Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWritten comments on the FEIS i ba FOR 'riIE EAST END �l ,jkki ,PSL m October 26, 2016 H I� V 011 °211 m m, Chairman Don Wilcenski& Planning Board " Members of the Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 t, m Southold, NY 11971 Re: SEQRA Findings Statement&Wastewater Treatment at the "j Heritage at Cutchogue II, II Dear Chairman Wilcenski On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following recommendations regarding the issue of wastewater treatment for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue site plan application. Group for the East End has reviewed all of the application material and has provided extensive comments within the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. For the record,we remain opposed to the density and layout of the proposed " development, and are deeply concerned about its impact on the neighborhood character, infrastructure, environment and working agricultural landscape of Cutchogue. If however,it remains the Town's intention to approve the project,we tt.ongly reconitne,t1d tliat,.the be t'available advanced wast(,,-water tiali:,nent;; technolo y be required for any liigl�-density developrnient�oftlli l,te The SEQR Findings Statement should reflect this requirement.. Substantial scientific data available from Stony Brook University,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,the US Geologic Survey and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (based on water quality modeling and field testing done across the region) clearly demonstrates that wastewater is impacting groundwater which in turn, directly impacts surface water quality (Sn.iniiolk t;n.n rIlt'y Coinj)r ei�cnsi e �Aer Resources Il a,nagerne nt For instance,Wickham's Creek,located approximately a half-mile from the site, is already designated an "Impaired Waterbody" (NYSDEC) and will undoubtedly be further impacted. Over the last year, Suffolk County and New York State have made nitrogen impacts stemming from wastewater discharge a top environmental and economic priority and begun investing millions of dollars toward the development of new standards t " ' for sanitary waste disposal and nitrogen management across Long Island. I i uml a uuulul VmV p ipp uuuu uuuuuu VmVuuu u u Vmu� VVV V I I The Heritage at Cutchogue is the largest residential proposal to be reviewed by the Town in years. The Planning Board,as Lead Agency,has the authority to require mitigation measures not specifically required by other involved agencies. In this case,there is ample evidence illustrating the need to provide mitigation to protect ground and surface waters. If the project is built out with the density as proposed, advanced wastewater treatment technology will act as a mitigation measure. In addition to the use of advanced wastewater technology,we strongly support a well-defined and enforceable monitoring,reporting and compliance schedule. This should also be reflected in the SEQRA Finding Statement and overseen by the Town (in conjunction with the SCDHS) to assure that the desired mitigation is actually being achieved. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience should you have any questions. I can be reached at(631) 765-6450 ext. 213 or at bC'dI_U (1c Ili �:'OI'l ''11 eilt'n�,e • shic tel Robert S. DeLuca President Cc:Walter Dawydiak,Suffolk County Department of Health Services Heather Lanza, Director of Planning,Southold 1 c Jf I ' IlI r 800 Crown Land Lane p(;,.H L�IkAT Cutchogue, NY 11935 Sept. 12, 2016 L p �; W� EP 12 r%ti b Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Annex Bldg. (TU f��-iFr3wW-- yDare f'9r�dMsr P.O. Box 1179 �.�,��..w.—.... ,,,� , 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement Heritage at Cutchogue Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold Suffolk County, NY Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Board: Please include the following comments In the record on the FEIS for the Heritage at Cutchogue. After reviewing the FEIS, we are still concerned about a major facet of the project— traffic safety—and how this will impact us and other current residents of Cutchogue and the North Fork. First, in reference to TSA-1—existing roadways—we disagree with the finding that existing roadways can handle the additional traffic that will be generated by the Heritage. First, by their own admission,the planners presented a scenario where a couple 55 and over, one or more grandchildren, and a health care aide can reside in each unit. During the summer,these units will be fully occupied to take advantage of the North Fork's high summer season, and will most likely include visitors to many of the residents in these units. With maintenance and delivery vehicles also servicing this community, it is not hard to imagine 300 or more additional vehicles on local roadways daily at all hours of the day and evening, contributing to an already overloaded network of local roadways. Griffins Street and Main Road— This is a notorious intersection because the street includes the Cutchogue Post Office, the entrance and exit for a Catholic School, and a number of expanding local businesses and vacant land designated for potential businesses. After living in Cutchogue for 23 years, this is by far the worst intersection in Cutchogue. With the addition of parking for businesses on the Main Road,there is very poor visibility for both left and right turns onto Main Road from Griffing St. With the proposed entrance for the Heritage to be where Griffing intersects Schoolhouse Rd, all of the condo traffic will be using this roadway to gain access to their residences. New Suffolk Road and Main Road— The Cutchogue Fire Dept. uses this intersection to answer calls going east and west along Main Road. This intersection is within 100 feet of the Griffing St intersection, (where condo traffic will turn to enter and leave the Heritage) with a 3 -way traffic signal, in the center of the business/historic district. Particularly during the summer, this is where traffic backs up in both east and west directions. Traffic has increased dramatically in Cutchogue in the last decade due to the wineries, breweries, agritainment, festivals and annual events both in the hamlet and across the entire North Fork. This has brought bus traffic from the Hampton Jitney and North Fork Express as well as Suffolk County Bus Service, vans and stretch limos to the center of Cutchogue—the very area that we have just described as so dangerous for cars, bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate. Traffic improvements for this area have been long overdue, and with the consideration of this development are absolutely essential. Please consider our concerns as you review this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Tom & Barbara McAdam �� C %r' u.W 800 Crown Land LaneH�ar4l� � „�� - Cutchogue, NY 11935 sir Sept. 12, 2016 x , u �. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Annex Bldg. P.O. Box 1179 1, d 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement Heritage at Cutchogue Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold Suffolk County, NY Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Board: Please include the following comments in the record on the FEIS for the Heritage at Cutchogue. After reviewing the FEIS, we are still concerned about a major facet of the project— water resources—and how this will impact us and other current residents of Cutchogue and the North Fork. First, in reference to WR2.3.2, we are concerned with the finding that there is ample water supply provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority for non-irrigation use. All summer, we, along with other SCWA customers on the East End, have received letters encouraging water conservation for household use and irrigation. SCWA states that with irrigation during summer months,there is a lack of water pressure across East End households to accommodate morning showers and irrigation in early morning hours. Customers were requested to voluntarily utilize an odd—even irrigation schedule to prevent low water pressure during the summer and to consider purchasing water-reducing showerheads. Letters were followed by robo-calls and full-page ads in Newsday and The Suffolk Times. We question the ability of the SCWA to provide water to the North Fork, especially with the 124 units proposed by this project. Our concern is whether there is an ample amount of wateravailable to SCWAservice to North Fork in the near and distant The FEIS states that the Heritage will mitigate its water use for irrigation by sinking its own well. It will be sizable, unlike the private residential wells that we and our neighbors have. How will that impact the private wells that most homeowners in Cutchogue still use for their own irrigation systems even if they are also hooked up to SCWA? Further, how will that impact residents whose sole source of water is a private well? If the water supply is in question now, what will happen when a 124 unit development is in full-swing during the summer, irrigating its lush landscape and servicing all of its residents and their summer guests? We fear that the cost will be paid by the current residents in the area—Southold Town -with additional water restrictions being mandated and cost increases levied by the SCWA to facilitate additional'wat6r transmission lines. Please consider our concerns as you review this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Tom & Barbara McAdam 6� r 9 September 2016 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 `:G P 0 (i 20 1 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Wilcenski: PWrflng Board I am writing to provide comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted by the developer of the proposed 124-unit condominium complex, the `Heritage at Cutchogue'. While there have been substantive improvements in several areas, I would like to address a number of concerns that remain. 1) The set aside of 6.52 acres along the perimeter of the property is stated to serve the purpose of providing potential roosting habitat for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat, as this area contains a number of larger trees. However, most of the largest trees, which are likely to serve as the best potential roosting areas, and not found along the perimeter but rather in the interior of the property. As such, preservation of these trees would afford the greatest roosting potential for this species. The fact that "no agency [New York Natural Heritage Program] records currently exist for northern long-eared bay (Myotis septentrionalis) hibernacula (winter habitation sites) or roost trees at or in the vicinity of the subject property." does not necessarily mean that they are not found there. `No records' may simply indicate that they have no data on this site. As such, this matter needs to be given further consideration to ensure that if this property represents potential habitat for this federally threatened species it is protected to the full extent possible. Federal law mandates this. 2) The expected increase in traffic volume resulting from the--300 new residents in the development are still given trivial consideration. The use of`standard practices' in doing traffic surveys and assessing associated impacts are cited again and again in the FEIS as a way to dismiss these impacts, but this is just not good enough. I firmly believe the Town Planning Board needs to require further study of this matter. 3) The statement that no children under age 19 will be permitted to live in the proposed development, and thus there will be no impact on the local schools, is pure fantasy. Accordingly, I include the text from my comments which I made on the DEIS: The DEIS states that "The proposed project would include 124 residential condominium units, subject to covenants and restrictions limiting occupancy of the units to person 55 years or older, a spouse of any age, children or grandchildren residing with a permissible occupant provided they are 19 years of age or older, and individuals residing with and providing support to a permissible occupant." This is very vague. The clause "providing support" is extremely broad: does this include physical, emotional and/or other forms of support? If so, children of school age are clearly not precluded from living in these condominiums. This can be the only logical explanation for the fact that the developer contacted Dr. Anne Smith, Superintendent of the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District, by mail on Sept, 24, 2014, to inquire about the capacity of local 2 schools and whether they would be able to accommodate school age children from the development (Appendix C of the DEIS). If school age children live in the condominium complex and are allowed to attend our local schools, this would place an additional tax burden on the residents of Cutchogue and Mattituck who pay full taxes for schools, whereas the condominium owners would pay a much discounted rate. This is completely unfair! ---> To eliminate the possibility of school aged children living in the condominiums, without their parents paying the same level of taxes as other residents of the town, a specific provision should be required by the Town of Southold that if any children from the proposed complex attend local public schools they should have to pay full taxes to the school district. 4) 1 found no mention of the purported presence of a former gas station at the SE corner of the property proposed for the Heritage development, i.e. next to the current R/V park–a matter which I raised in my review of the DEIS. In looking at the map of locations where samples were taken to assess the levels of toxins and heavy metals in soil, which is provided in Appendix D of the DEIS, it does not appear that this area was sampled. Accordingly, this area should be surveyed and, if toxic materials are found, they need to be handled in the appropriate manner. 5) It is not clear what the maximum size unit in the proposed condominium complex would be: 1,599 or 1,999 sq. ft. The FEIS state the former, while the site plans show the latter. 6) Even though the plan to install Nitrogen mitigation units would decrease the amount of Nitrogen generated by the>250 residents of the proposed development, it is abundantly clear that the amount of Nitrogen resulting from wastewater and fertilizers used on site will represent an enormous load to the groundwaters of Cutchogue and ultimately to the Peconic Bays. This is still a huge concern and needs to be considered in the Planning Board's final decision on whether to grant approval for this proposed development. Very recently, the Town of Southold rejected a proposal to build a public recreation center off Main Road in Mattituck, on the basis of potentially substantial environmental impacts. The proposed — � � ._ Herita eat Cutcho ue , with more than 250 residents plus associated staff, undoubtedlyrepresentsa much larger and much greater environmental threat. So, how can this be allowed to go forward? I urge you and the Town Planning Board to reject the `Heritage' and find an alternative fate for this property which is in accordance with the wishes and demands of the majority of Cutchogue and North Fork residents. Thank you for your consideration, Stephen Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 stephen.tettelbachggmail.com 631-682-2865