ-3:If wetlands or seasonal wetlands are present on the subject property,this would require a
100-foot setback radius under Town of Southold Code. (1-13-14)
Response LUZ-3:As indicated in the DEIS and, as a result of comments and/or requests made by the public
during the public comment period,the Board of Town Trustees of the Town of Southold began an
investigation of potential wetlands on the subject property.In correspondence from the Board of Town
Trustees to the Planning Board dated April 15,2016(see Appendix C of this FEIS and the Town website),it
was confirmed that, consistent with a 2007 investigation of the same matter,there are no wetlands,or
standing water,found on the subject property, despite a two-inch rainfall the week prior to the April 6,2016
site visit. In fact, "the Trustees did not even encounter facultative wetland plants'or soils capable of
"substantial water-keeping qualities." Thus, as there are no wetlands on the subject property,required
setbacks from such resources do not apply to the subject property.
Comment LUZ-4:This is an isolated development getting the advantage of Hamlet Density,but not giving
anything back to the Hamlet configuration.A Hamlet is for people, affordability, a mixture of access to retail
and institutional directly for the residents.You can count the stores and the apartments overhead.This is the
wrong location;it's not a Hamlet,it's a small city. (1-15-1,H9-3)
53
Response LUZ-4:As indicated in Response LUZ-1,the subject property is located within the Hamlet Density
Residential Zoning District of the Town, and pursuant to Town Code§280-20:
"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."
Furthermore, according to Town Code§280-21,
"The Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District may be designated on the Zoning Map...on parcels within 1/2
mile of a Hamlet Business(HB)District of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold..."
The proposed residential community is strategically situated to take advantage of the benefits afforded by its
location,which is within walking distance(i.e.,one-quarter mile)of the hamlet center. Likewise,businesses
in the Cutchogue hamlet center are expected to benefit from the establishment of new housing, as the new
residents are expected to patronize the local businesses. The proposed project would also 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.
Moreover the applicant has committed to provide$2.0 million to the Town(see Paragraph 25 of the
Stipulation of Settlement), some portion of which the Town may use to facilitate affordable housing in the
Town.
Comment LUZ-5:We formed an organization called Save Open Space Now,and generated support for
passing the Community Preservation Fund trying to preserve the rural quality of Southold.This project is not
appropriate for the North Fork and not what we had in mind when we got money together and taxed people
to buy out development rights.My biggest concern is the community and what the farmers preserved. (1-19-2,
H10-2,H28-3)
Response LUZ-5:As indicated in Chapter 3.2 of the DEIS, according to the community Preservation Project
Plan(CPPP),the subject parcel is listed as an eligible parcel for preservation. However,the Community
Preservation Program is a voluntary program that is initiated by an application from a landowner to the
Town Land Preservation Committee/Department.Town records show that an outreach letter from the Town
Land Preservation Department to the landowner was sent in May,2008 encouraging the landowner to apply
if they had interest in selling,however there is no evidence an application was made.
Given the subject property's proximity to the hamlet center,the proposed development conforms to the HD
zoning and the requirements of the Stipulation of Settlement and is consistent with the goals and
recommendations of the Town to provide a mix of housing types proximate to and supportive of hamlet
centers.
Comment LUZ-6:This looks like when you go west or drive along Sound Avenue with condo complexes
with a guard gate.When did that look like Cutchogue?(1-112-2)
54
Response LUZ-6:To mitigate the moderate impacts to community character,noting that there are no
developments of this type with gates within the Town,no gates will be permitted.
Comment LUZ-7:You've got to work with the applicant and see whether or not they want to come in and be
the town crier or somebody who is willing to work with you to do a better job.It is still a very, very generous
density that I think will end up on that property, short of anything else.The developer saying reducing the
number of units, or summarily rejecting the concept of selling a portion of the property because the Town
never made a suggestion is faulty.(1-112-3,H31-3,C46-2)
Response LUZ-7:The comment is noted.As evidenced by this document,many changes have been made to
this project to better mitigate impacts as a result of discussions and public comments.
Comment LUZ-8:Cutchogue's Hamlet is a tiny area where our post office,several churches, an elementary
school with buses and children crossing Main Road for gym class,Cutchogue Fire and Rescue Department,
restaurants,library,village green,business, a gas station and private residences exist on or very close to Main
Road.(1-116-8)
Response LUZ-8:As indicated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Southold Hamlet Study,the purpose of
the HD zoning,partially within the HALO(hamlet locus) as shown in Figure 16 of the DEIS, and proximate
to the hamlet center,is to allow for diverse housing types and higher density,within walking distance of the
hamlet center.Moreover, a specific goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage continued operation of the
Post Office,which would be utilized by the future residents of the Heritage at Cutchogue, since it is
convenient and within walking distance.
Comment LUZ-9:Charleston,South Carolina is also referred to as the Holy City because buildings are
prohibited from being taller than the churches and old steeples.I thought of this project and found it
interesting;the ability to stop development in certain areas in an effort to harbor the aesthetic of the city.
(H17-1)
Response LUZ-9:The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would comply with the provisions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, and applicable regulations of the HD Zoning District.As such, all residential units
would be either one or two stories, and no more than 35 feet in height, consistent with surrounding single-
family residential development.The proposed clubhouse would also comply with the height restrictions of
the HD District and would not exceed the maximum permitted height of 35 feet.
Comment LUZ-10:The spot zone change done 30 years ago was not done in respect of the environment of the
North Fork.(C20-1,H26-1,H1-13,C42-1)
Response LUZ-10:The comment is noted. The HD Residential District "permits a mix of housing types and
level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers," as stated in
§280-20 of the Town Code, and discussed throughout the DEIS—specifically in Chapter 3.2.
55
Comment LUZ-11:The reference on page 130 of the DEIS to"active farmland"on the East does not include
any mention of the type of farming.The Town of Southold does not seem to distinguish between farming
which is environmentally destructive and farming which is environmentally beneficial. (C22-4)
Response LUZ-11:The comment is noted.Pursuant to Article XXI(Farmland Bill of Rights)in the Town
Zoning Code, and, specifically,§280-97.B.thereof:
Agricultural activities conducted on farmland, undertaken in compliance with applicable federal,state, county
and Town laws,rules and regulations, are presumed to be good agricultural practices and presumed not to
adversely affect the public health safety and welfare. We find that whatever nuisance may be caused to others by
such uses and activities,so conducted, is more than offset by the benefits from farming to the community.
Therefore, all such activities shall be protected farm practices within the Town of Southold.
Comment LUZ-12:The land should be rezoned as two-acre zoning allowing 20 homes at the most.(C27-6)
Response LUZ-12:The comment is noted,but the subject property is currently zoned Hamlet Density(HD)
Residential, and has been thus zoned since 1989.
Comment LUZ-13:Developing a massive group of luxury condominiums will change the character of
Cutchogue Hamlet,Southold Town and the North Fork. (H1-5,H1-10,C35-1,C45-6)
Response LUZ-13: By establishing the Hamlet Density(HD)Residential Zoning District in 1989, and
classifying the subject property in the HD District at all times since 1989,the Town has repeatedly confirmed
its intent that the subject property may be utilized for high-density residential uses.This intent is consistent
with the Towns planning goals of allowing HD development proximate to Cutchogue and other designated
hamlets.
The provision of age-restricted higher density housing around the Cutchogue hamlet center,which is
otherwise lacking in the Town of Southold and the hamlet of Cutchogue,will contribute to the diversity of
housing options.Moreover, as noted in the response to Comment LUZ-4 above, the applicant has committed
to provide$2.0 million to the Town, some portion of which the Town may use to facilitate affordable housing
within the Town.Also see Responses LUZ-1,6 and 9.
Comment LUZ-14:It's not in the hamlet center,it's not in the HALO zone around the hamlet center;it's
outside of the hamlet center,but it's close enough to walk?(H1-17)
Response LUZ-14:The subject property is located adjacent to, and just north of,the Cutchogue hamlet center,
which is identified in the Town's Hamlet Study as one of the three largest commercial areas in the Town, along
with Mattituck and Southold.The subject property is located in the HD Residential Zoning District, and
partially within the HALO(i.e.,hamlet locus), as shown in Figure 16 of the DEIS.The HALO was created to
facilitate the goals set forth in the Hamlet Study,which include,but are not limited to,new residential
development in the HALO zone,which should reflect a"walkable community"that enhances and supports
neighboring businesses in the hamlet center. As demonstrated on the Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H),
Heritage at Cutchogue will provide sidewalks from within the subject property to Schoolhouse Road, and a
56
crosswalk across Schoolhouse Road to connect to future and existing sidewalks along the east side of Griffing
Street--a length of approximately 1,000 feet--providing safe conditions for walking to and from the hamlet
center.The future sidewalk is planned to be constructed by the owner of the land adjacent to the east side of
Griffing Street,however the Heritage at Cutchogue will build the sidewalk if it has not been built at the time
the Heritage is ready to begin Phase 4 of this proposed development.
Comment LUZ-15:Will the gate be manned,and is this sort of accessory building allowed by zoning?(C44-3)
Response LUZ-15:The plans will be revised to remove the gate.The small building at the entrance may
remain and is planned to be unmanned, and is permitted by zoning as an accessory.
Comment LUZ-16:The buffer to the homes on Highland Road should be increased, and maintain natural
existing buffer around the property.Require replanting of large trees along the property lines. (C46-1)
Response LUZ-16:The proposed condominiums will comply with all applicable setback requirements of the
HD Zoning District. The Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H)provides a 50-foot deep buffer,which will
remain naturally-vegetated and benefit from supplemental plantings,whereas this area was previously
proposed to be cleared of natural vegetation and landscaped. Moreover, as shown on the Revised Site Plan,
no buildings will be within 100 feet of the westerly property line of the subject property(which is adjacent to
the Highland Road houses), and this 100-foot setback substantially exceeds the 15-foot side yard
requirements of the Town Code for the HD-zoning district.Moreover,existing trees that cannot be
maintained in their current location will be moved to the buffer to the extent that the tree species and size will
allow any particular tree to be moved.The buffers will be further supplemented with native evergreen
species so that the end result is 90%screening around the perimeter of the property. This will help mitigate
adverse impacts to community character and quality of life for adjacent property owners. When transplanting
trees,appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that workers,neighbors and future residents are protected
from exposure to arsenic.These safety measures will be incorporated into the Soil Management Plan prior to
any transplanting of trees.
Comment LUZ-17:What percent of the open space land will be covered by the proposed re-planting?(C48-
28,C48-37)
Response LUZ-17:The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue has 1,003,274 sf,or 23.03-acres of open space(i.e.,50
percent)of the subject property. As shown on the Revised Site Plan(see Appendix H),284,076 sf,or
approximately 6.52-acres is proposed to remain natural and undisturbed. As such, 719,198 sf,or
approximately 16.51 acres(72%)of the open space would be landscaped with a combination of turf and
native vegetation(see Responses VW-1,VW-3 and VW-7).
Comment LUZ-18:The DEIS shows a photograph,on page 192, across a field,adjacent to Depot Lane.There
is concern regarding views of subject parcel if it is cleared in its entirety.Where is the vegetation in the
photograph located and what visual changes will occur if the vegetation is removed?(C48-41)
Response LUZ-18:The photograph that has the view across a field adjacent to Depot Lane is on page 190 of
the DEIS.To mitigate impacts to the visual and community character of this area,the Heritage at Cutchogue
57
will add screening to the natural buffer by planting enough evergreens and other trees and shrubs to
accomplish a dense double row of vegetation that will provide at least 90%visual screening.The
supplemental plantings will be of native evergreens transplanted from the interior of the property, as well as
native evergreens brought in from a nursery if needed to complete the visual screening. (see Response LUZ-
16 for more information).
2.3.6 Communities Facilities and
Services/Socioeconomics (CFS)
Comments related to community facilities and services such as school-aged children,taxes,emergency
services and parks are addressed in this section.
Comment CFS-1:If school-age children are allowed to live in the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue,it would
place an additional tax burden on the residents of Cutchogue and Mattituck,who pay full taxes for schools,
whereas condominium owners pay a much discounted rate.If no provision is placed preventing school-aged
children,the condominium owners should be charged full taxes. (1-13-4)
Response CFS-1:The Stipulation of Settlement specifically requires that the subject property be made subject
to a covenant and restriction:
"limiting occupancy of all the 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,provided such children or grandchildren are 19 years of age
or older;and individuals,regardless of age,residing with and providing physical support to a permissible
occupant."
The age limitation on children and grandchildren is meant to eliminate the potential for school-aged children
residing at the site.Thus,with no school-aged children,the proposed development would provide an overall
net tax benefit to the Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD.
Comment CFS-2:The development will be a bad economic impact for the area.Initiate a detailed analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed community. (1-114-1,C19-2,C21-4)
Response CFS-2:A tax analysis was prepared and provided in Section 3.3 of the DEIS. Table 24,in Section 3.3
of the DEIS,indicates that the current property taxes are approximately$18,000.00. The increased market
value of the property with the development of 124 age-restricted condominium units would result in an
increase in property tax revenues, such that the various taxing jurisdictions within the Town and Suffolk
County would receive increased revenues from this project.The tax analysis estimate is based on potential
market value estimates of the proposed units,which can vary.However,the analysis provided an estimated
revenue range between approximately$839,000.00 and$1,012,000.00.
Moreover,in addition to property tax revenues, the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue is anticipated to have
positive impacts on retailers and local businesses in the hamlet center and throughout the community,due to
58
increased patronage of such businesses. The Heritage at Cutchogue is situated to take advantage of the
benefits afforded by its location,within walking distance of the hamlet center,which,by definition,is more
densely developed than the surrounding residential and agricultural areas.
Comment CFS-3:The Heritage is proposed to be gated,keeping us out,but claims that additional areas of
open space for its residents include the nearby Village Green. (C20-6,H26-6)
Response CFS-3: The Heritage at Cutchogue is a private residential community with its own private open
space and recreational amenities.
The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would provide an on-site nature trail, clubhouse,pool and tennis court
for the use of its residents and guests.Having such facilities on the site would,to a certain extent,reduce
residents'use of similar community resources.However,residents of the development(who would be
residents of the Cutchogue hamlet and the Town of Southold)would be afforded access to all publically-
accessible facilities,including the Village Green.
To mitigate the adverse impact to community character,there being no other development in Southold Town
with a gate,the plans will be revised to remove the gate.
Comment CFS-4:This project will also promote more use and abuse of the Town Beach in New Suffolk that
already operates above its stated capacity, as well as aggravating an already overloaded parking situation.
As year-round residents,we learned, after the beginning of the season,you don't make left turns. (C4-1,C26-
2,C27-4,C32-5,H2O-3,C38-3,C45-4)
Response CFS-4:The comment is noted.It is further noted that the applicant has no control over existing
parking conditions at public beaches.With regard to the ability to make left turns, as discussed in the DEIS,
as well as in Responses TSA 1,4, 11 and 12,in the Transportation section of this FEIS, the proposed
northbound approach to the signalized intersection of CR48 and Depot Lane would see a delay increase of
one second in the a.m.peak hour,resulting in a change in level of service(LOS) from C in the No-Build
condition to LOS D in the Build condition. This additional one second delay will not be noticeable to drivers
and the only reason for the change in LOS is because the existing condition operates at the upper threshold of
LOS C.Other changes in LOS at the studied intersections would all be imperceptible, and such changes in
LOS are due,in large part,to the fact that existing conditions are on the threshold of the next LOS.As such,
no mitigation is proposed or necessary, due to such changes in LOS.
Comment CFS-5:There were concerns when the Heritage was first proposed with regard to Police and Fire
protection. They are still concerns, as well as the additional burden on the Post Office and Cutchogue-New
Suffolk Library. (C27-4,H25-2,C48-8)
Response CFS-5:Correspondence informing the police and fire departments of the proposed project and
requesting information regarding potential impacts was forwarded to these agencies in September of 2014
and 2015,respectively.Such correspondence and the responses received are included in Appendix C of the
DEIS. Prior concerns of others are unknown. However,it is noted that Police Chief Flatley identified a
59
concern regarding increased vehicular traffic in the hamlet center, and specifically at the intersections of
Griffing Street and Depot Lane with NY 25, as well as the intersection of Depot Lane and CR 48. The TIA
Report indicated that the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane operates at an overall intersection LOS A
during all periods analyzed.However,the northbound approach in the a.m.peak hour sees a delay increase
of one second from the No-Build to the Build conditions,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,and there is no need for mitigation.
During the a.m.peak hour, from the Existing condition to the No-Build condition,the Schoolhouse Road and
Depot Lane eastbound approach goes from LOS A to LOS B.This change in delay is less than two seconds
and the LOS changed only because the Existing condition values were at or near the threshold for the next
LOS. This difference in delay will be unnoticeable to drivers and does not require mitigation.
During the p.m.peak hour,from the Existing condition to the No-Build condition to the Build condition,the
NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach goes from LOS E to LOS F to LOS F.The change in delay is
under seven seconds from the No-Build condition to the Build condition;this increase is not significant
enough, at an unsignalized intersection,to warrant mitigation.
During the weekend peak hour,from the Existing condition to the No-Build condition to the Build condition,
the NY 25 and Depot Lane southbound approach goes from LOS D to LOS E to LOS F.The change in delay is
less than 10 seconds from the No-Build condition to the Build condition;this increase is not 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.
As indicated in the DEIS, and in the TIA in Appendix G thereof, all critical approaches in the No-Build and
Build conditions 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.
Exterior lighting would be provided on the units and at various locations throughout the subject property
(e.g.,roadway intersections)such that the lighting would comply with applicable Town Code provisions,but
would provide adequate lighting for safety and security measures. In addition,the units would be furnished
with home security systems that would alert emergency services providers to conditions requiring their
presence at the site.
Finally, as further detailed in Section 3.3 of the DEIS,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would provide
additional property tax revenues upon completion. Such revenues may allow for the addition of police
officers and/or equipment,if it is determined additional staff and/or equipment is needed to accommodate
the residents of the 124-unit, age-restricted development.
In addition,with respect to fire protection,the concerns identified by the Cutchogue Fire Department are:
60
1. The property exit road surfaces are inadequate for our heavy vehicles and may become mired down
2. There should be a second entrance/exit to the development to allow for proper response of
emergency vehicles
3. Based on experience,locating some type of medical/nurses station within the confines of the
property to handle minor medical complaints would be helpful.
Pursuant to discussions with the Town during the SEQRA process and review of the proposed Site Plan,the
applicant has revised the site plan(see Appendix H)to eliminate the southern emergency access(i.e.,Spur
Road)and will provide enhanced markings and/or delineation to identify the northern emergency-only
access(i.e.,Bridle Lane). Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.3 of the DEIS,the specifications of the
proposed GrassPave 2 pervious pavers(see Appendix L of the DEIS)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. Finally,while there will be a 55-years-of-age-and-older requirement for the residents of the Heritage
at Cutchogue,it is not an assisted-living facility or a type of housing or congregate care facility that would be
predisposed to additional or above-average medical emergencies.However,the applicant has agreed to
provide a first aid kit/station within the community building to facilitate treatment and/or quicker response
to minor health complaints.
Finally,with regard to additional demands on the Cutchogue Post Office and the Cutchogue-New Suffolk
Free Library, as previously discussed,it is a goal within the Comprehensive Plan to keep the Cutchogue Post
Office open and operational,which the addition of 124 residential units will facilitate.Moreover, additional
taxes generated by the Heritage at Cutchogue will be realized by the library, as well as the police and fire
departments.Such additional revenues may help offset the cost of additional staff and/or supplies and
equipment that may be necessary to accommodate the additional residents within the hamlet of Cutchogue.
Additional residents would also provide the potential for new volunteers for the fire department.
Comment CFS-6:How will the Fire Department and ambulance handle potential medical emergencies from
124 additional homes when they are already looking into adding a substation to handle homes north of
Route 48 and on Nassau Point,because of the inability to reach them quickly from their present location.
Where I work in Nassau County, some of the volunteer Fire Departments refuse to respond to calls from
places similar to the proposed Heritage.They simply don't have the manpower. (C27-5,C43-1,C45-5)
Response CFS-6: As indicated in Response CFS-5, correspondence was transmitted to the fire department,
which also provides ambulance service,in September 2015 and is included,along with any responses
received,in Appendix C of the DEIS. As addressed in Response CFS-5,the fire department concerns were
limited to site access and the potential for additional emergency medical calls,whereby a request was made
for an on-site medical or nursing station.The applicant will provide a first aid kit/station within the
clubhouse.However,it is further noted that the age-restriction imposed on the future residents of the
Heritage at Cutchogue(i.e.,55-years-of-age and older)does not mean this is an assisted living or nursing
home that would be pre-disposed to a higher incidence of medical emergencies. With regard to the potential
increase in calls received, additional tax revenues generated by the proposed project would help off-set the
potential costs associated with providing additional police protection. As such, and also as addressed in
Response CFS-5, as well as Section 3.3 of the DEIS, additional residents and tax revenues will provide funds
that may be needed to buy additional equipment.With respect to reaching houses quickly, as discussed in
61
Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of the DEIS and the Transportation, Safety and Access(TSA)Section of this FEIS,the
proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would not have any perceptible changes in the operation of the intersections
studied.
2.3.7 Aesthetics (A)
Comments addressing the visual character, lighting and design of the proposed project are addressed in this
section.
Comment A-1:This proposed gated community and private club,made up of semi-detached condos with
two-car garages front and center,reflects none of the actual heritage of Cutchogue. (C44-1,C48-7)
Response A-1:The proposed 124-unit residential condominiums,to the extent possible for attached units,
contain a variety of individual design elements and would comply with the maximum height restrictions of
the HD zoning district.Consistent in height and square footage with homes in the surrounding residential
neighborhoods,the units would vary between one and two stories, and would have livable floor area
dimensions of 1,599±and 1,999±-sf.As demonstrated in the elevations provided by the architect(see
Appendix J of the DEIS),the residential units would be harmonious with the vernacular style of the
surrounding residences,with rooflines that have multiple peaks and dormers, and facades that mix wood
shingles and stone.With regard to garages being located"front and center,"the comment is noted.Given the
"attached"nature of the condominiums, alternative placement of the garages is severely limited.Moreover, a
review of existing detached houses in the area demonstrates a balance between front-entry and side-entry
garages, among single-family detached residences that have attached garages.
The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue would also provide an age-restricted condominium development in an
area currently lacking such housing type,within walking distance of the hamlet center,in keeping with the
goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Southold Hamlet Study. Also,as noted above, attached
dwellings are permitted within the HD Zoning District.
The proposal will also provide a diversity of house shapes and colors.More details regarding this will be
provided as part of the site plan review to ensure there isn t a monotonous repeat of indistinguishable units
to mitigate adverse visual impacts to community character.As stated in Response
Comment A-2:The lighting proposed for the development would include street lights along roads and
parking areas,over front porches in the front and back of each house,the clubhouse, and the pool.The DEIS
states that there will be no spillover light onto neighboring properties.This is practically impossible to state.
There are no street lights existing on Highland Road or Crown Land Lane,except for Main Street.Right now,
we can look up and see virtually all the stars, and this project is going to impact that.The extensive light
system will produce a high level of light pollution in the Cutchogue area.The impact on the ambient light
level in the surrounding neighborhoods needs to be modeled and assessed in detail. (1-118-1,C23-4,C46-8,
C48-5)
62
Response A-2:Pursuant to Town and public comments,the applicant has revised the Lighting Plan(see
Appendix H).The revised Lighting Plan demonstrates that all proposed lighting at the Heritage at Cutchogue
will be compliant with the provisions set forth in Chapter 172 of the Town Code. Specifically,the maximum
number of lumens permitted in residential and business districts is 10,000 per acre.As such,the maximum
lumens permitted on the subject property would be 45.99 x 10,000=459,959 lumens.As shown on the revised
Lighting Plan,the total lumens provided is 459,656.All proposed fixtures will operate at and emit lighting
within applicable parameters--i.e.,maximum light levels provided do not exceed five foot-candles, as
measured horizontally and vertically,light sources do not exceed 3,000 Kelvin, and 62-watt LED street lights
provide a lumen output of 5,068 lumens,which is below the maximum 6,400 lumens.
Comment A-3:The DEIS states,on page 261,that"the visual character of the site would be modified.
However,the site would be developed with a residential community contextual with the character in the
surrounding community." This is false. (C22-1,H1-14)
Response A-3:The comment is noted.Any construction that occurs on the project site would change its visual
character from open land to developed land.However, as discussed in Response A-1, as well as in Section 3.4
of the DEIS,the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue condominiums,while attached,would contain elements
similar to those found in the single-family residences in the surrounding community.Multiple dwellings,
townhouses and attached dwellings,while not common in the hamlet, are permitted within the HD Zoning
District. Furthermore,the proposed units would comply with applicable bulk requirements of the HD zoning
district(and those contained in the Stipulation of Settlement),including but not limited to height restrictions,
would be appropriately located within walking distance of the hamlet center, and would provide a diversity
of housing types in an area that is lacking this particular housing type.
Moreover, as previously discussed(see Responses VW-1,VW-3,VW-7),the Revised Site Plan(see Appendix
H)proposes to leave trees and much of the natural vegetation around the perimeter of the subject property
undisturbed, as well as supplement this vegetation,thereby screening the proposed development from
neighboring roads and lands. To mitigate impacts to the visual and community character of this area,the
Heritage at Cutchogue will add screening to the natural buffer by planting enough evergreens and other trees
and shrubs to accomplish a dense double row of vegetation that will provide visual screening of at least 90%.
The supplemental plantings will be of native evergreens transplanted from the interior of the property, as
well as native evergreens brought in from a nursery if needed to complete the visual screening. When
transplanting trees, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that workers,neighbors and future
residents are protected from exposure to arsenic.These safety measures will be incorporated into the Soil
Management Plan prior to any transplanting of trees so that the addition of trees to the buffers will not create
an adverse impact from arsenic.One example of a measure to be added to the Soil Management Plan to
mitigate any potential exposure to arsenic from transplanting activities is the use of canvas to collect soil that
may fall from the tree spade to keep it from being inadvertently distributed.
63
2.3.8 Process (P)
Comments regarding SEQRA,the Lead Agency,the role of the Planning Board and Town Board,the
Stipulation of Settlement, criteria for purchasing homes in the proposed development, and other areas of the
procedural process in general are addressed below.
Comment P-1:No Town Board,Planning Board, developer,property owner or court has any authority to
resume the SEQRA process by accepting a revised DEIS based on a prior scope developed over five years ago
by a Planning Board under a different chairman with different members.The scope has been reduced
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and pursuant to the scheduling of this application by the Planning
Board.The minutes of the meeting,when the Stipulation of Settlement was agreed to, are unclear with regard
to the approval process, and I'd like to know what the stipulation means, and what the Town is bound to.The
Stipulation of Settlement doesn't mean the Planning Board and the Town has to put aside the health of the
environment,the health of its current and future residents, and ignore critical water issues. (H1-1,H2-16,
H12-1,H13-5,H18-10,C21-2,C22-2,C35-2)
Response P-1:The current EIS process is merely a continuation of a SEQRA environmental impact review
process that has been underway for several years with respect to proposed development of the subject
property, although the DEIS that was accepted by the Planning Board, as SEQRA lead agency,in December,
2015,and that has been the subject of subsequent public hearings,properly addresses and evaluates potential
significant adverse environmental impacts of the reduced-size 124-unit development project that is currently
proposed for the subject property.
The Stipulation of Settlement in the case of Nocro,Ltd.,et al.v.Russell,et al. (Suffolk County Index No.09-
19101)had no effect upon the previously-adopted scope for the DEIS. However, as noted in the DEIS,the
project modifications that were made as a result of the Stipulation of Settlement actually effectuated or
rendered inapplicable some of the issues in the scope.
The terms of the Stipulation of Settlement are clear, and can be readily reviewed by any interested party(see
Appendix B of the DEIS for a copy of the Stipulation of Settlement).
The Stipulation of Settlement provides for full SEQRA review of the potential adverse environmental impacts
--including,but not limited to"water'impacts--of the proposed development to continue to be conducted
in accordance with all applicable SEQRA regulations.
Changes in membership of a SEQRA lead agency(such as the Planning Board), during the course of SEQRA
review of a proposed action,do not and should not affect the SEQRA process for such action,which must be
conducted in accordance with applicable SEQRA regulations.
Comment P-2:As the lead agency,please take a hard look at the potential impacts before approving any
Environmental Impact Statement for this project.As the Planning Board,please do not accept this proposal
which is obviously designed to maximize profit at the expense of the community.Based on the provisions of
SEQRA,the project should be stopped due to environmental risks associated with this project,which far
outweigh the potential benefits. (H1-7,H3-1,C32-6)
64
Response P-2:The purpose of SEQRA review--and particularly the environmental impact statement process
--is not to"stop' a proposed action,but to take the required"hard look" at the potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed action, and to ensure that such impacts are mitigated to the greatest
extent practicable. Pursuant to the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR§617.11(d),the lead agency Planning
Board, at the conclusion of the SEQRA review for the subject action,must issue "findings"that(1)consider
the relevant environmental impacts,facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS, (2)weigh and balance
relevant environmental impacts with social,economic and other considerations, (3)provide a rationale for the
agency's decision, (4)certify that the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617(i.e.,the SEQRA regulations)have
been met, and(5) certify that, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations,from among
the reasonable alternatives available,the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or
minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigation
measures that were identified as practicable.
Comment P-3:Children of school age are clearly not precluded from living in these condominiums.This may
be the only logical explanation why the developer contacted Dr.Anne Smith, Superintendent of the
Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District,by mail on September 24,2014.(1-13-3)
Response P-3:Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation of Settlement in the case of Nocro,Ltd.,et al.v.Russell,et al.,
which has been"so ordered"by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, specifically requires, as a
restriction on the"Contemplated Development" on the subject property,that:
"the Subject Property shall be made subject to a covenant and restriction limiting occupancy of all the
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,provided such children or grandchildren are 19 years of age or
older;and individuals,regardless of age,residing with and providing physical support to a
permissible occupant." (emphasis added)
The foregoing emphasized restriction on the age of children or grandchildren residing with a permissible
occupant clearly precludes any school-age children or grandchildren from residing in the proposed
development.
With respect to the developer's contact of the Superintendent of the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School
District, such contact is made as a matter of course for preparation of any DEIS for a proposed development
action within such school district.
Comment P-4:With regard to the proposed condominium development,I think it's valid to ask them to do
more to protect the environment if they are going to keep this kind of structure.You can start the dialogue
with the County Health Department,not through a fourth-party analysis of what somebody said in a letter
three years ago,but put pressure on them because the County Executive is telling us we need to do better.
Scientific conclusions have been made that probably weren't made when the Stipulation of Agreement was
65
signed off on, and we have to use science to influence the decision-making regarding this project. (1-15-2,H12-
1,H15-3,H16-3)
Response P-4:As discussed in Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS, and as demonstrated on the Overall Utility Plan
included in Appendix A therein,the proposed 124-unit Heritage at Cutchogue will comply with applicable
SCDHS regulations.SCDHS design flow standards characterize the proposed development as Planned
Retirement Community(PRC),which is defined as:
A multiple residential project in which each unit is required by law or regulation to be occupied by at least one
resident per unit who is 55 years of age or older.
Table 7 of the DEIS,which is reproduced below as Table 1 of this FEIS, sets forth the generation factors and
calculations for the anticipated sanitary waste generation.
Table 6-Anticipated Sanitary Waste Generation
Structure Use Hydraulic Load No.of Units Total
PRC unit between 600 and 1600
150 gpd/unit 72 10,800
sf gross floor area
PRC unit between 1600 and 225 gpd/unit 52 11,700
2000 sf gross floor area
TOTAL 1 1241 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).
It should be noted however,that, as discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS, and stated by the applicants'
attorney,John M.Wagner, Esq. at the public hearing held before the Planning Board on February 22,2016,the
applicant has had meetings and/or consultations with SCDHS staff regarding a pilot program for alternative
methods of handling sanitary waste,which the applicant has agreed to use.
It is anticipated,based on preliminary results from the SCDHS pilot studies--which the Planning Board
understands have the full support of the Suffolk County Executive--that implementation of the alternative
methods of handling sanitary waste on the subject property--to which the applicant has committed--will
result in a greater-than-50-percent reduction in nitrogen loading to groundwater from the loading that would
occur from traditional sanitary disposal methods approved by SCDHS.
As such,while not required by prevailing regulations,the applicant will mitigate potential large adverse
impacts to the groundwater quality by utilizing newer technology for its sanitary waste system.
Comment P-5:If I understand this,the Town Board sued the developer and said, "You cant do this,we're
going to change the zoning," and the developer countersued and the judge sided with them, so you had to
accept that you couldn't change the zoning for this particular property,is that correct?What powers do you
66
have? Are you going through the motions,or trying to preserve open space and quality of the North Fork?
(H9-4)
Response P-5:The owner and developer of the subject property commenced litigation,entitled Nocro,Ltd.,et
al.v.Russell,et al.,in the New York State Supreme Court, and such litigation,which was brought against the
Town Board,the Planning Board, and individual members of such Boards,was conditionally settled among
the parties by means of a written Stipulation of Settlement that was"so ordered"by the Supreme Court. It
should be noted that the Stipulation of Settlement, among other things, specifically requires,in Paragraph 2
thereof,that the"Contemplated Development" include the setting aside of at least 50 percent of the subject
property as"open space."
Comment P-6:Why must meetings take place at 4:30 p.m.,when people are at work, and when half the
residents of Southold are not even here? (1-114-3,C33-3)
Response P-6:The comment is noted.It should also be noted that, due in part to this comment,which was
made at the first public hearing held before the Planning Board on January 11,2016,the subsequent public
hearing(i.e.,the continuation of the first)was held at 6:00 p.m.on February 22,2016.In addition,written
comments,which are given the same consideration in the FEIS as comments made at a public hearing,were
accepted by the Town between December 23,2015 and March 11,2016,or a total of 79 days,where a
minimum of 30 days are required.
Comment P-7:Is the DEIS being amended to include the state-of-the-art alternative system that will be
approved by County Health?Also,would that include existing systems that deal with pharmaceuticals, aside
from denitrification?I'm unclear about that. (H31-1)
Response P-7:The DEIS is not being amended,as that is not appropriate under the SEQRA environmental
review process. This FEIS is the appropriate vehicle to respond to comments regarding information in the
DEIS.However,in response to comments received during the public hearings on the DEIS, and also based on
the applicant's ongoing consultations with the SCDHS,the applicant has committed to amend its proposed
development action so as to include alternative methods of handling sanitary waste on the subject property
that will result in significant reductions in nitrogen loading to groundwater from the loading that would
occur from traditional sanitary disposal methods approved by SCDHS. The SCDHS,while differentiating the
quantity of sewage flow from planned retirement communities and non-age restricted communities, does not
regulate the quality of such flow. However, all residents will be advised to dispose of pharmaceuticals
properly,and not dispose of them in wastewater. Also see Responses WR-1 and WR-7.
Comment P-8:This is really going to be setting some precedents moving forward. (1-117-2,C23-2,C25-3,H32-
1)
Response P-8:The proposed action involves development of an approximately-45.99-acre parcel of land that
has been zoned,for many years,in a"Hamlet Density(HD)Residential" zoning district of the Town of
Southold. Including the subject property,there are only 10 parcels of land,throughout the Town,that are
zoned"Hamlet Density(HD)Residential," and,of those parcels,only four(including the subject property)
67
are undeveloped. Moreover,the proposed action is designed and proposed pursuant to a specific Stipulation
of Settlement in a Supreme Court action, and thus represents a unique situation.
For the foregoing reasons,the potential of the proposed action to serve as"precedent"for other,future
developments is minimal.
Comment P-9:The Suffolk County Planning Commission approves the referral of The Heritage at Cutchogue
site plan with modifications and comments. (C18-1)
Response P-9:The comment is noted.
Comment P-10:The Stipulation of Settlement with the developer does not require sewage treatment for the
condominium project.It's outrageous,if this high-density development is allowed to pollute our North Fork.
I would like a Stipulation of Settlement with the developer to have our well water protected from the
Heritage high-density sewage, and when it pollutes our drinking water and our bays,the developer would be
responsible for the clean-up. (H26-2,C20-3,H26-3)
Response P-10: The proposed development is fully-compliant with current SCDHS sanitary disposal
requirements, and does not require a sewage treatment plant under such requirements. To mitigate the
impacts to groundwater,however, the applicant has committed to installing alternative on-site wastewater
treatment systems to augment the standard systems.These alternative methods of handling sanitary waste on
the subject property will result in significant reductions in nitrogen loading to groundwater from the loading
that would occur from traditional sanitary disposal methods approved by SCDHS.
Comment P-11:Brookhaven has established septic requirements that are higher than the Suffolk County
Department of Health, and East Hampton is considering doing the same.Why can't Southold?This is an
opportunity for you to assign the same standard by virtue of placing conditions on this development,not to
exceed three milligrams per liter on a rolling monthly basis and to have this system certified by an engineer
that is actually reporting on this. (C32-3,H4-7,C39-1)
Response P-11:The comment is noted. While Southold Town defers to the SCDHS for wastewater
regulations,the Lead Agency strongly recommended to the Heritage that mitigation to the potential impact
to groundwater resources would be necessary.Mitigation in the form of using the newest technology being
piloted by the SCDHS,which reduces the amount of Nitrogen in the effluent by 60—70%will be installed by
the Heritage. For further details on such wastewater system, see Response WR-1.
Comment P-12:The language regarding potential residents and the criteria establishing same is vague and
broad.A specific provision should be established by the Town Board and the Planning Board to prevent
school-aged children from residing at the Heritage at Cutchogue. (1-13-2,C46-6)
Response P-12:See the response to Comment P-3, above.
68
Comment P-13:Why do we need to limit this to over 55?Southold has the highest age population than
anywhere else.It's not just about overloading the school system;elderly people also overload community
resources.We don't need any more housing directed to over 55 unless it's affordable.This doesn't serve a
need. (1-15-10,H32-5)
Response P-13:There is a need in the Town for additional housing for persons, at least 55 years of age,who
wish to downsize their existing homes, and unburden themselves of the maintenance obligations associated
with single-family homes,without leaving the community.Moreover, a 55-year-or-older age restriction,
coupled with other occupancy restrictions required by the Stipulation of Settlement(see response to
Comment P-3, above),provides the benefit of increased tax revenues to the school district without imposing
on the district costs associated with additional school children.
Comment P-14:Why don't we just make it a vote,have all the people,the residents of Cutchogue vote on
whether or not to build the project?(H29-4)
Response P-14:New York State law delegates to the Town Board of a Town,not to individual voters,the
power to adopt and amend zoning regulations affecting lands within the Towns, and also delegates to the
Town Board or the Planning Board the power to review, approve,or deny applications for development
pursuant to such zoning regulations. New York State Law does not permit or require voters to approve of
development projects.
Comment P-15:The cover of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement says, "Subdivision Site Plan
Approval—The Heritage at Cutchogue."I thought this was a site plan application,not approval, and I didn't
think we were doing a subdivision.(H1-12)
Response P-15:The subject development application is for approval of a site plan for 124 condominium units
and related facilities. When approved,the proposed 124 condominium units will,for ownership and tax
assessment purposes,be depicted on a unit designation map,whereby parcels will be designated for
individual or common ownership.
Comment P-16:The so-called Stipulation of Settlement appears to admit liability for causes of action that
were dismissed by summary judgement motion for a complete lack of any legal merit. Even assuming that
everything that the developer says is true,not requiring any proof,the facts they presented do not state a
legal cause of action.The trial court threw out that cause of action. (H1-18,C35-3)
Response P-16:The"Verified Petition/Complaint"in the proceeding/action entitled Nocro,Ltd.,et al.v.
Russell,et al. (Suffolk County Index No.09-19101), asserted some 15 causes of action against the
Respondents/Defendants in the proceeding/action,which included the Town Board of the Town,the
Planning Board of the Town,the Town itself, and the individual members of the Town Board and the
Planning Board.No motion for summary judgment was made or decided in the subject litigation. Rather,the
Respondents/Defendants moved to dismiss only the ninth and fifteenth causes of action, as well as the claims
against the individual Respondents/Defendants in the proceeding/action. The Supreme Court,by an order
dated June 15,2010,granted such motion only to the extent of dismissing the claims against the individual
Respondents/Defendants and the fourteenth cause of action. All other claims were left in place.The
69
Stipulation of Settlement in the case was intended to resolve the remaining claims against the Town,the
Town Board, and the Planning Board.
Comment P-17:The Planning Board agreed with the Town Board and the developer to follow the so-called
Stipulation of Settlement,which by its terms supersedes SEQRA.It cannot be both ways.Pre-approval of any
aspect of a proposed action violates essential principles of SEQRA,which provide for one agency to review,
and to approve or deny,the whole proposed action un-partitioned including all potential external impacts
and alternatives. (C35-11)
Response P-17:The Stipulation of Settlement does not"supersede'SEQRA,but,rather,expressly provides
for full environmental impact review of the applicant's Amended Site Plan Application to proceed under the
SEQRA procedures laid out in 6 NYCRR Part 617.
Moreover,the Stipulation of Settlement does not"approve' any aspect of the applicant's proposed action,
but,rather,requires the applicant to proceed with an Amended Site Plan Application before the Town
Planning Board.
Comment P-18: Essential provisions in the Stipulation of Settlement are unclear such as that the development
may be up to 130 units.The only appropriate meaning of that provision is that the development will be less
than 130 units.Why do I get the impression that the developer and Planning Board think it meant that the
developer is entitled to build up to 130 units?(C35-12)
Response P-18:Paragraph 2(a)of the Stipulation of Settlement specifically provides that"the Contemplated
Development will include,after completion of all development phases, no more than 130 residential units,
each comprised of one or more stories, all of which units shall be condominium units." Thus,the Stipulation
of Settlement allows for up to 130 units to be approved, although the applicant is currently proposing only
124 units.
Comment P-19:The SEQRA process requires that agencies make every reasonable effort to protect the
environment in their decisions and because such decisions may require additional safeguards not imposed by
the simple adherence to the minimal standards of other involved agencies,it is necessary for the DEIS to
clearly address this issue from the standpoint of both potential impacts, as well as locally-imposed mitigation
measures. (C41-3)
Response P-19:See the response to Comment P-2, above.
Comment P-20:SEQRA directs lead agencies to assure that all projects are evaluated with the benefit of
design alternatives that seek to mitigate identified environmental impacts on both the subject site as well as
the surrounding community.Moreover,SEQRA directs lead agencies to select a design alternative that
provides the greatest practicable mitigation of environmental harm,which must be based on a reasonable
assessment of design alternatives. (C41-8)
Response P-20: See the response to Comment P-2, above. It should be noted that the DEIS for the proposed
action sets forth possible"alternatives" for the proposed action in Chapter 5.0 thereof.
70
Comment P-21:The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue has been designed to comply with(1)the Town Code
and other provisions of law and land regulations that existed prior to 2009 local laws, and(2)the aforesaid
development parameters set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.The current proposal does not support the
definition of open space set forth in Chapter 280 of the Town Code.
Response P-21:As discussed in Section 1.0 of the DEIS,the applicant has been seeking to develop the
property with uses permitted in the HD zoning district since 2002. As such, and in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement(see Appendix B of the DEIS),the proposed Heritage at
Cutchogue does meet applicable development standards set forth therein.See also the response to Comment
VW-7.
2.3.9 General (G)
This section includes comments regarding the affordability of the project,the square footage of the units,
non-specific comments,the need for age-restricted housing, and other comments that either did not clearly
fall under the prior categories or that spanned several categories.
Comment G-1:The affordable residential areas on Schoolhouse Road will be degraded.The developer has
chosen to pay money instead of including affordable housing units.We need housing for the working
families who live here,not wealthy second homeowners. (H1-6,C19-9,C20-5,H26-5)
Response G-1:In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement the applicant will pay the Town a total of$2.0
million, some portion of which the Town can use for implementation of affordable housing.
Comment G-2:Many people in their fifties and sixties, and beyond,find themselves in a home that's too
large,too costly and want to downsize to an affordable option.They also want to live in a place that protects
the very things that brought them here;the beauty of the North Fork and abundant wildlife,the slower pace
of life,its rural corridors,the protected open spaces and clean waters. (1-12-1)
Response G-2:The comment is noted.
Comment G-3:Someone has to be accountable and downsize this project.There do not appear to be any good
reasons allowing it to go through at its present size. (H25-3,C39-2)
Response G-3:Pursuant to Paragraph 2(a)of the Stipulation of Settlement, "the Contemplated Development
will include, after completion of all development phases,no more than 130 residential units, each comprised
of one or more stories, all of which units shall be condominium units."Thus,the Stipulation of Settlement
allows for no more than 130 units to be approved,and the applicant has further reduced the number of units
to 124.Also see Response P-18.
71
Comment G-4:The density is too high for the North Fork.I take offense with this project being a gated
community and the fact that they want to shove the low-income housing requirement somewhere else. (H26-
4,H1-11)
Response G-4:See Responses G-1,G-3,G-14,P-18, and LUZ-1.
Comment G-5:There are six possible condominium units,including B-1,which the architectural floor plans
say is 1,994 sf,and the DEIS says will not exceed 1,599 sf.The DEIS stipulates that basements are to be
excluded from the total square footage of the living space. Each condominium unit has a 50-by-40 inches
sliding basement window, which will provide an opening of 50-by-20,or half the width.This equates to
approximately 1,000 square inches,or 6.94 sf.The New York State Residential Code considers a basement
window with a minimum of 5.7 sf as an emergency egress.The Town should place a restriction on the size of
the basement windows to prevent them from becoming finished spaces,as classified by the Suffolk County
Department of Health,or impose a condition that there be no habitable space of any kind,including
bedrooms,in the basement area. (1-18-1,H11-2)
Response G-5:The reference to the square footage on the architectural floor plans included in the DEIS
contained an error(see Appendix F for the corrected Architectural Floor Plans). As such,the maximum
square footage of the B-1 units would be 1,599 sf.Moreover,the applicant has agreed to reduce the
dimensions of the basement windows to less than five square feet,which is below with the New York State
Building Code for emergency access, and thus prevents the basements being used for habitable space.
Planning Board conditions to the site plan will also prevent basements and other areas from being converted
to additional livable floor area.
Comment G-6:The map is not clear to me,where are the houses?Is that a cluster of four houses per group?
(H9-1)
Response G-6:The proposed site plan in the DEIS, as well as the Revised Site Plan contained in Appendix H
of this FEIS,illustrate that the 124 residential units would be developed in 62 structures;no more than two
residential units would be attached.
Comment G-7:How many roads do you know on Long Island that kids can still ride their bikes,be friendly
with neighbors and play in the street?(H10-1)
Response G-7:The comment is noted.
Comment G-8:It's been nine years since I first spoke at a public hearing on this project, and nothing has
changed.The Heritage still threatens our groundwater,the safety of our roadways and our overall quality of
life.Does public opinion count for anything in a situation like this?(1-116-1,C4-2 C25-2)
Response G-8:The comment is noted although the 124 units now proposed are substantially fewer than the
numbers of units previously proposed for the project.It is further noted that the applicant has agreed to
install an alternative sanitary system,in accordance with a pilot program through the SCDHS,which
substantially reduces nitrogen loading(see Responses WR-1,WR-7)and has prepared a TIA,which is
72
included in the DEIS(see Appendix G therein),and proposed several mitigation measures to address
potential impacts with regard to traffic and transportation issues. The Planning Board, as lead agency under
SEQRA,has held two public hearings(January 11 and February 22,2016),and accepted written public
comments between December 23,2015 and March 11,2016,for a total of 79 days,where a minimum of 30
days is required.Also see Response P-6. All substantive comments raised during the public comment period
are addressed in this FEIS.
Comment G-9:The building part will be a nightmare for us,the five years that it takes to build,our lives
would be on hold.It would be terrible.Propose and describe mitigation that could be achieved if the project
was completed in fewer phases. (H24-3,C48-4,C48-33)
Response G-9:The construction phasing discussed in the DEIS was based,in part,on market demand. The
phasing process,which has been revised so that clearing and grading of the site would also be done in
phases,would reduce overall impacts that might occur if the entire site were developed in one phase.For
example, during any particular phase,fewer machines and workers would be on-site and fewer truck trips to
deliver equipment and building materials would be expected, and there would be periods of time where no
construction is in progress.Moreover,the subject property is no longer proposed to be entirely cleared, as the
perimeter of the subject property would remain undisturbed.See Response S1. In addition,the phasing plan
will be further clarified to ensure that adverse impacts to the quality of life for neighbors are mitigated to the
greatest extent practicable.
Comment G-10:This project will negatively impact our safety,our environment,our culture and our local
economy.Why would the Town even consider building something of this nature in a village whose roads
cannot handle additional traffic,or in a town that cannot service the needs of its people?(C19-1,C23-1,C28-1,
C29-1,C31-1,H25-1,H16-15)
Response G-10:The comment is addressed throughout this FEIS.Specifically,the Transportation, Safety and
Access and Community Facilities and Services sections discuss traffic and safety issues,as well as community
facilities and services and the additional tax revenues the project will generate that may help offset costs
associated with the potential need to hire additional staff or purchase additional equipment to provide
services to the community.
Comment G-11:When will the construction time begin and end each day?(C19-7,C48-31)
Response G-11: To help mitigate the adverse impacts to quality of life for neighbors,the times that
construction activities will be allowed to occur have been adjusted to the following: 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on
weekdays and Saturdays.No outdoor construction on Saturdays(only indoor construction), and no
construction activities on Sundays.
Comment G-12:Every day we are faced with stories about tremendous threats our North Fork faces in the
way of nitrogen pollution,the availability of safe drinking water, quality of life on our waterways and
roadways.We know our way of life is threatened. (C21-1,C25-1)
73
Response G-12:The comment is noted.See Responses WR-1 and WR-7 for a discussion of the applicant's
participation in the SCDHS pilot program to reduce nitrogen loading in sanitary waste through the
installation of septic systems that incorporate advanced nitrogen-reduction technology.
Comment G-13:The site plan does not include any solar power.Solar orientation,hot water,pool heating,
and lighting are all conspicuously missing from the DEIS. (C22-3,H1-19,C35-5,C48-6)
Response G-13:The proposed development would be individually-owned condominium units and, as such,
the applicant cannot anticipate the desire or willingness of each owner to install solar panels.However,it
should be noted that the applicant has agreed to provide solar panels on the roof of the community center.
Comment G-14:I'm not aware of any endemic security problems on the North Fork,but the project provides
a gated entrance,with a manned reception booth that would restrict access to the community. (H1-15,C35-6)
Response G-14:The plans will be revised to remove the gate to mitigate impacts to community character.
There are not any gated communities in Southold Town.
Comment G-15:I'm not sure where,but it says there are not going to be any sidewalks, and yet they say they
are going to be able to walk to town. (H1-16)
Response G-15:The proposed site plan has been revised to indicate that sidewalks within the Heritage at
Cutchogue would also extend to and beyond Griffing Street to NY 25 and the hamlet center,thereby
providing pedestrian access between the residential community and the local businesses and community
facilities in the hamlet center.The Heritage will also build a crosswalk from the Heritage across Schoolhouse
Road to Griffing Street.The future sidewalk on the east side of Griffing Street is planned to be constructed by
the owner of the land adjacent to it. The Heritage at Cutchogue,however,will build the sidewalk along the
east side of Griffing Street to complete the connection to NY 25 if it has not been built at the time the Heritage
is ready to begin Phase 4 of this proposed development.
Comment G-16:This plan does not include any garden.This is especially ironic and unfortunate because the
location is in between a traditional suburban residential subdivision and farmland.There is a community
garden that has been established at the Cutchogue Library.I bet we could get somebody to work with the
proposed condominium homeowner's association and put in a community garden. (H1-20,C35-7)
Response G-16:The comment is noted.There are no requirements within the Town Code of the Town of
Southold to provide community gardens.A community garden for residents might be possible,however one
has not been proposed.
Comment G-17:The DEIS describes the land as"undeveloped" and in the same sentence contradicts that
statement in recognition of decades of farming.You don't go out and farm woodland,it must be developed
first. (H1-21)
74
Response G-17:The subject property has not been utilized as farmland for over 30 years.As such,the
successional growth that has overtaken the property has changed the use and character of the property from
formerly-agriculturally-developed to currently undeveloped.
Comment G-18:The reference in the DEIS to"active farmland on the east" doesn't include any mention of the
type of farming that's being done there.I heard that the farm was being cultivated organically.I wonder how
the development proposed might affect the organic cultivation of the farm right next to it. (H1-22)
Response G-18:Pursuant to Chapter 205.202 of the United State Department of Agriculture(USDA)Title 7,
Subtitle B, Regulations of the Department of Agriculture organic regulations,with regard to land requirements:
Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as
"organic,"must:
(a) Have been managed in accordance with the provisions of§§205.203 through 205.206;
(b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in§205.105,applied to it for a period of 3 years
immediately preceding harvest of the crop;and
(c) Have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to prevent the
unintended application of a prohibited substance to the crop or contact with a prohibited substance
applied to adjoining land that is not under organic management.
Article XXI.of the Town Code, Farmland Bill of Rights, and,more specifically,Section 280-97.A.thereof, states
in pertinent part:
Accordingly,farmers shall have the right to farm in Southold without undue interference from adjacent
landowners or users. For the purpose of reducing future conflicts between people residing on tracts adjacent to
farmlands and farmers, it is necessary to establish and give notice of the nature of the farming activities to
future neighbors of farmland and farming activities.
Section 280-100 further states:
A. The Town Planning Board, the Town Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals shall require, as part of any
approval of any development immediately adjacent to or within 500 feet of any parcel of at least five acres
in size, which, at the time of such approval, is in active agricultural use, that a notice of protected farm
practices be given to all purchasers of such developed property.
B. The notice of protected farm practices shall be included in permanent covenants and restrictions which
shall run with the land on each parcel when such parcel is subdivided or developed.
C. If,in any development, it is the intent to make the common or green space available for agriculture, the
notice of protected farm practices shall be included in permanent covenants and restrictions.
Thus,with respect to the comment,except as set forth in the Town Code Section 280-100,it is the farmer's
obligation to maintain and adhere to such requirements that would protect its agricultural use,as well as any
purported organic status.This would be the case with any development adjacent to an organic farm.
75
Comment G-19:The Town of Southold doesn't seem to make any distinction between farming which is
environmentally destructive and farming which is environmentally beneficial. (H1-23)
Response G-19:The comment is noted.No farming of the subject parcel is proposed.
Comment G-20:We'll have 124 families sell their larger,more expensive houses and move into
condominiums,but who's going to buy those 124 houses?It is not going to be your young families in
Southold Town,they won't be able to afford it.So what you are going to effectively do is import 124 families
from elsewhere. (H32-2)
Response G-20:The comment is noted.It is further noted that, as discussed in the DEIS,the proposed
Heritage at Cutchogue would be consistent with the housing goals and policies,set forth in several Town
studies and/or plans,to provide a diversity of housing throughout the Town,including higher density
housing proximate to the hamlet centers, as is proposed. Moreover,new residents would be expected from
many communities, and would not be limited to the residents of the Town of Southold.
Comment G-21:I have a grandson that goes to Our Lady of Mercy School, and I know that the construction
debris and the noise and the traffic are going to impact that school.It will.There's just no way it can't.(H32-4)
Response G-21:Our Lady of Mercy School is located on NY 25,west of Griffing Street, approximately 700 feet
southwest of the subject property.As discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS, although no significant adverse
impacts to public health are anticipated, as part of the proposed project,the following mitigation measures
would be employed:
> 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, and in accordance with
the noise ordinance in Chapter 180 of the Town Code.
> During construction,emission controls for construction vehicle emissions would include,as appropriate,
proper maintenance of all motor vehicles,machinery, and equipment associated with construction
activities,including 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 mitigated through implementation of the Soil
Management Plan.
> Construction routes will be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Board with
recommendations from the Town Transportation Commission prior to the start of each phase of
development identified in the Phasing Plan.
76
Comment G-22:Economic considerations include whether the future residents will want to pay a living wage
to the guards in the booth, and if they want sidewalks to walk in to town,who will pay for those sidewalks?
(C35-10)
Response G-22:The proposed Heritage at Cutchogue,upon completion,would have a homeowner's
association and associated common fees that would be paid by the unit owners as common charges
associated with the development.It is noted,however,that the proposed booth would be unmanned.
Moreover,the development is proposed to have sidewalks and,the proposed site plan has been modified to
include sidewalks that will extend from within the development out to Griffing Street and along Griffing
Street to NY 25,to allow for pedestrian access between the residential community and the local businesses
and community facilities in the hamlet center.Such sidewalks will be provided and paid for by the developer,
except for the stretch of sidewalk between the post office and Schoolhouse Road,which is expected to be
constructed by the owner of the Baxter Subdivision adjacent to it. The Heritage at Cutchogue,however,will
build the sidewalk along the east side of Griffing Street to complete the connection to NY 25 if it has not been
built at the time the Heritage is ready to begin Phase 4 of this proposed development.
Comment G-23:In order to preserve our organic certification we will immediately have to increase setback
requirements from the landscaped and sprayed areas up to 150 feet,which would increase buffers and result
in a loss of valuable farm-able acreage. (C42-3)
Response G-23:Chapter 205.2 of USDA Title 7,Subtitle B, Regulations of the Department of Agriculture states:
Buffer zone.An area located between a certified production operation or portion of a production operation and
an adjacent land area that is not maintained under organic management. A buffer zone must be sufficient in
size or other features (e.g., windbreaks or a diversion ditch)to prevent the possibility of unintended contact by
prohibited substances applied to adjacent land areas with an area that is part of a certified operation.
As there are no foolproof measures to determine what,if any, substances are applied on a property adjoining
an organic farm,it is incumbent on the organic farmer,under the foregoing regulation,to maintain such
buffer zones to guarantee the integrity of the organic status of the farm. This property,however,will have
conditions requiring it use only organic fertilizer and pesticides.In addition, a thick evergreen screening will
be planted which will provide a windbreak that will likely reduce the possibility of unintended contact by
prohibited substances.
Comment G-24:The Heritage project will create a situation that is likely to increase the possibility of conflicts
with adjacent neighbors(75-feet away)and that is a planning problem the Town has long sought to avoid.It
is unreasonable to put that amount of people on forty acres right next to a working farm. (C42-4)
Response G-24:See Responses G-18 and G-23.To avoid potential conflicts, as stated in the Town Code,future
neighbors of"farmland and farming activities'must be given notice of the nature of such activities. The
Towns Farmland Bill of Rights are intended to prevent these types of conflicts from occurring or interfering
with farming practices. The setback of the residential units to the property line of the adjoining working farm
is a minimum of approximately 79 feet.That,together with the required evergreen buffer plantings will
reduce potential for conflict.
77
Comment G-25:Please consider more entrances and exits for the project.They will ease the flow of vehicles
onto all roads rather than one entrance. (C47-2)
Response G-25:The TIA,in Appendix G of the DEIS, demonstrates that one main access on Schoolhouse
Road is sufficient to handle the trips generated by the project. Based on comments received and review of the
site plan,the Town recommended eliminating the southernmost emergency access point(i.e.,Spur Road),
given its proximity to the main entrance.The northern emergency access at Bridle Lane will remain.
78