The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Correspondence e) �4(, f3C PO Box 473 Orient,New York 11957 January 28, 2019 dFEB 0 1 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman uldi-OW �o Planning Board Southold Town Planning Board mm Re: Tenedios Application in Orient Dear Mr. Wilcenski, I am enclosing a letter I sent to the DEC referencing their purchase of the south periphery of Hallocks Bay and asking them to deny thy, Tenedios application. As I an: sure you have been aware, Maureen Cullinane's covenant in the transfer of rights of a portion of that property to the town was intended to protect the environmental qualities of the property and protect its visual impact on what is a designated"scenic byway." The present application violates both. The community of Orient is of course alarmed about the possible use of the property to attract crowds with"farm-themed entertainment" of various kinds, but the most immediate threat, we fear, is to the ecology of the bay. I hope you and the Board will take this issue very seriously. Best, Freddie Wahsberger 3180 Orchard Street (FYI) P.O. Box 473 Orient,New York 11957 631-323-3501 December 19, 2018 Re: Fresh&CoFarm LLC: wetlands; Application for Tidal Wetlands Permit, 1-4738- 03952/00004, 28410 NYS Rte. 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.1-1.3 & 1.4 Laura Scovazzo New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 SUNY@StonyBrook, 50 Circle Road StonyBrook NY 11790 Dear Ms. Scovazzo, The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a significant history of investment in Orient's Hallock's Bay, which is seriously threatened by the projected development by Fresh& Co. on Narrow River Road. I was chairman of the Orient Association's Hallocks Bay Committee in 1983 when the health of the Bay was threatened by two projected developments: two speculation houses with private marinas at the "Potato Dock", one of Orient's recognized"sacred spots," and a private home on Gid's Island in the bay. The applications had received all necessary permits from Southold Town and, originally, from the DEC. But the Bay was ultimately saved, with the assistance of two successive County Executives, Michael Lo Grande and Patrick Halpin, by a reversal of the DEC's position and the purchase by the DEC, with funds from the Tidal Wetlands Act of 1972, of the northern periphery of Hallock's Bay, including the "Potato Dock, and of Gid's Island. The Department has, therefore, acknowledged the significance of the bay and has, I feel, an important stake in its continued preservation. For the past thirty-five yParsthe Orient comrnunii�'has continued to enjoy the Use of the Potato Dock beach and shallow waters for swimming and shellfishing, and the creeks for canoeing and crabbing. But now the health of the Bay, already degraded by the spread of residential construction in Orient, is immediately threatened by Fresh& Co.'s planned installation of a variety and number of animals, including goats,pigs, and larger mammals, on a property immediately adjacent to Narrow River Road at a point where it is separated from Narrow River only by the road itself. The property is low-lying, in a flood plane, and subject to flooding during heavy rains, and the Orient community fears that there is no assurance that the animal waste can be adequately contained. This threat to the health and wellbeing of a critical Orient amenity reminds me inevitably of the precarious 1980's. I hope the DEC will once again come to our rescue. Sincerely, Fredrica Wachsberger From: Jeanne Markel < rn.markel@ mail.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:32 AM RECEIVED To: Lanza, Heather Subject: [SPAM] - Tenedios Greenhouse and Barn A 17 2019 F�,n�ib�u9d Dear Planning Board Members, Planning ward I am against the continuance of work on the Tenedios greenhouse without a proper permit in place. Claiming it was necessary to house pregnant animals is a poor excuse. And since when do animals belong in a greenhouse? If the owner needs to house animals then he should be focused on renting a barn and paying for someone to care for them properly. Overall I am concerned with the number of animals that will eventually be resident on this property and thus am against the large barn proposed. Their waste threatens our water. Take a drive along Narrow River Road at high tide and you will see the water level almost to the road. Add in a full moon or a storm and it is easy to imagine a breach of the road allowing run off from the Tenedios property. I do not think Mr. Tenedios should be rewarded for noncompliance. Please do not rescind the stop order on the greenhouse. Sincerely, Jeanne Markel 100 Harbor Road Orient,NY From: Ambriel Floyd Bostic <ambrielfloyd@gmail.com> - -- ........ Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:06 PM Vdw 2019 To: Lanza, Heather; Michaelis, Jessica; Cummings, Brian A. Cc: Reed Super; Mike DiGiulio .,ou'r, id 1 own Subject: Fwd: # 1-4738-03952/00004 Fresh and Co, LLC Nanning Board Attachments: petition_signatures,jobs_12214672_20190107190550.pdf;Ambriel DEC Letter.pdf Dear All, I am writing in regards two two applications you are currently considering for Tenedios/Fresh and Co. Please add my letter and the attachments to the file for the greenhouse as well as for the agricultural building. I am unable to attend the Planning Board meeting this evening, but wanted to write in to again express my deep concern over the possible repercussions of approving these structures. I worry a great deal that allowing a barn of this size and a greenhouse to be built will allow Tenedios to further expand the livestock operation that clearly jeopardizes the quality of our water and aquifer. I worry, also, that once any kind of approval is given Mr. Tenedios will continue on his trajectory of flouting the law, farming irresponsibly, and ignoring the health and safety concerns in regards to our shared aquifer, water, and surrounding waterways. I do not think allowing animals to die is a reason to get what you want - I believe a responsible actual farmer would have taken care to provide adequate shelter for his current animals before breeding them and acquiring more. I am attaching the petition you are all familiar with. We have over 3,100 signatures on this petition, a sizable share being residents of the Town of Southold. Most households in Orient have had at least one member sign and many people have signed from neighboring communities on the North Fork and Long Island. We also have signatures and comments from New Yorkers and others who visit regularly. Demonstrably, the larger community is against the building of structures on this property for questionable purposes, not just summer folks. Quite clearly, members of the Orient community are very concerned about what will happen to their water should Tenedios be given the green light to do as he pleases, and this is a very serious concern, indeed. I am also attaching my letter to the DEC regarding the DEC application. You should know, a significant number of residents of Orient have also written to the DEC. This should get and keep your attention - we are more than concerned. Please take the long view on this, but base it on actions to date. I believe it is clear a building is just foothold to further exploitation of the resources and the law. Ambriel Floyd Bostic ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ambriel Floyd Bostic <anibricffl(iypr uu ail co m> Date: Fri, .Tan 11, 2019 at 4:38 PMJi Subject: Re: # 1-4738-03952/00004 Fresh and Co, LLC To: M�-1aura. scovaz ,) c w�1 ;' °, < 7� r1 . �Lw tl � rr! �cc.� `°, <cn�z�. 011 lec-Ill:goy> Cc: Reed Super < w a:asu cr law_ p.ccac l- , Mike DiGiulio <oiiilwec L lm tm vga ca�r�?mcmoNiib, Hawes Bostic <l myes.bo sticgar„gt �<ti1�coni> Dear All: I would like to follow up on my prior letter to Ms/Mrs Scovazzo, which you will find attached. I also write on behalf of those of us in the Orient community who are very upset and worried by the prospect of continued livestock farming and operational expansion proposed by Steve Tenedios/Fresh and Co for the property located at 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road& NYS Route 25. I'm attaching the petition started by our community that has over 3,000 signatures. This is a big deal in our community-most households, if not all, in Orient itself are opposed to the Tenedios application and have had at least one member sign the petition. Many who visit regularly have also signed, as well as people further west on Long Island and who live in neighboring towns. It is obvious to most and has been proven repeatedly that Tenedios is not prepared to be a responsible steward of this protected land. He flouts the law. His animals have been spotted loose and grazing at the culverts on the property more than once. He does not properly dispose of dead animals-his neighbors found animals he trapped piled up at the fence line on their property-and we are not convinced he will properly dispose of animal waste moving forward. Very sadly, he confesses that after losing several animals last winter because of inadequate shelter, he continued to add to and breed his animals so that he faces a crisis of animal welfare this winter, a crisis he created by expanding his numbers without providing housing first. One wonders why he put the animals at risk instead of acting responsibly. (He has 5 pregnant animals dues in January with no proper shelter.) We as a community feel strongly about this particular property because it is in a protected area, is part of the wetlands, and has several culverts that feed into Narrow River. There is standing water on the property and some say the pond (not shown in the application map he originally submitted) is now saline. We worry about our water if Tenedios is allowed to expand his livestock operation-to us this is urgent. This is about responsible use of the land and protection of our water. Please consider helping us prevent what we worry will be a disastrous situation. Tenedios has shown he will not comply with best practices or even the law if it doesn't suit his agenda. We worry very much granting him permission for this massive barn will allow his livestock operation to grow to an untenable level. I again request you open this application up for a public hearing. Ambriel Floyd Bostic On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ambriel Floyd Bostic <flnbr ac1t1oW�w,j2 maa iiL c¢Lm_p> wrote: Dear Mrs. Scovazzo: My name is Ambriel Bostic and I am a resident of Orient,NY. Please consider my attached letter in regards to application #1-4738-03952-00004 from Fresh and Co, LLC. I would like to request a public hearing on this matter, so that voices from the community may be heard. Please also find attached a photos of the property in question. It shows standing water surrounding a culvert. Water frequently pools even in the areas where the animals graze. I think it only takes one glance to understand which this is a critical issue. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I am available by email at this address or by phone at 646- 298-4282. 2 Again, my letter is attached in PDF format, but please let me know if you have any problems opening it or would prefer it in a different format. Ambriel Floyd Bostic RE"C"EIVE D OAA 14 2019 Ambriel Bostic 5305 Narrow River Road Tow-ri Orient, NY 11957 Planning Board _ �. .. arnbrielfloyd@gMali.coni December 18, 2018 Laura Scovazzo (laura.scovazzo i dec.n . v) Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790 # 1-4738-03952/00004 Fresh&CoFarm LLC —wetlands Dear Mrs. Scovazzo: My name is Ambriel Bostic and my husband and I own a home at 5305 Narrow River Road in Orient, NY. Our property is just down the road from a property owned by Fresh and Co Farm LLC, AKA Tenedios. (The Tenedios/Fresh and Co property is 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25.) 1 am writing in regards to permit application # 1-4738-03952/00004. As owners of residential property, much of which is wetlands, my husband and I try to be careful and responsible stewards of our land. We recently applied for and received a DEC permit for restoration of our pond and removal of invasive species, work we hired an ecologist and a landscape architect to plan so as to help maintain healthy wetlands on our property. We have two small children, grow vegetables, and raise bees on our property. We drink from well water. For years we swam just across the street, where Narrow River meets Hallock's Bay, as do many families in the area with young children. For all of these reasons, I am very concerned about the potential polluting effects of raising livestock on the Fresh and Co property. From everything I have seen and documented with my own photos and videos, the culverts on the Fresh and Co property dump directly into Narrow River. Over the course of the last year, animals have been allowed to roam with no particular attention to buffer zones and graze and defecate alongside the culverts. I often see standing water on the property all the way up to the fence line where the animals are. After a heavy rain the pools of water are quite large. I've stopped letting my children swim in Hallock's Bay for now. Tenedios/Fresh and Co did not use best practices for most of 2018 and I can only imagine how much animal waste made it into the culverts, Narrow River, and the Bay. A Town study showed it only takes one tidal cycle for potential pollutant entering the culverts on the Fresh and Co property to reach the bay. This worries me. Tenedios and his attorney are now pushing the Town of Southold to rush a greenhouse application (a greenhouse they already started building in flagrant disregard for the law) so that animals on the property do not die over the winter. The original application to the planning board was for a nearly 9,000 square foot barn to house livestock. If this greenhouse and the barn are built, it will significantly increase the number of livestock Tenedios can have on the property. Given how completely irresponsible he has been thus far, both with best practices and with owning livestock without first making sure those animals have appropriate shelter (which I consider abuse), how can we believe he will run a bigger livestock operation in an environmentally responsible way? I strongly believe allowing a large barn to be built by this particular applicant on this particular property would lead to continued and greater irresponsible livestock practices. I strongly believe this would lead to significant pollution of our water. I strongly believe this is an extremely important moment where protecting out community's shared water and the surrounding environment is absolutely essential. The property in question is part of a designated Critical Environmental Area. It is part of a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. It is in the flood plain. The applicant used a pre-Sandy survey to create his site plan and many believe it does not correctly delineate wetlands on his property. I am writing to ask you hold a public hearing about this application and open it up to comments from the public. This is not an anti-agriculture request - I support responsible farming. This is a request about a critical decision that will set a precedent with the Town and developers for years to come. Our water, our aquifer, and our beautiful Narrow River, wetlands, and bay are all at stake here. It only takes one drive down Narrow River Road to see why this plan is so controversial in the community. More than 3,000 people have signed a petition requesting the Town deny the building permit application for the large barn. The beauty of Narrow River is unrivaled. The Fresh and Co property has three culverts that spill directly into it. Please do what you can to help preserve the fragile balance of our wetlands and waterways. Ambriel Bostic From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:10 PM To: Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis, Jessica; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon Subject: URGENT -- Please provide to Planning Board and Town Attorney before meetings today Attachments:.. 19-0114 Ltr to Town re Tenedios Barn.pdf Please see attached letter regarding the Tenedios (Fresh&Co) agricultural building (barn). I respectfully request that this letter and its attachment be provided to the Planning Board before it meets today. A second letter for the public hearing record on the greenhouse will follow, Thank you. 6G E I V Illi *************************************** Reed W. Super I 9 0 1 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC �a'_' OW..n 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603rrrwing Board New York, NY 10038 . ....._..._........_.......... (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) tee i,,'SLI pe riaw ro p pttil www.superlaw2rgup.com *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. i SUPER LAW GROUP , LLC WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 January 14, 2019 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman and members of the Town of Southold Planning Board RECEIVED 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 JAN )', ": . Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. Plarorolnc3 Board Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm,LLC Agricultural Building 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, Members of the Planning Board and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents Friends of Narrow River, Inc. and residents of Orient. I write in regard to the Fresh&CoFarm, LLC site plan application for an agricultural building, which is on the agenda for a determination today. We wish to make these two main points: The Planning Board should not vote on the application until after the NYS DEC has made its determination with respect to the tidal wetlands permit that is required for this project. If the Planning Board nevertheless votes on the application today, the only lawful and appropriate decision would be to deny the application. This is for several important reasons (in addition to the many other points we have made in the past): 1. The Planning Board should await the DEC Determination. The Planning Board has the responsibility under Chapter 280, Article XXIV (Site Plan Approval) and Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review) of the Town Code to, among other things, give "high priority" to the "protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants" and the "conservation of... natural drainage courses, fresh- and saltwater wetlands and marshes, to "prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards," and to "prevent[] ... impairment of water quality. See, e.g., Town Code §§ 280-127 to 280-131; 268-1 to 268-7. While the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has certain responsibilities of its own under state law and regulations, the Planning Board cannot assume that conditions which might be imposed in connection with the state tidal wetlands permit will absolve the Town of its separate responsibilities to protect the environmental resources of the Town. As we previously explained, 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 EAx: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com Planning Board and Town Attorney January 14, 2019 Page 2 the Planning Board should impose additional conditions beyond those presently printed on the most recent version of the site plan. The Planning Board's present set of conditions are inadequate. To comply with the Zoning and LWRP chapters of the Town Code, the Planning Board should await the determination by DEC on the tidal wetlands permit, review the conditions imposed by DEC in connection with that permit, and then make a final decision with respect to the site plan conditions that the Planning Board will impose. 2. The Planning Board Should Iw^+lot Act While Thcre Are Open Violations oil the Property. As you know, the applicant brazenly and knowingly violated the Town Code by commencing construction of the greenhouse in advance of obtaining required permits. As the attached email from Town code inspector Lester Baylinson states, the applicant violated the Town Code in three ways and was issued three separate summonses. One summons is for refusing to obey an oral stop work order. Mr. Baylitison's email states that"iiispector John Jarski posted and did a verlaal stop work order and was adi,ived they woul(l not stop...", (emphasis added). Thus, the applicant explicitly refused to comply with a stop work order. This is astonishing. This type of behavior should not be tolerated. Mr. Baylinson's email says that there is a court date of January 16 on these violations. The Board should not grant any approvals to the applicant for this property while there are open violations. 3. The A licant's Blatant and Arrogant Defiance of the Town Code and Sto Work Orders Demonstrates the Need for Stricter klandatoKy Conditions. If the applicant will defy the Town Code, this Board,code enforcement officers while his applications are still pending, imagine what it will do once all needed approvals have been obtained. There is a significant risk that the conditions imposed by the Board will not be complied with. As written, the conditions are too vague to be effective. For example, stating that wetlands buffers "shall be managed for" certain benefits falls well short of ensuring that the benefits (like denitrification) must be actually achieved. Likewise, in light of the this applicant's past behavior, the "condition" that begins with the words "The Planning Board strongly encourages..." is essentially meaningless. The conditions should be revisited. 4. 'File A i plicant Is Not Employing Sound A gricnituyal Practices. The applicant and its representatives have said that the existing shelters on the property are not suitable for livestock, especially pregnant animals and their babies. In the face of such knowledge, the applicant has for the second consecutive winter placed his animals on this property, allowed them to remain there, and caused or allowed them to be impregnated, and therefore put their health and safety at risk. Indeed, the applicant's attorney stated that many animals died on this farm last winter. These are not the actions of one who is practicing, or plans to practice, sound or sustainable farming. As others have told the Town, these actions should be investigated as animal cruelty. The Planning Board should revaluate the site plan application and the proposed conditions in light of the applicant's failure to properly care for the animals on this property. As previously explained, if the applicant is truly concerned about the health and safety of the animals he brought onto his property and is breeding,for a second consecutive winter,without suitable shelter,then the lawful and appropriate response is to move the animals to a barn on another property while the applications remain pending. Planning Board and Town Attorney January 14, 2019 Page 3 5. "i"he Site, Plan is Out-of-Date and Inaccurate as the Applicant Admits. Previously, we noted that the wetlands boundaries on the site plan were not accurate. The Planning Board acknowledged that the boundaries may be inaccurate, but instead of directing the applicant to re-map and re-flag the wetlands boundaries to be accurate (which is necessary to make the buffer boundaries accurate), the Board directed the applicant to remove the boundaries from the plan. This approach was quite surprising to many of us. The applicant complied with that direction. The applicant later re-flagged and re-mapped the wetlands anyway. However, the updated map with the recent delineation is not on the on-line file for the barn application. The most recent site plan that appears in the file, and the one with the conditions printed on it, was received by the Planning Board in October 2018, before the recent wetland delineation. There is a newer map/plan, dated December 2018, but that plan/map is not in the file and does not have the conditions printed on it. Furthermore, the October plan and the December plan do not agree with each other;they are in conflict. Thus, the applicant has admitted and the Planning Board is aware that the October site plan in the file on this application is out-of-date and inaccurate. The Board should not be approving an outdated and inaccurate site plan. This would lead to enormous confusion with respect to the conditions, compliance and enforcement The Board should not make a final determination today. If it does, the Board should deny the application. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter. Sincerely, Reed W. Super �I i From: Baylinson, Lester ,t 0 i Sent: Monday,January 07, 2019 10:18 AM To: Cummings, Brian A. Cc: Michaelis,Jessica; Silleck, Mary Subject: 28410 RT.25 s/w corner of narrow Rd (Site Plan) TM#19-1-1.4 HI Brian,Brian,There are three open violations on this parcel on 12/13/18 inspector John Jarski posted and did a verbal stop work order and was advised they would not stop, on 12/14/181 issued a stop work order and issued three summons after failure to comply which,then they did stop ! (1) 280-13 Approval of Site plan Required (2) 144-8 Building permit required 3) 144-13 Violating stop work order with a court date of Jan 16`h FYI Thanks Lester B i From: Sandra Sinclair <sansinc@optonline.net> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 3:04 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Lanza, Heather Subject: Fresh &Co. Application to Build a Barner Corner of Narrow River Road and Main Road, Orient, NY �ub� Sandra Pawson Sinclair 29827 Main Road P.O. Box 489 iAlN I Orient, NY 11957 January 10, 2019 To:Town Planning Board: Donald Wilcenski, Chair; Pierce Rafferty, Member; Mary Eisenstein, Member;James Rich, Member; Martin Sidor, Member I have lived at my current address for more than 20 years, prior to that in Cutchogue. I understand that agriculture is one of the underpinnings of our local economy and I chose to live in a land of farms and vineyards. But this area also supports fishing and oyster farming which brings me to the reason for my letter:the dangers of allowing a large live animal farm in close proximity to the wetlands and Narrow River for which the road is named. We are not talking one or two animals here. Consider the size of the barn. I was present during the hurricane known as Sandy in 2012. The storm was devastating locally. Narrow River Road was flooded right up to Main Road and impassable for weeks as was much of the farm that now seeks a Tidal Wetlands permit and a permit to build a very large barn. Had the live animal farm existed at that time in this location, the animals would have suffered and the runoff of fecal matter would have devastated the local waters. There is a reason this area was once called Oysterponds. Yes, the future of the North Fork is closely tied to the success of its farms. But also to fishing. Now we farm oysters. Orient's oysters are sold around the world. Maybe tomorrow we will farm seaweed and fish. It's only a matter of time for cannabis! Twenty years ago, even ten, we did not have the science to understand how we must change our ways to prevent the pollution of our waters, including the sewage runoff from houses built along our shorelines. One of the great challenges of this region is to modernize our sewage systems. The people who come to visit and buy from our local farms and vineyards are not going to continue to visit and shop if they can no longer swim, boat and fish. Corporate farming has discovered the North Fork. North Carolina has open pits of fecal matter from vast pig farms. I'm not suggesting that this is where we are headed but I am also concerned about the cavalier behavior of the owners which is build first and then ask permission. And, they say, if we don't build,the animals will suffer. I truly am sorry for these animals. They are on their way to the tables of Fresh & Co. They deserve better. Sincerely, Sandra If7awson Sundair ,1�tliluV��cx)G7�7�(1P11111�' �I�!'�. 1 f From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:24 AM To: R1DEP@dec.ny.gov; sherri.aicher@dec.ny.gov; christina.knoll@dec.ny.gov; daniel.lewis@dec.ny.gov; andrew.walker@dec.ny.gov; robert.marsh@dec.ny.gov; Elgut, Craig (DEC); Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis, Jessica; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon Cc: william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; pcmoore@mooreattys.com; betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com; Mike DiGiulio Subject: DEC wetlands permits for Tenedios site plan application (Orient, Southold, NY) Attachments: 18-1029 Ltr to DEC re Tenedios wetlands.pdf Dear Ms. Aicher, Mr. Walker, Mr. Marsh, Ms. Knoll, Mr. Lewis and Regional Attorney Elgut: Please see the attached letter re the need for DEC wetland(s)permits for the revised site plan for proposed Tenedios agricultural building in the Town of Southold. DEC previously wrote to the Town on August 30, 2017. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Reed Super Attorney for Friends of Narrow River, Inc. cc: Town of Southold Representatives for applicant Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) �c��kµP�a �r«11�cawl�v�" '1"4'11aN1,4~,4b1"V1 \VVV 11 "41111! 00111 *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. 1. SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 October 29, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and Federal Express Sherri Aicher New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790 Re: Site Plan Application for Tenedios Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Ms. Aicher: We represent the environmental organization Friends of Narrow River, Inc. and residents of Orient,New York. On August 30, 2017, you sent the attached letter to the Town of Southold Planning Board regarding the above-referenced site plan application. In your letter you stated: [T]he proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC- regulated tidal wetland and appears to be within 100' feet of a NYSDEC- regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office. Since your letter, the site plan has been amended. The current site plan (see attached excerpts) shows that the proposed 8,664 square foot structure, as well as a proposed access road and trench for an electric service line, are clearly within 300 feet of the tidal wetland to the south. As such, the revised project will most certainly require at least one DEC wetlands permit. As I understand it, while the Planning Board intends to approve the site plan on November 5th or soon thereafter, the Board has not referred the amend site plan to you, nor have You been contacted by the applicant. This may have been an oversight by the Planning Board or may have resulted from a mistaken belief that shifting the proposed structure 300 feet westward would remove it from DEC jurisdiction. That is plainly not the case. There are several different tidal and freshwater wetlands in and near the property. The new construction site may be farther from the wetlands to the east, but it is now closer to tidal wetland in the center of the property and clearly within 300 feet of that tidal wetland.1 1 The site plan states that the central wetland was delineated as a tidal wetland in 2001. This tidal wetland is Connected to the Nal-row River thl"OLlgh a CUIVert Llndel`Narrow River Road. 180 MAIDC.N LANE, Surrr 603 . NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 1-Ax: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com Sherri Aicher, DEC October 29, 2018 Page 2 We ask that you alert the Planning Board and the applicant that: (1)the revised site plan should be submitted to the Department for a determination regarding the need for wetlands permit(s); and (2) based on the revised site plan, the project will require wetlands permit(s) from the Department; and (3) undertaking the project or any other regulated activity without a DEC- issued permit is a violation of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law and DEC's wetlands regulations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, r Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): Andrew Walker, DEC Region 1 Robert Marsh, DEC Region 1 Daniel Lewis, DEC Region l Christina Knoll, DEC Region 1 Craig Elgut, Esq., DEC Regional Counsel Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Planning Department Town of Southold Office of the Town Attorney Patricia Moore, Esq., Attorney for Applicant William Kelly, Agent for Applicant NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ["(b ly �A-T Division of Environmental Permits,Region 1 � � J �I gym, I� Jal SUNY C_ Stony Brook,50 Circle Road,Stony Brook,NY 11790 P: 631 444-0365 1 F: 631 444-0360 www.dec.n . ov Y 9 .w..,. ��tu�llruBtJ'°lu)�'rB PEtitiiioq Board RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN August 30, 2017 Brian Cummings, Planner Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for Tenedios Agricultural Barn 28410 NYS Rt. 25, s/w corner of Rt. 25 & Narrow River Rd. Orient, NY 11957 SCTM# 1000-19-1-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Mr. Cummings: Thank you for offering this Department the opportunity to review the referenced site plan. Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office. Sincerely, Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst DePartmentof "r = Environmental Conservation IL O � � h1 di§ r — — Lu o ` o / OL LL w.m .,ti� y LL d} z S y Li ID ,a W d \ A �W� P s µ ✓ MIT e r o n LUU- of A �p X W„ , IN ntn d . n u v 9 d. too ti " Ll EL 10 O R � syc ap ✓' u6,'h oiP.N..B 8Y"b r✓ x o LL - < 21 mll LU LL ij Lu w Box 2 2ORIENT NEW YORK 11957 GRIL T SSOCIATIONORG October 23, 2018 1 r Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (By Email) @ Re: Tenedios (Fresh& Co) Agricultural Barn As we have stated in prior submission to this Board, the Orient Association does not support or oppose this project. What the Association does support is the provision of accurate and sufficient information, to the public and to Town officials, so a sound decision can be made. In public hearings and submissions by community members and various governmental agencies, repeated concerns have raised about the need to protect the wetlands on and abutting the property from possible pollution and degradation by livestock. Many of those commenting have called for buffers from the edges of wetlands sufficient to reduce that risk. Specifically, the Town Trustees urged that proposed buffers be increased. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) recommended a minimum of 50 foot buffers from all wetlands. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) called for 100 foot buffers throughout. In reviewing the applicant's documents, staff determined that the original submitted mapping of the wetlands was inaccurate, and could not serve as a sound basis for planning buffers. Inexplicably, the recommendation was to remove the inaccurate mapping, and provide no mapping of several areas of wetlands, even one wetland area that was clearly on the subject property, not just adjacent (Vegetated Buffer No. 1). Further, the buffer for the on-property wetlands on the eastern side of the property has been removed totally from the submissions. The wetland creek running through the middle of the property now has no buffer whatsoever on its northern end. We strongly urge that,before taking any steps to decide on this project, the Planning Board requires that the applicant provide accurate and complete mapping of the wetlands on and adjacent to his property, and that all buffers be shown on the documents that will serve as the basis for decision making. The solution to bad information cannot be no information. The Orient Association Board SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 I �tlakrltrl EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com NminBoard September 21, 2018 Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1 179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq, Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Roul.e 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: As you know,this firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fre.,h&Co/Tenedios farm property. In addition, we also represent Friends of Narrow River Inc., a newly incorporated domestic not-for-profit corporation formed for charitable purposes including protecting wetlands, habitat, open space, and other environmental resources as wed as monitoring landowner compliance with land use conditions and public easement rights in Orient. We are writing on behalf ofriends of Narrow River Inc. ("Friends") and our individual clients in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code:. This letter concerns freshwater and tidal wetlands on the subject property. As further explained below, we believe that in order to protect those wetlands from pollution and degradation caused by construction and farm operations, including livestock waste, consistent with state and local law, the Planning Board must and should do the following: I. Direct the applicant to flag the on-site freshwater and tidal wetlands and submit an updated survey and site plan showing the accuraie wetland boundaries. 2. Require minimum 100-foot vegetated buffers to protect all freshwater and tidal wetlands on and adjacent to the property: said minimum buffers to be measured from the wetland boundaries. 3. Require the applicant to submit the updated site play to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and to ask DEC to 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.coni i Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 2 determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. Further require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. I. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN, CONTAINING AN ACCURATE DELINEATION OF WETLAND BOUNDARIES. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows what is purported to be the"landward edge of tidal wetlands [and freshwater wetlands] as delineated by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on January 25, 2001." Questions were raised early on in the processing of the application as to whether the wetlands boundaries shown on the site plan were accurate. It is now clear that they were not. It appears that the applicant's wetlands boundaries were inaccurate when first purportedly delineated in 2001, and also that the wetlands boundaries may have shifted somewhat since then. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Board received a survey of the property adjacent to the subject property (to its west). The survey of the adjacent property (the"McDonough/Hooke Property") shows that the property line runs through a freshwater wetland, labeled "pond." In other words, the pond straddles the property line and extends in both directions; it sits on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property as well as on the Hooke/McDonough Property. See attached portion of McDonough/Hooke survey. This directly conflicts with'the Suffolk Environmental Consulting delineation submitted by the applicant, which shows the pond fully on the McDonough/Hooke property;both surveys cannot be correct. On August 29, 2018, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke wrote to the Planning Board to inform it that the Tenedios survey/site plan "show[ing] the pond to be 100%on the McDonough/Hooke land" is incorrect, that the"pond is on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet,"and that the McDonough/Hooke survey done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 is accurate. In further support of the accuracy of their survey, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke advised the Planning Board that"Tenendios is currently and actively pumping water from this pond which he states is entirely on [the McDonough/Hooke] property." See attached letter. If the farm is pumping water from the pond, the applicant must believe that the pond sits on the farm's property, contrary to the applicant's own survey and site plan. Furthermore, in the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant,the Planning Board's staff acknowledged the wetlands boundaries shown on the applicant's site plan may not be accurate. Staff stated on page one of that letter that"the wetland boundaries may have shifted." In addition,the"Staff Marked Site Plan"attached to the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant, which was marked after the staff s site visit to the farm property, has markings indicating that staff and/or the Board believe that some of the wetlands are no longer(or never were) where they are shown on the site plan. For example, a fence and/or wetland buffer line is indicated with a red line that crosses right through the tidal wetland as shown in the, south-central portion of the Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 3 property. It is critically important to have accurate wetlands boundaries on the site plan because the regulatory mechanism being utilized to attempt to protect wetlands from pollution and degradation is vegetated buffers of a minimum distance as measured from the wetland boundary. However, despite being aware that the applicant's wetland delineation may not be accurate, and having a survey and other material in the record indicating that the pond may be"on the Tenedios property by approxirnately 25-50 feet,"the Board asked on page two of the staff's August 24 letter that there be a"50' wide `vegetated buffer' along-the southwest property line" and a 50' wide `vegetated buffer' from the deer fence that angles across the property at the northern end of the southwest property line." Apart from the fact that the buffers should be 100 feet rather than 50 feet(as discussed below) if the pond extends 25-50 feet onto the applicant's property, as appears to be the case, then establishing a 50-foot buffer from the property line will leave a buffer that is 0-25 feet from the wetland itself, which is clearly inadequate. Moreover, the site plan (if it is accurate in this respect) shows the deer fence to be on the property line in certain places and to be less than 30 feet from the property line (inside the line indicated as the 30-foot side yard setback) in other places near where the pond is located. Further, the red line drawn on the Staff Marked Site Plan as a boundary to be added to a revised site plan extends right up to where the pond is likely located (as shown on the McDonough/Hooke survey and delineation). In the face of all of that'uncertainty about the location of wetlands boundaries,the Planning Board appears poised to allow the applicant to proceed with an inaccurate wetlands delineation. Astonishingly, rather than asking the applicant to subrnit a new site plan including an accurate delineation based on the flagging of wetlands where th:,y presently exist on the property, the Board in staff's August 24 letter asked the applicant to"[r]emove all the wetland boundary lines shown to the wi'st of the site" and to"[r]emove all wetland buffer lines." (emphasis in original). This is unacceptable. The Town Code gives the Planning Board the responsibility, in acting on site plan applications,to"prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards"to accomplish certain objectives including giving"high priority"to"[t]he protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants"and"[t]he conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to . . . fresh-and saltwater wetlands." Town Code §§ 280- 129(D), 280-13](M). To carry out that responsibility,the Planning Board must know where those wetlands are. And to do that, it must require the applicant to flag the wetlands and submit a revised site plan with an accurate delineation. Furthermore, an accurate wetlands delineation is required for the DEC tidal wetiands permit application and determination discussed below. i I 1 a 1 1 Planning Board, Board of Trusties, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 4 II. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE MINIMUM 100-FOOT VEGETATED BUFFERS MEASURED FROM THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES. As you are aware, the Board of Town Trustees recommended 100-foot buffers. Specifically, the Trustees stated: "All `100' Wetland Boundary Offsets' should have permanent fencing to exclude animals from adjacent wetland areas. " Memo from Michael J. Domino to Brian Cummings, Aug. 31, 2017. Further, the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) coordinator recommended 100-foot wide vegetated buffers as a key environmental protection measure. Further,the LWRP coordinator found that the project would be consistent with the LWRP "provided the Planning Board considers and requires the follo,.ving recommendations . . . 6. Require 100'wide vegetated buffers that are effective in the removal of nutrients and pathogens. . . . 8. Require that the paddock, and sheds observed in the field are removed from the 100' wide vegetated buffers. 9. Prohibit animal grazing from the 100' wide vegetated buffer areas. 10. Require a covenant that establishes the boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings within the vegetated buffers." LRWP Memo, Apr. 25,2018, at 2. Likewise,the report entitled "Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold,NY,"prepared by Donald W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management and a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution,which we submitted on July 6, 2018, also recommended 100-foot wetland buffers. Indeed, the site plan shows a"100-foot wetland buffer line'•'around all fresh and tidal wetlands (albeit 100-feet from inaccurate wetland boundary lines). Despite this, the applicant is apparently not proposing (or no longer proposing)to adhere to 100-foot wetlands buffers and the Planning Board appears to be willing to ignore or reject the recommendations of the Town Trustees,the Town LWRP coordinator, Mr. Meals, and others. The Planning Board should not do so and cannot do so consistent with its responsibility to impose reasonable conditions to protect wetlands and water qugiity. The Board should require 100-foot vegetated buffers measured from accurate wetland boundaries. The wetland and buffer requirements disci.issed above should be applied not only to the "high quality tidal wetlands" in the southwest corner of the properly, but also the tidal wetland that runs down the center of the southern half of the property and drains to the Narrow River; the pond that straddles the western property lines; and all other fi•esh and tidal wetlands on and/or adjacent to the property. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 5 III. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SEEK A DEC DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEED FOR A TIDAL WETLANDS PERMIT. On August 30, 2017, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation responded to the Planning Board's request for comments on the site plan and stated as follows: "Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office." See letter from Sherri Aicher, Environmental Ana!yst. DEC Region 1, to Brian Cummings, Planner(copy attached). In the August 20, 2018 Staff Report, your staff wrote"Building may require a permit from DEC (based on original location) and"Is the wooded area in the southwest corner regulated by DEC due to the tidal wetlands and the existing trees? Needs clarification." Then, in the August 20 work session, a comment was made that moving the proposed barn location 200 feet westward may obviate a DEC wetlands permit. This does not appear to be the case; the barn in its new location would still be located within 300 feet of a DEC-regulated tidal wetland and would still require a permit from DEC. i Accordingly, we ask the; Planning Board to require the applicant to provide the updated " site plan to DEC and to ask DEC to determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. ' Further, the Board should require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. i i A proper wetlands delineation is necessary for the applicant's request to DEC. And DEC will have the option of visiting the property to verify the wetlands delineation. The DEC wetlands permit process also depends upon having accurate wetlands boundaries delineated in the first place. We thank you for your consideration of this issue. Sinca.rely, Reed W. Super Mika; DiGiulio Enclosures cc(via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant "POI, H I ,"T, GC- Submission CSubmission Without a Grover Letter ($4 rfl Sender: �6V61 fC.. . �.a� ,�a.. Subject: i 0 SCTM#: 1000 - Date: Comments: 74 4 � i W .all d" f,r,i��d 1` l 13 ��1"�/(lief/ (s°,� w 111 i m5,`n Yw MOP l,l4pk€r 4 aY.LmNbEN �a;rb°tlW/ uJ t1„i cV m6YP J r'dm hR �`:;� RIN �; MINTY, NEM Y�,OW 1. p' CA [ r0 5 1999 110" �oA WNW 2; 199W WK n AN MAON rl t l I��I '� 1 19U d `, ari' l;'„Y'd 1 AREA X x rr1 r.9 51, � eau'" w Tent R M1 , 1;d VAI 44BI Na A'At mp qlmv K4Q q£4 Hfa`,d,0, ,8Mv GAO JW C 3 'iV u, OV9'w&1a Vre," say A NYu W1," a^Pfl m ul d,b z �. ani 94@�kbRq'( p P41 N'V Iki s Ma,9�% M Fpv 7d'sPa 6H,'p £ � VIVd 1pR'llp M1ai ��ssl9�.$111PIP 4 1, ra�10lRW,1 nl 1Ca "ma.r4w a,od'Ri4 fPr@^s" fa1VP s, 1 YCd m PJ II;"Iq�YSYGJ b,� Ho Gd!IV,& r, tu£ctr Bn,9.fl3dP f",^,,. AlIVINUCS 9', 91a I>'SllMl°o PV ,�l a, I e d ; ;ir£BftaF:1'a 9 M 7291 � rU4rfr " In Ill <uR � 4r�i;Pu�u'ua'Pam u[eYrl t:, ,;�r A7;fl1 Q a*• a lS"�',m;.&. Xalf4 a .r pv {{ 1 P640mv WAW TV Pm,%, v , ;x r'lw •' � ; :" i4if. 4.Syft'."A;5341 U1 C'u@°urt,1411., 1,f�lly amh_'."Z 1�•PJ VlO.��G M14PIb1�^11! h41�"41!4. 01 ,44-0k; s"M1PlIlk 1'LO,;S,.f➢ � 1 fag3,f:V"aV k'.^r,dh'^ mlopC1/F11d 114y'4,M M".'b4�J4d'. fu �'PWy;t4 4741➢n"WI ;A.i' 1",�, £ a r14JC7h;9 '�fl,,+� 1anP'8Js'V�4,OMIla71� s�Yd{CU' PI9a6UMo[ 111,00D Ilsef11hPCf": t,n, 1rs0'� P^hr� .�@4vFI,aV:uD6,aQ4+'y €", ?'f1eIQ ,R3 0111;M 1113 x) f Al`+IA'14fUa9 fJY 41',�;,D�4Wv u11,",J d'rpPa h' ',ir," MI19 d1?}R:Vr 50ft "i"soR £lld uQ, alMr Fbor4 fl, rro'P--'dP."od9 14t?O;2'u£71af"s4£'R'M6'n1 001UH 00Htp, If lad.N PPf & 91111 PIr4�0e ra,�4 lai(0 11` llda fllt It £.P Y a FPIIfP fiall ${lPS:,S YPY fll d:'r7Y {I VA „If} PMWd If 4Jfl'Jt Ulf 1Y.,9F Uj£�•f i6u14 f� ,0 N '101,I T .00 iiAl a"4.,P�fil4 Fad j 1 040 1 R.la d V, a T Palp,AF., SMACh t 'l..AMAL Y "fl°df X,0 �....... As s. ��( m 4 J o yr �uw aaaa,9� n,. � ld;�6 4V1;lNY a 4'1P4f04 M,,.BaP} a-F- ''0" e ,,,., o"•Ire lien,,t•'e�o�1r sm",u vy son v ,na.w,�, ,o��..0 v e,, ",o,o� 1s a p r I�,� �u° �nm5 �U�,nt ,1 m„ ;1�1 .M nv din �ry fl p �� sn auaa rw1 r1y i i y ti��I 4 ImI�I�II��gp1 I1`�p�il,w �11impp��ll pp pp�p�yp II��pp��p@y�,l r i �IIIp{pn';u1�m� Ib �1 "K N1A6.'�rir '"v vy4 f d q5 0�0 uum 911�II 11 III�'1'11�alll� �l!,",nonl4�,lu;s ill il9�oe1�4114° 1�� lou�u'^1Ym 1'° 0 a l vlm< nm ucr k0;1,urtr b s 1u Jc?o aev.1 naaaml falx 1 1;-; .y .��' 1( +wwu or a wr;ntCv ¢ q a,w �r �I �a i ; rt 111 1 3t"y'09l dallf R bi `Ia mi,1 q �r)" ll and 1�a 1(d91a' m 4114tlF {I"b I,J.sr91 dG"7 ",)A', w' vIw [9'alUlntt. v1£u. r h `~ r m s-,a i.- 1 q £t W Q prl 11 <.. 1a ua,; twworlltar7ia0. y 1, W r.,t'ta � �." 11 i _f 4 u�9sN,N"r rl, ladar York S11R August 29,2018 Town of Southold Planning 54375 Main P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 T . os Agricultural Building e Tenedios Incorrect,Survey We we neigbbonag property owners to what was formerly Mamen Culfinm's propety and is by corporation "TT ice),1 10 25, V . ,NY. .P "'cia C.Moon a us a J 201 It to wi&a avveylsaite plan map of T - . (copies d). Upon review of the Tenedios Anvey it was inuneditely clear that n is incorrect.This s pkm sham the pond to be 100%on the MeDononghMooke land when,in W4 designated wedoxids pond an the Tenedies property,by approxintaftly feet Enclosed is a copy of our survey which was done by,f(mqh Ingegno in 1999 and is accurate. We attended the Planning rd work session,an August 20,2011;and the Plattaing Board work, session ,t radM Oe of locatkm of it,you were diamsing, only a 50- ria regaidless of pwid location. This a buffer 0-20 fliet fiam do pond,which is a DEC,demgtoted wedud.The buffir fim a designated wedand is supposed to be 100 After&e meeting,we asked P I Bili y eylsite ' them the pond discrepancy,Mr.Kelly said that de T G . Clearly the many tall trees and e ovoWwth made the location oft ifnot impossible,for the,OPS to" . GPS is no reliaMy swurate when surveying am that block a direct view from the sky.It seenn obvious` GPS swwr carnot replace a fWmal survey with field insminents. Is it pmsible dug during the Planning site . .t to irly,that you did not careMbily review the pond location becaine the swveylsitc phm you were referencing does not show tha loud to be on the Tenedios property? It is impossible to accurately xnake a ruling or recommendations t%sed on an incorrea OPS survey when do pond location', to do with wedand buffirs. TherelIbmpare are formally requesting that the Planniag bord Onsure fttthe Tenedke property be acomtely surveyed all wedan&locationi and that a 100 foot buffer be instifided around those areas. We would Him to add "T .os is y y p i this pDad which is i on arc property,and the pump focadonmay vay well be insi&the DEC limit of cleamnce and gmmd disturbance am& sincc� 1 y, ColleenMcDaLnougb l ;� ke 27752 Main Road Orient,NY 917428-9733 l 1 1 I PATRICIA C. MOORE A#w w d Law 51020 Main Road Soudwld,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-4330 Fax:(631)765.4643 June 28, 2018 I CZRTXPXZD JWZ IWTMUW T ANOWsTED RE: freshiao farm LLC PROPERTY: 28410 NYS Route 25, s/u aornex of Narrow River Road i Routs 25,, Orient SCTM: 1000-19-:+1-1.4 i 1.3 i Dear Neighbor: I represent the .above with regard to his site plan application. The Southold Town Planning Boa.rd has scheduled a continuation of the public hearing. j Enclosed is a roduced copy of the site Ulan map. The full site plan application is available at the Phanning Board office between normal business days between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00 p.m. located inthe Hall Annex, Main Road, Southold (21 floor) or on line as more fully outlined in eche attached notice. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018 at 6:06 p.m. p.m. at Southold Town Hall. If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. V-r truly yours, 0jUU tricia C. "Moore PCM/XkD- encls. rN a 4 a $4glv gal Joni gin in 414 A g (sem fPEI Y P1i' p9 F 1 pul Hit t lip! «a° g y. i yar E � N+• �•p. ry' ! Hai glId9� U 'lidrn 6 0-0 Jieg rAE a 91 8 l a a; w � A N+ i •u �3 1 wan aai8 oil ^71,sq "n u " Sal,Mly im G �j ff Sol y"'� 1s gI �8� IR11g�� 1h 10 H, nil I 9 �+£ po ie Cip ? r "1 �4. Al All Rlit�{j k ♦� C Him ..� M1 D ��e,wbao a NIDDkOS FARM JEFFREY q�LY!' Fly, T amiw x .. V I fJ7MY!7/SIIFFfM IC tOY�OP Si0111�101[! tl 1 M P SURVEY OF' PROPERTY CARL DEAtsrffiRI`5 T '" 4! ct DAWELLE DIPMr1RF!,'T .SITUATED AT DWELUNG d T h T� At r„@31POM dWI)MMOMI br WTF ur�6quEr L.6d 3�I°d h 3iJFFOLK COUNTY, NE YORK � S,C. TAX Nc+ 1000-18-06-21.8 a. SCALE 1'°=50” f SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 ME1i.;., 6, 1999 RE"rSi' %;IfI IgAN 1 "ar" AREA = 74,348.53 act ft. , 1.707 ac. war CKRMFIFUl-TV-. I`$ELEP1 FIOCrKE %p a COLLEEN McDONOUGFIcm —rI a.I�vAP S ARV NEFEREN EV 10 p4 f.V.D. 1922 11M M 1 '°.f 7B581taB 90.1 Awa rAA gag. !NA Nm IV41 PN •tl,.. _ I IBI ,;U 4l A to 11 11r r :f,#R7!}` BCPTII TO 'MFBAk9fC �1"1°d19^I�pB'rAti* tp�1Ap; lrwtlt" PC1A11I:UWY r NtS�W"IN�i �a � � VV4NUW :+E"rK: FAfdW CN.AACMf,5 E A H TO A WEC1400M P40USC ri 1,OG1',1 MUMSI 14 f �lua rv6 1 S P '1ARUSu W" LOMG, .C_1.. W", V-7" DEEP !sreaImUls PEAC40"Q SWSIt'm MR A I M A K1Pw60W 61GUIZ tS .ICU req Vu T,14MAu.V W.A. T P°tlaH]k.3, P' ID• ";,� @19v lA'df:4Edt 4'..rtp'AP8 vPS�C P!'PEDt.. fi I CPJ:P4 Pmt: (`tyx PRUfam SEPT), um,, 5, Irow C..00ATPH OF WELLS AND CILSSPWLS .SNOWN HLREON AWE mom 4'!FGo EVA,'QG NS AWt3/m q!4 A TAINK0 MW OtHERS, �ja�l•,, e E rLr"K 6 8f?A13 wu7v m4 rb%FPP 'rD40 cm r°'iwAA F'B.QIDO 48 UAA 'E. RATE Map' No. 3610:7MMO G 'Pow nV.- gY%k ^"k c,)7 1Y.iNAM@P".1 I-CrUpbNEV I { ZURI Y" %gfA5 Cm' UM-I rl COC:MWAS NI !A.Nr—`✓G.AA 4"Y.OW IM!TK WEN" A" ( Sttwmf IOU AN,P.RM "rorors6AME1y fV IEVEE'.S E':x.4� luo- VAR Ito, i t7 .C!4!f M r18A '.F r1 RMN;f! << PN u111901, 'm1,FM 1'LO(A)PIAN .:" (A *[IPC!1�Ifr !I!E fPIS'UW1C P' w ;4G4 LEI u° t onArv'+q,x;'na"e Y r � tI ,��1 a� a� ,�� ,rA• - "�re� z .; t 0 r .&En&WKAU i v 9 1 f � I' A'A +w✓w = 1 t 1 n� a * 9aEMm1L mx mta'a " w w � mn'wmA amwuu n w w wn a um ue"m "vwm ew m ��olm .mum "f WrnI f�1 P V"N^ ,^�1i�� wmm imm�ar mAt�arnww +arcs Mm i wwa"ura mrA mnm y, Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor .'P J-g r 'I m„AAr q Imnl A !^b m°•ntwr yA arm,�.ux�w�...q�...ww.w,.��..,�w.w�,r.�» Aaaari �mcFA A lea +a,uarrvu¢,uA +r I raA r ” ..r r1ir� r � ;v d u Ara PSp:uV uNiouA, 1rPt- rox u$�✓Jwonee.ru'r to P Aarnw (:.. ...... :r Asi r ImA'sx or N4111CIRHip '«.0 aA A ,_W',._ .,� p.N-0T1 ,atm �' muw§pu•9wan vpr ttl j ua aur rm Yi re 011ANCAs Uy JAr^$+Wt ROO 1 I,. �'INC n , a Aq,A ni m 'v,'k r A"A E""naV1 1a' ..iuN Qb A=rrr< (5$6)'122 +a.!A. A r"r NAIA uA Illy IAI!wl " dA Cj .amu mawA'u A HIMiNIWC 1u° Aro 1 'AAA Awy 'AW:!n'C"n1NW dwlI.Aa, ACEN1 a M^% A) II.ING A(KI 8E5.> 1 avA"uo uo4nmm a+aPf 1CP11!" os, 1 VM�mr au a 1 a ��a» N." ft''Af;y� wu W aad. YoD, I140r��GP 4 nP.a 4 PA0 iV~d �� rearo�riw' ag�A al, amwr 1w,�o- u'„� P E A a rslwn°Y.41kA" I NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION JV)D q KA-r �"99 G Nri r Division of Environmental Permits,Region 1 SUNY @ Stony Brook,50 Circle Road,Stony Brook,NY 11790 P:(631)444-03651 F:(631)444-0360 www.dec.ny.gov Planning Board RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN August 30, 2017 Brian Cummings, Planner Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for Tenedios Agricultural Barn 28410 NYS Rt. 25, s/w corner of Rt. 25 & Narrow River Rd. Orient, NY 11957 SCTM# 1000-19-1-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Mr. Cummings: Thank you for offering this Department the opportunity to review the referenced site plan. Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s)from this office. Sincerely, Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst 1 i/.ri 1leyaartrraent of 9 Environmentnal '.=- Conservation Michaelis, Jessica From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:30 PM To: Lanza, Heather; Michaelis, Jessica; Cummings, Brian A.; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon; Spiro, Melissa; Russell, Scott; Standish, Lauren Cc: Mike DiGiulio;william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; pcmoore@mooreattys.com; betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com Subject: Tenedios/Fresh&Co Site Plan Application. Attachments: 18-1001 Ltr to Town re alienation.pdf Please see attached correspondence addressed to the Supervisor and Town Board, Planning Board, and Town Attorney regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm LLC) on which the Town owns the development rights. cc: lsk*6�1 V-�L t MT L"� Land Preservation Committee Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant William Kelly, Agent for Applicant %fid;; 0 3 .0 4 'Soul TT�u rr Planniq Board *************************************** Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York,NY 1003 8 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) i l:a" &,-F(,)qn',S.oi"l" *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. i s OC � 0 32[)M SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com 11��'I inrg Board October 1 2018 Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. and members of the Town Hall Annex Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Route 25 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Scott Russell, Town Supervisor and members of the Town of Southold Town Board 53095 Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan Application for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board; Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board; and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents Friends of Narrow River Inc., a not-for-profit corporation formed for charitable purposes including protecting wetlands, habitat, open space, and other environmental resources as well as monitoring landowner compliance with land use conditions and public easement rights in the Hamlet of Orient, New York. We also represent concerned citizens who reside and own property near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property at the corner of Narrow River Road and Route 25 in Orient. We are writing on behalf of Friends of Narrow River Inc. ("Friends") and our individual clients in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. The Town of Southold owns the development rights to the 29.5-acre parcel on which the applicant proposes to build a nearly 9,000 square foot barn structure. The Town acquired the development rights to that parcel, including a scenic easement, in a Deed of Development Rights dated May 22, 2002. The deed requires, among other things, that the parcel in question "shall remain open lands" and that this "covenant shall run with the land in perpetuity." Deed at 3. The deed also provides that "[u]se of the property shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract fi-om, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement." Deed at 6-7. The proposed structure violates the open space, open lands, and scenic terms of the deed. If the Town were to allow the applicant to build the proposed structure on the parcel whose development rights are owned by the Town, such approval would be a transfer of development rights from the Town to the applicant, and would constitute an alienation of those development rights. 180 MAIDEN LANE, SL)rrE 603 - NEW YORK, Nr:w YORK 10038 'rl:l_: 212-242-2355 PARC: 855-242-7956 WWW.superlawgroup.com Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board Town Attorney Duffy October 1, 2018 Page 2 The deed explicitly provides that the development rights acquired by the Town "shall not thereafter be alienated, except upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the Town Board after a public hearing and upon the approval of the electors of the Town voting on a proposition submitted at a special or biennial town election." Deed at 7. Accordingly, if the Planning Board intends to proceed to approve the application, such approval and such alienation of the Town's property rights must first receive a public hearing before the Town Board, then the affirmative vote of a majority of the Town Board, and then the approval of the Town electorate in a duly-noticed referendum. In addition to violating the substantive and procedural requirements of the deed, allowing a portion of the parcel in question to be used for purposes inconsistent with the open space and scenic value purposes for which the Town acquired the development rights violates the New York State common law public trust doctrine. That doctrine provides that lands or property rights, including development rights, acquired by a municipality for public purposes cannot be alienated or"given back"to the original property owner or anyone else absent legislative approval. Our clients have previously expressed to the Planning Board that building anything on the restricted parcel, and certainly building a large barn there, violates the terms of the deed, amounts to an alienation of the Town's property rights to open land, and must be subjected to, at a minimum, the procedures the deed requires in order for such an alienation to be made. We again bring this to the Planning Board's attention, as well as to the Town Board and Town Attorney, and ask that the Town follow the procedures required by the deed, the Town Code, and the public trust doctrine prior to the alienation of development rights previously purchased by the Town. If the Town Attorney's office has formally or informally opined on these issues, such opinions should be made public and added to the record. Should you have any questions about the foregoing, please contact us.. Sincerely, Reed W. Super Mike DiGlUlio cc (via email): Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Michaelis, Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:24 AM E C, E V E To: Michaelis, Jessica Attachments: Hooke McDonough letter-Planning Board 8-29-18.pdf 1; -Planning,Board From: Elizabeth Thompson Sent: Monday September 24, 2018 3:16 PM To: Cummings, Brian A. Cc: Lanza, Heather Subject: Water atTened|os Hi Brian, Here is the copy of the letter I sent earlier from the westerly neighbor and spoke with you about on Friday.The owner, Helen Hooke, isaweekend resident. | understand recently she was feeling sick every weekend and that was the impetus for having her well water tested. Please submit ittothe Planning Board for their review. Best, Elizabeth z SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 19, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman and members of the Town of Southold Planning Board ° ,P 2 5 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Naivin,Board�tal:nin ��ard Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq, COPA P?Via sS ceceivMk Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events and Applicant's Response 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road&NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski. Members of the Planning Board, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents and a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. On September 14, 2018, we wrote to the Planning Board about a possible event that took place on Saturday, August 25, 2018 on the 29.5-acre parcel that is subject to the conservation easement. In response to our letter,the attorney for the applicant responded by email as follows: The owner of the property held a family celebration on August 25, 2018. This family party was not a "special event" and is specifically excluded pursuant to Town Code 205-3 (13)(3). Ms. Moore's email has been included in the Planning Board's subject file, and we wish to briefly respond to it here. As we understand it, the owner of the property is not an individual but a limited liability company, Fresh&CoFarm, LLC. Ms. Moore presumably means that the event was held for the family of a member of the LLC that owns the property. Town Code § 205-3(b)(3) exempts certain "[o]ccasional events on private residential properties hosted by the owner thereof..." As we mentioned in our July 6, 2018 letter, the Board should pay close attention to the dual and sometimes shifting or conflicting roles of the entity and individual given that the land is owned by an LLC named for the Freslt&Co restaurant chain, the applicant: is that LLC, crops are grown commercially on the site(by a tenant farmer) for use in the Fresh&.Co restaurant chain, animals 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com Planning Board and Town Attorney September 19, 2018 Page 2 are raised there for what has been described as Mr. Tenedios' personal (non-commercial) use and consumption, and now events are being held there for the family of a member of the LLC, purportedly under a permit exemption for events on private residential properties hosted by the owner. Furthermore, the key issue is not whether the August 25th event needed a permit under Town Code § 205-3. The issue is what uses are allowed on the 29.5-acre parcel whose development rights have been sold to the Town and is now subject to an easement. The recorded Deed of Development Rights requires that the property owner"shall only use the premises ... for the purpose of agricultural production" Deed at 1, 4. The Land Preservation Committee concluded that any-uses beyond agricultural production would "not be allowed within the area subject to the recorded Deed." Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. Events requiring large commercial tour buses to transport attendees to the site do not fall within the definition of"agricultural production" in Chapter 70 of the Town Code, whether or not such event requires a permit under Chapter 205. It should also be noted that the landowner does not own all of the property rights associated with the property—it owns only the land itself and the right to use that land for agricultural production. All other property rights were sold to the Town by Ms. Cullinane. Consequently, it is the Town's right and also its legal responsibility to restrict the use of the property to agricultural purposes only, and no other purl)oses, consistent with the easement and the purchase of development rights with public funds. Likewise, the conditions of any site plan approval should make clear that not only that Special Events are prohibited but also that"Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be strictly prohibited on the site." Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc(via email): Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant EC ESV S 2 w z. �z:t August 29,2018 Sou,thold Town Planning soar Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Re: Tenedios Agricultural Building&and the Tenedios Incorrect Survey We are neighboring property owners to what was formerly Maureen Cullinane's property and is now owned by the corporation fresh&co farm LLC("Tenedios"),located at 28410 Rt. 25, Orient,NY. Patricia C. Moore sent us a letter dated June 28,2018 together with a survey/site plan map of the Tenedios property(copies attached). Upon review of the Tenedios survey it was immediately clear that their survey/site plan is incorrect.This survey/site plan shows the pond to be 100% on the McDonough/Hooke land when,in fact,this designated wetlands pond is on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet. Enclosed is a copy of our survey which was done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 and is accurate. We attended the Planning Board work session on August 20,2018 and the Planning Board work session didn't reflect the correct location of the pond.As we understood it,you were discussing only a 50-foot buffer from the west property line regardless of pond location. This creates a buffer 0-20 feet from the pond,which is a DEC designated wetland. The buffer from a designated wetland is supposed to be 100 feet. After the meeting,we asked Pat Moore and Bill Kelly about their survey/site plan and showed them the pond discrepancy.Mr.Kelly said that the Tenedios survey was done by GPS. Clearly the many tall trees and extreme overgrowth made the location of the pond very hard, if not impossible,for the GPS to"see." GPS is not reliably accurate when surveying property with trees that block a direct view from the sky. It seems obvious GPS surveys cannot replace a formal survey with field instruments. Is it possible that during the Planning Board site visit to the property,that you did not carefully review the pond location because the survey/site plan you were referencing does not show the pond to be on the Tenedios property? It is impossible to accurately make a ruling or recommendations based on an incorrect GPS survey when the pond location has everything to do with wetland buffers. Therefore.we are formally requesting that the Planning Board ensure that the Tenedios property be accurately surveyed showing all wetlands locations and that a 100 foot buffer be instituted around those areas. We would like to add that Tenedios is currently and actively pumping water from this pond which he states is entirely on our property, and the pump location may very well be inside the DEC limit of clearance and ground disturbance area. Sincerely, Colleen McDonou ele Hooke 8b 27752 Main Road Orient,NY 917-428-9733 4 i PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)7654330 Fax:(631)7654643 June 28, 2018 CERTIFIED MIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: fresh&co farm LLC PROPERTY: 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & Route 25, Orient SCTM: 1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 Dear Neighbor: I represent the above with regard to his site plan application. The Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a continuation of the public hearing. Enclosed is a reduced copy of the site plan map. The full site plan application is available at the Planning Board office between normal business days between the hours of 8: 00 and 4:00 p.m. located in the Town Hall Annex, Main Road, Southold (211 floor) or on line as more fully outlined in the attached notice. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018 at 6: 06 p.m. p.m. at Southold Town Hall . If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. ftruly yours, P' tricia C. Moore PCM/90- encls. �r �� f r p ..,�. ,., fFt r i �r ,u fl P >I w �u r . f9al� "� uaa � �-? S"i i v ��. .� I t T s dfi� d�p i f 4 �` i� eb e �� tp�I�� l� � �� k ✓ tiq; e M;t Tg�pu � a �, p"r: � � �, ll au }a v � �r e � ✓� k w � �' � �� r u � i � � du � SPP "r ✓ .fid rr P Tn �� in Mil E d } V v 3 rr, e f 1e�6 I S � f C x F � ' 9 � 'l oil Allr 4 Lry r � 7 r " . r r a� " h I r J HH PlP)'1111„ILLN I I.Y( .................... CARL SHRVEY (AF (A I I E N 11 OLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK i"C! 14 F! 2 3 19,9 9 YrrSr AR& 7AU803 T u(r, Im E A:t4 ko AOR �JWWII �Jk pl, !I N� IT�)p' W R l�'R 'I K I' A' �,")�fA N, fR P� ..... ...... WMWUW W"T QNK COMM" MR A I M i. UMOUM HOVU 15 iMd GAUAM, P Y/,mP�,R L. Sr niim', orn, "i A WWWMA f"CWHO ANAW MR A 1 4 9 UMMW "WE 0 MO rwry H KMWU MR, rV la, stir; 1 5 'Hr, ('0(11111'(10N L I",", AdIW WrWISH10'00', re¢Irl ARC frIiris VIRJUI �04,/',,M W0A 09"AROD rMJIU, A u rLVIDD .1,01, 014Q:�111011�1u'H fAj'�[N fIRtt 014� L100 D [PRumjaira, iI L j Rfl,[I K. 3("',?D'q(�(",,I�'V W, 0� ljl�A) 01-k 1'lk�I v w k u�' 001Vmax, 1; ,L" V ld':M flll UNUY "IN Ijy" "�MIOQIR IHII'� 01V (33 VH, IN, -.11 1 Pj"H6 H) H, VATkou W) 4N,1'000 ill 044'Y0 JJ roNo .a•,P,7, mv" u) R, J c'�s e mn toil 'jYf Up/ j " A r�j ��j I l�� y I., 6iA� e,0, ......... Michaelis, Jessica TI From: Cummings, Brian A^ El Sant Monday, September 24, 20I8I2:28PK4 To; Michaelis,Jessica I], S E 2 4 2 0 18 Subject: FW: 18'0913 i1rtoTown re livestock and wetandsodf Attachments: 18-0913 i1rto Town re livestock and wet|ands.pdf;ATT00001.txt southOdToml Board -----Original Message--- Fronn: Venetia Hands Sent: Monday, September 24, 2U1811:S6AM To: Cummings, Brian A. Subject: 18-0913LtrtnTown relivestock and vvet|ands.pdf Dear Brian Per attached letter from Super Law Group, how can Orient and the bay men trust in Voluntary compliance, when owner doesn't bother tobeextra careful inadvance? This ionot the first time goats have got into that area. Please forward this tnPlanning Board and Trustees. Thankyou Venetia Hands Michaelis, Jessica From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:36 PM To: Lanza„ Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis, Jessica; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Domino, Michael; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Darnon Cc: pcmoore@mooreattys.com; betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com; 11 V5 william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; Mike DiGiulio p Subject: Site Plan Application - Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm LLC lir; E I.� V E Attachments: 18-0921 Ltr to Town re wetlands w attachments.pdf SEP 2 4 2018 Good afternoon Soulta'old Town ' lIlanrif g Board Please see the attached correspondence dated September 21, 2018, addressed to the Planning Board, Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney, regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm LLC). This letter concerns wetlands. Very truly yours, Reed Super *************************************** Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) reedLc�isupe rl awgroup.corn w\V\ ��1 erllaw t•oup.coLl! *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE "* This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. t SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 21, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: As you know, this firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. In addition, we also represent Friends of Narrow River Inc., a newly incorporated domestic not-for-profit corporation formed for charitable purposes including protecting wetlands, habitat, open space, and other environmental resources as well as monitoring landowner compliance with land use conditions and public easement rights in Orient. We are writing on behalf of Friends of Narrow River Inc. ("Friends") and our individual clients in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. This letter concerns freshwater and tidal wetlands on the subject property. As further explained below, we believe that in order to protect those wetlands from pollution and degradation caused by construction and farm operations, including livestock waste, consistent with state and local law, the Planning Board must and should do the following: 1. Direct the applicant to flag the on-site freshwater and tidal wetlands and submit an updated survey and site plan showing the accurate wetland boundaries. 2. Require minimum 100-foot vegetated buffers to protect all freshwater and tidal wetlands on and adjacent to the property; said minimum buffers to be measured from the wetland boundaries. 3. Require the applicant to submit the updated site plan to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and to ask DEC to 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10035 TEL: 212®242®2355 FAX; 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.coni Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 2 determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. Further require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. I. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN, CONTAINING AN ACCURATE DELINEATION OF WETLAND BOUNDARIES. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows what is purported to be the "landward edge of tidal wetlands [and freshwater wetlands] as delineated by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on January 25, 2001." Questions were raised early on in the processing of the application as to whether the wetlands boundaries shown on the site plan were accurate. It is now clear that they were not. It appears that the applicant's wetlands boundaries were inaccurate when first purportedly delineated in 2001, and also that the wetlands boundaries may have shifted somewhat since then. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Board received a survey of the property adjacent to the subject property (to its west). The survey of the adjacent property (the "McDonough/Hooke Property") shows that the property line runs through a freshwater wetland, labeled "pond." In other words, the pond straddles the property line and extends in both directions; it sits on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property as well as on the Hooke/McDonough Property. See attached portion of McDonough/Hooke survey. This directly conflicts with the Suffolk Environmental Consulting delineation submitted by the applicant, which shows the pond fully on the McDonough/Hooke property; both surveys cannot be correct. On August 29, 2018, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke wrote to the Planning Board to inform it that the Tenedios survey/site plan "show[ing] the pond to be 100% on the McDonough/Hooke land" is incorrect, that the "pond is on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet," and that the McDonough/Hooke survey done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 is accurate. In further support of the accuracy of their survey, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke advised the Planning Board that "Tenendios is currently and actively pumping water from this pond which he states is entirely on [the McDonough/Hooke] property." See attached letter. If the farm is pumping water from the pond, the applicant must believe that the pond sits on the farm's property, contrary to the applicant's own survey and site plan. Furthermore, in the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant, the Planning Board's staff acknowledged the wetlands boundaries shown on the applicant's site plan may not be accurate. Staff stated on page one of that letter that "the wetland boundaries may have shifted." In addition, the "Staff Marked Site Plan" attached to the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant, which was marked after the staffs site visit to the farm property, has markings indicating that staff and/or the Board believe that some of the wetlands are no longer(or never were) where they are shown on the site plan. For example, a fence and/or wetland buffer line is indicated with a red line that crosses right through the tidal wetland as shown in the south-central portion of the Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 3 property. It is critically important to have accurate wetlands boundaries on the site plan because the regulatory mechanism being utilized to attempt to protect wetlands from pollution and degradation is vegetated buffers of a minimum distance as measured from the wetland boundary. However, despite being aware that the applicant's wetland delineation may not be accurate, and having a survey and other material in the record indicating that the pond may be "on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet,"the Board asked on page two of the staff's August 24 letter that there be a"50' wide `vegetated buffer' along the southwest property line" and a 50' wide `vegetated buffer' from the deer fence that angles across the property at the northern end of the southwest property line." Apart from the fact that the buffers should be 100 feet rather than 50 feet (as discussed below) if the pond extends 25-50 feet onto the applicant's property, as appears to be the case, then establishing a 50-foot buffer from the property line will leave a buffer that is 0-25 feet from the wetland itself, which is clearly inadequate. Moreover, the site plan (if it is accurate in this respect) shows the deer fence to be on the property line in certain places and to be less than 30 feet from the property line (inside the line indicated as the 30-foot side yard setback) in other places near where the pond is located. Further, the red line drawn on the Staff Marked Site Plan as a boundary to be added to a revised site plan extends right up to where the pond is likely located (as shown on the McDonough/Hooke survey and delineation). In the face of all of that uncertainty about the location of wetlands boundaries, the Planning Board appears poised to allow the applicant to proceed with an inaccurate wetlands delineation. Astonishingly, rather than asking the applicant to submit a new site plan including an accurate delineation based on the flagging of wetlands where they presently exist on the property, the Board in staff's August 24 letter asked the applicant to "[r]emove all the wetland boundary lines shown to the west of the site" and to "[r]emove all wetland buffer lines." (emphasis in original). This is unacceptable. The Town Code gives the Planning Board the responsibility, in acting on site plan applications, to "prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards"to accomplish certain objectives including giving "high priority" to "[t]he protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants" and "[t]he conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to . . . fresh- and saltwater wetlands." Town Code §§ 280- 129(D), 280-131(M). To carry out that responsibility, the Planning Board must know where those wetlands are. And to do that, it must require the applicant to flag the wetlands and submit a revised site plan with an accurate delineation. Furthermore, an accurate wetlands delineation is required for the DEC tidal wetlands permit application and determination discussed below. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 4 I1. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE MINIMUM 100-FOOT VEGETATED BUFFERS MEASURED FROM THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES. As you are aware, the Board of Town Trustees recommended 100-foot buffers. Specifically, the Trustees stated: "All `100' Wetland Boundary Offsets' should have permanent fencing to exclude animals from adjacent wetland areas. " Memo from Michael J. Domino to Brian Cummings, Aug. 31, 2017. Further, the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) coordinator recommended 100-foot wide vegetated buffers as a key environmental protection measure. Further, the LWRP coordinator found that the project would be consistent with the LWRP "provided the Planning Board considers and requires the following recommendations . . . 6. Require 100'wide vegetated buffers that are effective in the removal of nutrients and pathogens. 8. Require that the paddocks and sheds observed in the field are removed from the 100' wide vegetated buffers. 9. Prohibit animal grazing from the 100'wide vegetated buffer areas. 10. Require a covenant that establishes the boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings within the vegetated buffers." LRWP Memo, Apr. 25, 2018, at 2. Likewise, the report entitled "Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY," prepared by Donald W. Meals, of 1ce.Nine Environmental Consulting, an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management and a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution, which we submitted on July 6, 2018, also recommended 100-foot wetland buffers. Indeed, the site plan shows a"100-foot wetland buffer line" around all fresh and tidal wetlands (albeit 100-feet from inaccurate wetland boundary lines). Despite this, the applicant is apparently not proposing (or no longer proposing)to adhere to 100-foot wetlands buffers and the Planning Board appears to be willing to ignore or reject the recommendations of the Town Trustees, the Town LWRP coordinator, Mr. Meals, and others. The Planning Board should not do so and cannot do so consistent with its responsibility to impose reasonable conditions to protect wetlands and water quality. The Board should require l 00-foot vegetated buffers measured from accurate wetland boundaries. The wetland and buffer requirements discussed above should be applied not only to the "high quality tidal wetlands" in the southwest corner of the property, but also the tidal wetland that runs down the center of the southern half of the property and drains to the Narrow River; the pond that straddles the western property lines; and all other fi•esh and tidal wetlands on and/or adjacent to the property. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 5 III. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SEEK A DEC DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEED FOR A TIDAL WETLANDS PERMIT. On August 30, 2017, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation responded to the Planning Board's request for comments on the site plan and stated as follows: "Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office." See letter from Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst. DEC Region 1, to Brian Cummings, Planner(copy attached). In the August 20, 2018 Staff Report, your staff wrote "Building may require a permit from DEC (based on original location) and "Is the wooded area in the southwest corner regulated by DEC due to the tidal wetlands and the existing trees? Needs clarification." Then, in the August 20 work session, a comment was made that moving the proposed barn location 200 feet westward may obviate a DEC wetlands permit. This does not appear to be the case; the barn in its new location would still be located within 300 feet of a DEC-regulated tidal wetland and would still require a permit from DEC. Accordingly, we ask the Planning Board to require the applicant to provide the updated site plan to DEC and to ask DEC to determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. Further, the Board should require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. A proper wetlands delineation is necessary for the applicant's request to DEC. And DEC will have the option of visiting the property to verify the wetlands delineation. The DEC wetlands permit process also depends upon having accurate wetlands boundaries delineated in the first place. We thank you for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, i Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio Enclosures cc (via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant Su b� Submission Without a Cover Letter 4 I t .yn ,, p� � Sender: � � ��(.�Y �� p J Subject: j �S SCTM#: 1000 Date: --I I ` $' Comments: :: , DJJO cn+ PY14-w,(/+q \,x+�CL rA ..... w 1, tv r 4 r*; 1-7 l 1 I I 4 �f August 29,2018 Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Re: Teitedios Agricultural Building dl:and the Tenedios Incorrect Survey We are neighboring property owners to what was formerly Maureen Cullinane's property and is now owned by the corporation fresh&co faun LLC("Tenedios"),located at 28410 Rt.25, Orient,NY. Patricia C.Moore sent us a letter dated June 28,2018 together with a survey/site plan map of the Tened os property(copies attached). Upon review of the Tenedios survey it was immediately clear that their survey/site plan h incorrect.This survey/site plan shows the pond to be 100%on the McDonough/Hooke land when,In fact,this designated wetlands pond is on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet. Enclosed is a copy of our survey which was done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 and is accurate. We attended the Planning Board work session on August 20,2018 and the Planning Board work session didn't reflect the correct location of the pond As we understood it,you were discussing only a 50-foot buffer from the west property line regardless of pond location. This creates a buffer 0-20 feet from the pond,which is a DEC designated wetland. The buffer from a designated wetland is supposed to be 100 feet. After the meeting,we asked Pat Moore and Bill Kelly about their survey/'site plan and showed them the pond discrepancy.Mr.Kelly said that die'l'encKfios survey was done by GPS. Clearly the many tall trees and extreme overgrowth made the location of the pond very hard,if not impossible,for the GPS to"see." GPS is not reliably accurate when surveying property with trees that block a direct view from the sky-It seems obvious GPS surveys cannot replace a formal survey with field instruments. Is it possible that during the Planning Board site visit to the property,that you did not carefully review the pond location because the survey/site plan you were refeing does not show the pond to be on the Tenedios property? It is impossible to accurately make a ruling or recommendations based on an incorrect GPS survey when the pond location has everything to do with wetland buffers. Therefore„we are formally requesting that the Planning Board ensure that the Tenedios property be accurately surveyed showing all wetlands locations and that a 100 foot buffer be instituted around those areas. We would like to add that Tenedios is currently and actively pumping water from this pond which he states is entirely on our property,and the pump location may very well be inside the DEC limit of cleamnee and ground disturbance area. Sincerely, Colleen McDonough leje 'How e 27752 Main Road Orient,NY 917-428-9733 PATRICU C. MOORS Attomey at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765.4330 Fax:(631)7654643 June 28, 2018 CER!PXFZED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RL: fresh&co farm LLC PROPERTY: 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & Route 25, Orient SCTM: 1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 Dear Neighbor: I represent the above with regard to his site plan application. The Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a continuation of the public hearing. Enclosed is a reduced copy of the site plan map. The full site plan application is available at the Planning Board office between normal business days between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00 p.m. located in the Town Hall Annex, Main Road, Southold (2"a floor) or on line as more fully outlined in the attached notice. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018 at 6:06 p.m. p.m. at Southold Town Hall. If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. V'-rV'-r truly yours, P. trivia C. 10ore PCM/90- encls. l {}t� a .jii $ ac�Eis y4 �i�llt �ig rr h 6 ✓g.,� "p- MIN°ry rc7e o 5 P.E ry ,b� E9 IN � d a,r y i �, w vti �xi7 ns�, L� 7 7all� 111 d 4 i °fid a w IN ag4� ' 7 .¢, ar^ j �w ,,,,,. �Y m tly'y Z 1 � i i. n O ,• Y c l rz> Y! Z _ a i (yu jf 'IN MOT p �t�1 y p 1177 41 " rr[ p 2 VVVVP .° �'•� 4 G toy C B d w k j .. _........ PLANRORi �e<o stun:2o.,ORIE- . mm m m � s?* 'O+RCUM 0-OR��lm e.� D q p _ P ooK 6:m .....--- „� �� n a•,�rrrr+� r+ua rMw� r�w.+e or=sama�i rr .- ... PAWIR'LLED mDD D, C 1�1DWELL1NG d M k �b (umml.f.m av r,h"P"�41P"Sum PUw�4II', w� 1w it wPa' °b'w.ummraw�:rr'1 Mw .k E NT FOW " a Of . �mLaTY�� H' d .D t) SUFFOLKN ()() IYm NEW YORK // . RK. T41004N3-06- 21 ,8.8 .w7rQ QNI y•rENBER a 1999 r T flI Ir vrDedag ArM "1 `Mt f f yJ t i ARFA 74,1118.53 sq D''D p JCP aNc, r} all HELEN HOOKII:COLLEEN WDONOUGH .D. — 17-1 Cm y F "(.0". CL) tl raJICvwul mill, Ew rlliyO'AG'.'IkOu iio Hx,,Y,P.0 ms w.wrt)14 CC d� �P'� 7Y dw k q l';"4'�w4�'G a PPS 'C91awA0 �NIN .wN df✓ a.? or r'utlRwrFfsu "SOKMINCP81R„.J,4Nd"f r l oaamyl4 'rco U .. �.• 'MyyMd'rVP Iq+19tlMYgd'P^iYIX"mINN Mk dPp"#P` �4WY'm".Pw'w7fYp'V°@ omr wGlimiV�'mM�'ww,�@�,"P ultiwlVw'4Y w"„�„ w,q'Y01'p 6 HOUSE �y a m yreyK w 0IIG 4'—S' roar f..y'. Irall:u� D ..�•. �m. Ww"gV"IRAR"„�n.qEA IMG�w , TIE U P4CAPAWNw",IA PU uwb 0w mwh"WbR'W1WM rwttW�„4Sw-tl"r� IM mwwR uoi 5I111UP'tmsd9U AUCA wkuwou"wuvol m.'ia!ralrMHA m"ym, 1 r nr z m..,y ,�¢pnc,', w4mr + gym. THE mcua'rA'r*wa " *y':Ul„S AN) au:Vc,PMWw,S SHOWN Hy':Rw:'mmN ARE m•rawsPm PNy.a.w'm iy irRVANA /Wl ,wn q�u��w'� wUs'�'A NIIED y"FROMiGTIRIERS. I wrlVm'� TANVIN P1P'mw1m"w: i IG!P!&DOD Po��;PNPICP�PwM. 6P T11 VP„mNP' U'., „PwNNQ'k,D1;"w'd&P4R41w G ZONE IP. BA%, I11- o Iq.LVAI 004bNIN,AFTAS � w i wlyU�m" InPi'pP"PUuq.IN. W.vn 'vrww&_ P FmP1P"1W;"V mm Mn-'w`y` 1' 4Na' 10.miG'4-�'YIF,'HYw ft(WK)NP6N'V6 P'wPr.@@h"Sq: 0 ....." 19,1110.�u�oP07 LESS TMN a MOW W aAq hP M rt5m'"'W m.wBN0,". v N v 44” � t.GP .w:, r atuwVAur PnPunUwR tlfi;¢'I w.w'w I1 NiVymawa Niv4m.vlP.:Nq PI,uA474) f� r°GUiOIf K. wuw'EA3 ,11'E APA ID It R 4nl vy NP Ten 4"P,A V'11wD4':'"wr A"q.wi” •.^.'.` pey.q, J „,"„fIMPgVMJIQ4 VD'PP; II;VNRd`'N"umlreP'tl"1 N'R-Ao TYPICAL 1�11,I'll,4 ,. ww w, • � i. •P w M1 a lI ",...... n r. 1 11 1K " w lee ns " t ri ldp m r^� ut o-r n , tn,, �, ✓y q w pp �� "r Rq a � r'IN Nw �I I�� I �u t e mr yy. ¶„ iY 4M�I� u��m „"�I@' . a u , wr i::.��r rt ea m. _ r J nH yle.Cv,w T14 zl,* uir ^rtti•.m7 «e, a ..��va'�'` b � 'r d;rn.A infR ,.24'J O � � �Pv o Pr< WORD KIM." r', ' v r+ Ill, llusr� ., ry" �,r.<,� �wr ��v ... a Lr�-xr,I • w A NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 'S 1 1 . PA-r Qom, Division of Environmental Permits,Region 1 SUNY @ Stony Brook,50 Circle Road,Stony Brook,NY 11790 P:(631)444-0365 1 F:(631)444-0360 www.dec.ny.gov Haiming Board S¢��11uu:bI2Y f'¢,a^�auo RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN August 30, 2017 Brian Cummings, Planner Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for Tenedios Agricultural Barn 28410 NYS Rt. 25, s/w corner of Rt. 25 & Narrow River Rd, Orient, NY 11957 SCTM# 1000-19-1-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Mr. Cummings: Thank you for offering this Department the opportunity to review the referenced site plan. Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office. Sincerely, Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst ' 1, r^„°.MI Department of , Environmental �� Conservation -�-,b C Michaelis, Jessica (P6I0U�—k I—V�C_ From: Cummings, Brian A. l �„ �I �N Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:28 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica PI I S Subject: FW: 18-0913 Ltr to Town re livestock and wetlands.pdf [n, Attachments: 18-0913 Ltr to Town re livestock and wetlands.pdf;ATT00001.txt SoWholdIbm Planning Lo�� -----Original Message----- From: Venetia Hands [m iltp:venetia handsconsutlti�n .coniI Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:56 AM To: Cummings, Brian A. Subject: 18-0913 Ltr to Town re livestock and wetlands.pdf Dear Brian Per attached letter from Super Law Group, how can Orient and the bay men trust in Voluntary compliance, when owner doesn't bother to be extra careful in advance? This is not the first time goats have got into that area. Please forward this to Planning Board and Trustees. Thank you Venetia Hands Michaelis, Jessica From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:36 PM �`hr To: Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A,; Michaelis, Jessica; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Domino, Michael; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon Cc: pcmoore@mooreattys.com; betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com; william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; Mike DiGiulio Subject: Site Plan Application - Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm LLC � � � � "9 Attachments: 18-0921 Ltr to Town re wetlands w attachments.pdf LS r 2,71 ?0 18 Good afternoon, Southold Town PlannGng Board Please see the attached correspondence dated September 21, 2018, addressed to the Planning Board, Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney, regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm LLC). This letter concerns wetlands. Very truly yours, Reed Super *************************************** Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) www„super lawgroup co„Ln *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. i SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 21, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 1 1971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: As you know, this firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. In addition, we also represent Friends of Narrow River Inc., a newly incorporated domestic not-for-profit corporation formed for charitable purposes including protecting wetlands, habitat, open space, and other environmental resources as well as monitoring landowner compliance with land use conditions and public easement rights in Orient. We are writing on behalf of Friends of Narrow River Inc. ("Friends") and our individual clients in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XX1V of the Town Code. This letter concerns freshwater and tidal wetlands on the subject property. As further explained below, we believe that in order to protect those wetlands from pollution and degradation caused by construction and farm operations, including livestock waste, consistent with state and local law, the Planning Board must and should do the following: I. Direct the applicant to flag the on-site freshwater and tidal wetlands and submit an updated survey and site plan showing the accurate wetland boundaries. 2. Require minimum 100-foot vegetated buffers to protect all freshwater and tidal wetlands on and adjacent to the property; said minimum buffers to be measured fi•om the wetland boundaries. 3. Require the applicant to submit the updated site plan to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and to ask DEC to 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 ° NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855®242®7956 www.superlawgroup.com Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 2 determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. Further require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. I. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN, CONTAINING AN ACCURATE DELINEATION OF WETLAND BOUNDARIES. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows what is purported to be the "landward edge of tidal wetlands [and freshwater wetlands] as delineated by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on January 25, 2001." Questions were raised early on in the processing of the application as to whether the wetlands boundaries shown on the site plan were accurate. It is now clear that they were not. It appears that the applicant's wetlands boundaries were inaccurate when first purportedly delineated in 2001, and also that the wetlands boundaries may have shifted somewhat since then. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Board received a survey of the property adjacent to the subject property (to its west). The survey of the adjacent property (the "McDonough/Hooke Property") shows that the property line runs through a fi•eshwater wetland, labeled "pond." In other words, the pond straddles the property line and extends in both directions; it sits on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property as well as on the Hooke/McDonough Property. See attached portion of McDonough/Hooke survey. This directly conflicts with the Suffolk Environmental Consulting delineation submitted by the applicant, which shows the pond fully on the McDonough/Hooke property; both surveys cannot be correct. On August 29, 2018, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke wrote to the Planning Board to inform it that the Tenedios survey/site plan "show[ing] the pond to be 100% on the McDonough/Hooke land" is incorrect, that the "pond is on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet," and that the McDonough/Hooke survey done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 is accurate. In further support of the accuracy of their survey, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Hooke advised the Planning Board that "Tenendios is currently and actively pumping water fi•om this pond which he states is entirely on [the McDonough/Hooke] property." See attached letter. If the farm is pumping water from the pond, the applicant must believe that the pond sits on the farm's property, contrary to the applicant's own survey and site plan. Furthermore, in the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant, the Planning Board's staff acknowledged the wetlands boundaries shown on the applicant's site plan may not be accurate. Staff stated on page one of that letter that "the wetland boundaries may have shifted." In addition, the "Staff Marked Site Plan" attached to the August 24, 2018 letter to the applicant, which was marked after the staffs site visit to the farm property, has markings indicating that staff and/or the Board believe that some of the wetlands are no longer(or never were) where they are shown on the site plan. For example, a fence and/or wetland buffer line is indicated with a red line that crosses right through the tidal wetland as shown in the south-central portion of the Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 3 property. It is critically important to have accurate wetlands boundaries on the site plan because the regulatory mechanism being utilized to attempt to protect wetlands from pollution and degradation is vegetated buffers of a minimum distance as measured from the wetland boundary. However, despite being aware that the applicant's wetland delineation may not be accurate, and having a survey and other material in the record indicating that the pond may be "on the Tenedios property by approximately 25-50 feet,"the Board asked on page two of the staff's August 24 letter that there be a"50' wide `vegetated buffer' along the southwest property line" and a 50' wide `vegetated buffer' from the deer fence that angles across the property at the northern end of the southwest property line." Apart from the fact that the buffers should be 100 feet rather than 50 feet (as discussed below) if the pond extends 25-50 feet onto the applicant's property, as appears to be the case, then establishing a 50-foot buffer from the property line will leave a buffer that is 0-25 feet from the wetland itself, which is clearly inadequate. Moreover, the site plan (if it is accurate in this respect) shows the deer fence to be on the property line in certain places and to be less than 30 feet fi-om the property line (inside the line indicated as the 30-foot side yard setback) in other places near where the pond is located. Further, the red line drawn on the Staff Marked Site Plan as a boundary to be added to a revised site plan extends right up to where the pond is likely located (as shown on the McDonough/Hooke survey and delineation). In the face of all of that uncertainty about the location of wetlands boundaries, the Planning Board appears poised to allow the applicant to proceed with an inaccurate wetlands delineation. Astonishingly, rather than asking the applicant to submit a new site plan including an accurate delineation based on the flagging of wetlands where they presently exist on the property, the Board in staff's August 24 letter asked the applicant to "[r]emove all the wetland boundary lines shown to the west of the site" and to "[r]emove all wetland buffer lines." (emphasis in original). This is unacceptable. The Town Code gives the Planning Board the responsibility, in acting on site plan applications, to "prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards"to accomplish certain objectives including giving "high priority"to "[t]he protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants" and "[t]he conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to . . . fresh- and saltwater wetlands." Town Code §§ 280- 129(D), 280-131(M). To carry out that responsibility, the Planning Board must know where those wetlands are. And to do that, it must require the applicant to flag the wetlands and submit a revised site plan with an accurate delineation. Furthermore, an accurate wetlands delineation is required for the DEC tidal wetlands permit application and determination discussed below. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 4 II. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE MINIMUM 100-FOOT VEGETATED BUFFERS MEASURED FROM THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES. As you are aware, the Board of Town Trustees recommended 100-foot buffers. Specifically, the Trustees stated: "All `100' Wetland Boundary Offsets' should have permanent fencing to exclude animals from adjacent wetland areas. " Memo from Michael J. Domino to Brian Cummings, Aug. 31, 2017. Further, the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) coordinator recommended 100-foot wide vegetated buffers as a key environmental protection measure. Further, the LWRP coordinator found that the project would be consistent with the LWRP "provided the Planning Board considers and requires the following recommendations . . . 6. Require 100'wide vegetated buffers that are effective in the removal of nutrients and pathogens. 8. Require that the paddocks and sheds observed in the field are removed from the 100' wide vegetated buffers. 9. Prohibit animal grazing from the 100'wide vegetated buffer areas. 10. Require a covenant that establishes the boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings within the vegetated buffers." LRWP Memo, Apr. 25, 2018, at 2. Likewise, the report entitled "Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY," prepared by Donald W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management and a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution, which we submitted on July 6, 2018, also recommended 100-foot wetland buffers. Indeed, the site plan shows a "100-foot wetland buffer line" around all fresh and tidal wetlands (albeit 100-feet from inaccurate wetland boundary lines). Despite this, the applicant is apparently not proposing (or no longer proposing)to adhere to l 00-foot wetlands buffers and the Planning Board appears to be willing to ignore or reject the recommendations of the Town Trustees, the Town LWRP coordinator, Mr. Meals, and others. The Planning Board should not do so and cannot do so consistent with its responsibility to impose reasonable conditions to protect wetlands and water quality. The Board should require l 00-foot vegetated buffers measured from accurate wetland boundaries. The wetland and buffer requirements discussed above should be applied not only to the "high quality tidal wetlands" in the southwest corner of the property, but also the tidal wetland that runs down the center of the southern half of the property and drains to the Narrow River; the pond that straddles the western property lines; and all other fresh and tidal wetlands on and/or adjacent to the property. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 21, 2018 Page 5 III. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SEEK A DEC DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEED FOR A TIDAL WETLANDS PERMIT. On August 30, 2017, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation responded to the Planning Board's request for comments on the site plan and stated as follows: "Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s) from this office." See letter from Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst. DEC Region 1, to Brian Cummings, Planner(copy attached). In the August 20, 2018 Staff Report, your staff wrote "Building may require a permit from DEC (based on original location) and "Is the wooded area in the southwest corner regulated by DEC due to the tidal wetlands and the existing trees? Needs clarification." Then, in the August 20 work session, a comment was made that moving the proposed barn location 200 feet westward may obviate a DEC wetlands permit. This does not appear to be the case; the barn in its new location would still be located within 300 feet of a DEC-regulated tidal wetland and would still require a permit from DEC. Accordingly, we ask the Planning Board to require the applicant to provide the updated site plan to DEC and to ask DEC to determine whether a tidal wetlands permit is required. Further, the Board should require that such determination and any resulting permitting process must be concluded to DEC's satisfaction prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans and prior to the applicant being permitted to seek a building permit. A proper wetlands delineation is necessary for the applicant's request to DEC. And DEC will have the option of visiting the property to verify the wetlands delineation. The DEC wetlands permit process also depends upon having accurate wetlands boundaries delineated in the first place. We thank you for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio Enclosures cc (via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant Michaelis, Jessica From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> n Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:24 PM To: Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis,Jessica; Hagan, Damon; Duffy, Bill; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Spiro, Melissa; Domino, Michael Cc: william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; pcmoore@mooreattys.com; , betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com; Mike DiGiulio _ Subject: Site Plan Application -Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm LLC Attachments: 18-0919 Ltr to Town re uses.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the attached correspondence dated September 19, 2018, addressed to the Planning Board and Town Attorney, with copies to the Board of Trustees and Land Preservation Committee regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm L.L.Q. This letter responds to the applicant's correspondence regarding the August 25, 2018 event and uses of the PDR parcel. Please add this letter to the public correspondence file. Very truly yours, Reed Super Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) recd((" Il) rl� rr *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM, wrote: In response to yet another accusatory letter. The owner of the property held a family celebration on August 25, 2018. This family party was not a "special event" and is specifically excluded pursuant to Town Code 205-3 (B)(3). The family gathered on the property, enjoyed a lovely meal together until it 1 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 19, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail '1 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman and members of the _ 1 Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm,LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events and Applicant's Response 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski. Members of the Planning Board, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents and a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. On September 14, 2018, we wrote to the Planning Board about a possible event that took place on Saturday, August 25, 2018 on the 29.5-acre parcel that is subject to the conservation easement. In response to our letter, the attorney for the applicant responded by email as follows: The owner of the property held a family celebration on August 25, 2018. This family party was not a "special event" and is specifically excluded pursuant to Town Code 205-3 (13)(3). Ms. Moore's email has been included in the Planning Board's subject file, and we wish to briefly respond to it here. As we understand it, the owner of the property is not an individual but a limited liability company, Fresh&CoFarm, LLC. Ms. Moore presumably means that the event was held for the family of a member of the LLC that owns the property. Town Code § 205-3(b)(3) exempts certain "[o]ccasional events on private residential properties hosted by the owner thereof..." As we mentioned in our July 6, 2018 letter, the Board should pay close attention to the dual and sometimes shifting or conflicting roles of the entity and individual given that the land is owned by an LLC named for the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, the applicant is that LLC, crops are grown commercially on the site (by a tenant farmer) for use in the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, animals 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgi-oup.com Planning Board and Town Attorney September 19, 2018 Page 2 are raised there for what has been described as Mr. Tenedios' personal (non-commercial) use and consumption, and now events are being held there for the family of a member of the LLC, purportedly under a permit exemption for events on private residential properties hosted by the owner. Furthermore, the key issue is not whether the August 25th event needed a permit under Town Code § 205-3. The issue is what uses are allowed on the 29.5-acre parcel whose development rights have been sold to the Town and is now subject to an easement. The recorded Deed of Development Rights requires that the property owner"shall only use the premises ... for the purpose of agricultural production" Deed at 1, 4. The Land Preservation Committee concluded that any uses beyond agricultural production would "not be allowed within the area subject to the recorded Deed." Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. Events requiring large commercial tour buses to transport attendees to the site do not fall within the definition of"agricultural production" in Chapter 70 of the Town Code, whether or not such event requires a permit under Chapter 205. It should also be noted that the landowner does not own all of the property rights associated with the property—it owns only the land itself and the right to use that land for agricultural production. All other property rights were sold to the Town by Ms. Cullinane. Consequently, it is the Town's right and also its legal responsibility to restrict the use of the property to agricultural purposes only, and no other purposes, consistent with the easement and the purchase of development rights with public funds. Likewise, the conditions of any site plan approval should make clear that not only that Special Events are prohibited but also that "Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be strictly prohibited on the site." Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r Reed W. Super Mike DiGlUlio cc (via email): Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant I September 18 2018 A Town of Southold Planning Board .... , 543 75 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear concerned citizens, We are neighboring property owners to the Tenedios property owned by Fresh Farms LLC. Please be aware that in the last 2 months there has been a large water pump running on the edge of the Tenedios property that abuts our property and our shared property line.This property line is also on a DEC designated wetland. We heard the loud pump motor for the first time right after the July 9,2018 Planning Board Meeting and not before. Soon after that we had concerns about our water quality and so we scheduled water tests for salinity and coliform bacteria,which took place last Friday.As a result,we were told that the salt in the water was double the normal amount but it is still safe. The coliform test was positive but Harry Goldman wants to do another test to confirm. As you know,the Tenedios farm is right on the edge of salt water(Narrow River)and the animals are not being managed by"best practices"which the Planning Board seems willing to believe that Tenedios will do. If the large pump is drawing such a significant quantity of water that it is pulling bacteria and/or salt water toward itself in the water table which is very close to the surface, it could represent a danger, not only to our well,which never tested positive before, but to the water that supplies the wells in Browns Hills and other neighboring properties. It goes without saying that Tenedios' water itself could also be jeopardized. We encourage more study about the impacts of a massive structure like the Tenedios barn and the increased water that is being drawn from an already fragile water table by such a dramatic increase. Siely yours nce a3-� Helen Hooke and Colleen McDonough 9-18-18 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 14, 2018 p < EMAIL: reed@su erlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and Federal Express Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman and members of the Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board: This law firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. As the Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee, Planning Department staff, and all other reviewers have agreed. the Deed of Development Rights for the 29.5-acre former Cullinane property now owned by Fresh&CoFarm, LLC prohibits use of that property for any purpose other than agricultural production. See Deed at 1, 4; Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. Thus, the applicant may not use the property for public or private events. Your staff correctly recognized the public's reasonable concern that events might cause noise and traffic problems and disrupt the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Southold Planning Department Staff Report, August 20, 2018 at 10. Staff recommended to the Planning Board that"Special events" on the property should be explicitly prohibited in any site plan approval. See id. ("Special events would not be allowed in the barn or on the PDR [Purchase of Development Rights] land.") At the July 9, 2018 public hearing on the application, representatives of the applicant expressly disavowed any intent to use the proposed barn or the property for anything other than agricultural production. In response to public concern caused by previous statements from the applicant, published on-line and in the media, suggesting that the barn was designed to be used as a commercial event space(sometimes referred to as"agri-tainment"), the applicant's representatives stated that the applicant has now been made aware the Deed prohibits all events. And they told the Board that there would be no events on the property. It comes with great concern then that local residents observed what they believe to have 180 MAIDEN LANE, SuITF 603 • Ni-:w YORK, Nrw YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board September 14, 2018 Page 2 been a possible event taking place on Saturday, August 25, 2018, on the 29.5-acre parcel subject to the Deed of Development Rights. In the afternoon of that date, a large commercial size tour bus was parked on the property with the logo and company name "The Villages" displayed on its side. The tour bus exited the property and turned onto Main Road (State Route 25) via the driveway on Main Road that leads from the north-south road on the 29.5-acre property. A large number of people could be seen riding the bus. The Planning Board and its staff should investigate and make inquires about the facts surrounding the events of August 25th to determine whether the applicant has violated the provisions in the Deed and whether, notwithstanding the applicant's representatives statements at the public hearing, its intentions for the property are inconsistent with the reasonable conditions the Board is developing. In light of the history of this application, it is critically important that the Board impose specific, una.ibiguous, and enforceable conditions in order to ensure that it is crystal clear to the applicant, all other stakeholders, and the general public as to what types of gatherings are considered to be prohibited special events. Thank you for considering the community's significant concerns in this regard. Please take steps to address them. We can be reached at 212-242-2355, should you like to discuss the matter. Sincerely, i , r e � Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee William Duffy, Town Attorney Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant 1" T, (�C Submission Without a Cover Letter f Sender: Subject: QS SCTM#: 1000 - Date: --IIt� < < g Comments: (' Cy V ...o.r r � qi� k j 1 fl e A V' Je f f4� August 29,2018 Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Re: T edios Agricultural Building dt and the Tenedios Incorrect Survey We are neighboring property owners to what was formerly Maureen Cullinane's property and is now owned by the corporation fresb&co farm LLC("`Tenedios"),located at 28410 Rt.25, Orient,NY. Patricia C.Moore sent us a letter dated June 28,2018 together with a survey/site plan map of the Tenedlos properly(copies attar-tied). Upon review of the Tenedios survey it was immediately clear that their sir /site plan is incorrect.This survey/site plan shows the pond is be 100%on the McDonough/Hooke land when,in fact,this designated wetlands pond Is on the Tenedios property pe by approximately 25-50 feet. Enclosed is a copy of our survey which was done by Joseph Ingegno in 1999 and is accurate. We attended the Planning Board work session on August 20,2018 and the Planning Board work session didn't reflect the correct location of the pond.As we understood it,you were discussing only a 50-foot buffer from the west property line regardless of pond location. This creates a buffer 0-20 feet from the pond,which is a DEC designated wetland. The buffer from a designated wetland is supposed to be 100 feet. After the meeting,we asked Pat Moore and Bill Kelly about their survey/site plan and showed them the pond discrepancy.Mr.Kelly said that the Tenedios survey was done by GPS. Clearly the many tall trees and extreme overgrowth made the location of the pond very hard,if not impossible,for the GPS to"see." GPS is not reliably accurate when surveying property with trees that block a direct view from the sky.It seems obvious GPS surveys cannot replace a formal survey with field instruments. Is it possible that during the Plarming Board site visit to the property,that you did not carefidly review the pond location because the survey/site plan you were referencing does not show the pond to be on the Tenedios property? It is impossible to accurately make a ruling or recommendations based on an incorrect GPS survey when the pond location has everything to do with wetland buffers. Therefore,we are formally requesting that the Planning Board ensure that the Tenedios property be accurately surveyetli showing all wetlands locations and that a 100 foot buffer be instituted around those areas. We would like to add that' enedios is currently and actively lumping water fi+om this pond which he states is entirely on our property,and the pump location may very well be inside the DEC limit of clearance and ground distwbance area. Sincerely, 1... Colleen McDonough lclen Hoof e 27752 Main Road Orient,NY 917-428-9733 PATRICU C. MOORE Attomey at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)7654330 Fax:(631)7654643 June 28, 2018 CERTIFIED 1►NIIb RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: fresh&co farm LLC PROPERTY: 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & Route 25, Orient SCTM: 1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 Dear Neighbor: I represent the above with regard to his site plan application. The Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a continuation of the public hearing. Enclosed is a reduced copy of the site plan map. The full site plan application is available at the Planning Board office between normal business days between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00 p.m. located in the Town Hall Annex, Main Road, Southold (2"d floor) or on line as more fully outlined in the attached notice. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018 at 6:06 p.m. p.m. at Southold Town Hall. If you have any questions, or .you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. :gip truly yours, 1' tricia C. Macre PCM/90- encls. oil I HIM JIHII ul -21 "�Iz I I w YQW , 0 11A it, NJ 1 P g Cal NJ 11 ---"6 NO N n HIPP XIM P0 00 110 AMMI AN A -4 W1 SIMPER n _' , 7� _-; — ' 0 z god hot, 'q I t JUN IHI I M 1 703 PO 3 gal i POT Eli 12, psi F7 Nq Izg I A q, I il 1 1. , A g i Aft) 1 la .......------- in yl ;-nip ... .... A z v . ......................... ................. ............... TEWDI05 FAP�l sm P�,�N-fm 3�10 9,WM 20A�1�3EW 5�T�I W IOCO-0-01-f ��gfj T.BUIIXR.KE.IQ r"; CARL A R lSURVEY OF' PROPERTY .V J- DANIELLE IJAWARIFST SITUATISID AT EYWEL UN o 0 R ENT t SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOM,, f 06-21 ,8 ra•, Ia.W � � SEPTEMBER SAN 1999 1'�V`AI of .t, 199%) W,t�&oLr :ups " 4od"au 'JAFK'R "1., r fi99 '^I �. AREA = 74,348,53 ti's a '�f I J0 W'Wd'.• r UZ LAHELEN HOOKE �p ,W AIeJ L ' 14CO N DR�YADWW�W �� oWWNCIN:D II10 NXH.DRH�H WNWr� '��C I-- DH A:W"D IN U1`u"d„w1q* wA Erw'ou 96I4r N"', RH �i�IlumHJAD"UA"RaC7APPPrawlr PV J V BNRof VIT lPo TA, °"" �, �....��.„ � "" r1q�'CNz4� wN�A9r'YI PrCE;�',Il�mrl"�w<ur Mr ' ,1��Cw'S��u ' w�"tt"Ma��'Um "W. YJU49 CAd'PWCIIDES WO FIN PS W, Ra AI�.A.G.NR'W:ll. 6 Na P 'ABD a „RA;;Q'#WAW'b6'DIIW H rn„ d 8' WW1•Wg M' 4.d:�W46" aR...,W,^ &W)UF:, pAw...A'• DEEP •':tl OH0IHPVLflUM Y..ld;:AC:U^PRII, ti'W'SUIEM W�u;'IIWH A U TO W IIW@:WAH'MA4 rauroH,rSIR 6 MKI q Wlu vmP,DW.'^PRAPV..l.. NWWP"W.. a . I'I I'mFFWMN"0.Y9„P'Fd M P PW:P@damn,; II''C'NPIM;.. �.: Wq, I, HTHE A.H6faWT NIH OIF 'NP"S:Y„k.S AW)�6•k'SSPWSQ�flM,S SH U W RNAPON WE tr"HWPIH FIELD . I tiAla'IY,mWn'IWAH'AIMIIH,PJ dAHaA;dOR IrU MA 0I61AVRHIIED FROM MlfR H Ip°W,@➢WWgA 76K 0tr61d'WIN88WWAJ' PO 'Ifd6NNINS A'W o W; FA000 MHSLURAaR!A E IWW:AN", KU" IWnI. 36103COO d G °wD0'SA',.MD„', WG.W.' 11E,PCNUS RPmUWd4tlIHpNS IpRW"P&.Icka+WaaPIC Edi F' r B1oi Gm6 MVIini Iwy uc4o o,PWW:N�',s Vd`,.w'i� uiw n fP'MIhm A mom .d O.'MAAR NRPLi1D; d�'AS 00 fdUQP vrM P'�'WfX)JA`Wq"�mA9F'NPN ( � --" ¢rW4"W"Aon aS^ AW ""�'VUPaW��m o P" s I CID I ScAllAu"O vat! AW KH'"IA%0"M)KCTIYD IIIY'M f%MN.✓N"NdUM "JQd—'IF.-Al RI,A'KNN TRSMdpff A4&XP"aW' PJ1 -WR0.b YCd PH ubAprr•d�p'pG: .MYGtl,rV+..m V"NP'k¢DU'u"VnWP a, y EE Tr17.Y1(,.A.1. 1151, P A A " E" Al ,r Ile % �mm „ I " " �•�� .��. _, a a,,,, �� l w�✓ems w 9N tl �A y y r `y„ � I Pr, ��1°N a A��'�� d @ kj4��R �� 1� �� 'nM I��l�ji�� l�r�a.✓9� � oa ry y�q n A dr h,��V II�'��"�,.�� 1„,�'11Y,,,,� UI V '.� ✓ 0 I'll I 7f A` j T. a , {: 1HOWru'�I I7 �"1 r ;[I."P IH I IF'R {kM 0 YP [!h Il p�l� tY M I!5{IfI II,JI' v B k'f _He D.r ✓ .Y_l.ePP.I .,n t :... � � I ,.�.... ,�..,.._,� .,�..,....,. ,..—r..,>.,.�.w,....,..m,.....m.,,.—r..+,.n n.rr«..�r.m.,...,.. ......... .:..w ........r.,...... ....,.a.....+,.....r.P....,...nrr.w.m.. �._...«,..a .. M,..�. a..........m.. ........w...n �.,... ...�,..,. .. .. ,.... n...... r. .a.., , ✓1 Y r, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONS „� si Division of Environmental Permits,Region 1 �� SUNY @ Stony Brook,50 Circle Road,Stony Brook,NY 11790 "1 i P:(631)444-0365 I F:(631)444-0360 J www.dec.ny.gov �� Idl�h(Ct�6.'tt°�'It Manfikq Board RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN August 30, 2017 Brian Cummings, Planner Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Rew Site Plan for Tenedios Agricultural Barn 28410 NYS Rt. 25, s/w corner of Rt. 25 & Narrow River Rd. Orient, NY 11957 SCTM# 1000-19-1-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Mr. Cummings: Thank you for offering this Department the opportunity to review the referenced site plan. Please advise the applicant that the proposed project appears to be located within 300' of a NYSDEC-regulated tidal wetland and may be located within 100' of a NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetland. As such, the proposed project will require permit(s)from this office. Sincerely, tA Sherri 2 Aicher Environmental Analyst rmM YGRK Department of Environmental Conservation Michaelis, Jessica From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> n Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:24 PM `v 1'� SAT_ To: Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis,Jessica; Hagan, Damon; Duffy, Bill; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Spiro, Melissa; Domino, Michael Cc: william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; pcmoore@mooreattys.com; betsy@mooreattys.com; margaret@mooreattys.com; Mike DiGiulio-'. Subject: Site Plan Application -Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm LLC Attachments: 18-0919 Ltr to Town re uses.pdf1 o�. 6 � r i Good afternoon, Please see the attached correspondence dated September 19, 2018, addressed to the Planning Board and Town Attorney, with copies to the Board of Trustees and Land Preservation Committee regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm L.L.Q. This letter responds to the applicant's correspondence regarding the August 25, 2018 event and uses of the PDR parcel. Please add this letter to the public correspondence file. Very truly yours, Reed Super Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM, <1) wrote: In response to yet another accusatory letter. The owner of the property held a family celebration on August 25, 2018. This family party was not a "special event" and is specifically excluded pursuant to Town Code 205-3 (B)(3). The family gathered on the property, enjoyed a lovely meal together until it 1 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 19, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman and members of the Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq. Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events and Applicant's Response 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski. Members of the Planning Board, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents and a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. On September 14, 2018, we wrote to the Planning Board about a possible event that took place on Saturday, August 25, 2018 on the 29.5-acre parcel that is subject to the conservation easement. In response to our letter, the attorney for the applicant responded by email as follows: The owner of the property held a family celebration on August 25, 2018. This family party was not a "special event" and is specifically excluded pursuant to Town Code 205-3 (13)(3). Ms. Moore's email has been included in the Planning Board's subject file, and we wish to briefly respond to it here. As we understand it, the owner of the property is not an individual but a limited liability company, Fresh&CoFarm, LLC. Ms. Moore presumably means that the event was held for the family of a member of the LLC that owns the property. Town Code § 205-3(b)(3) exempts certain "[o]ccasional events on private residential properties hosted by the owner thereof..." As we mentioned in Our July 6, 2018 letter, the Board should pay close attention to the dual and sometimes shifting or conflicting roles of the entity and individual given that the land is owned by an LLC named for the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, the applicant is that LLC, crops are grown commercially on the site (by a tenant farmer) for use in the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, animals 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 ° NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgi-oup.com Planning Board and Town Attorney September 19, 2018 Page 2 are raised there for what has been described as Mr. Tenedios' personal (non-commercial) use and consumption, and now events are being held there for the family of a member of the LLC, purportedly under a permit exemption for events on private residential properties hosted by the owner. Furthermore, the key issue is not whether the August 25th event needed a permit under Town Code § 205-3. The issue is what uses are allowed on the 29.5-acre parcel whose development rights have been sold to the Town and is now subject to an easement. The recorded Deed of Development Rights requires that the property owner"shall only use the premises ... for the purpose of agricultural production" Deed at 1, 4. The Land Preservation Committee concluded that any uses beyond agricultural production would "not be allowed within the area subject to the recorded Deed." Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. Events requiring large commercial tour buses to transport attendees to the site do not fall within the definition of"agricultural production" in Chapter 70 of the Town Code, whether or not such event requires a permit under Chapter 205. It should also be noted that the landowner does not own all of the property rights associated with the property—it owns only the land itself and the right to use that land for agricultural production. All other property rights were sold to the Town by Ms. Cullinane. Consequently, it is the Town's right and also its legal responsibility to restrict the use of the property to agricultural purposes only, and no other purposes, consistent with the easement and the purchase of development rights with public funds. Likewise, the conditions of any site plan approval should make clear that not only that Special Events are prohibited but also that"Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be strictly prohibited on the site." Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r 1 4 I r Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant T1- �sC, September 18,2018 Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Maui Road Pui �l � d , .m. �. W.,. m. P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear concerned citizens, We are neighboring property owners to the Tenedios property owned by Fresh Farms LLC. Please be aware that in the last 2 months there has been a large water pump running on the edge of the Tenedios property that abuts our property and our shared property line.This property line is also on a DEC designated wetland. We heard the loud pump motor for the first time right after the July 9,2018 Planning Board Meeting and not before. Soon after that we had concerns about our water quality and so we scheduled water tests for salinity and coliform bacteria,which took place last Friday.As a result,we were told that the salt in the water was double the normal amount but it is still safe. The coliform test was positive but Harry Goldman wants to do another test to confirm. As you know,the Tenedios farm is right on the edge of salt water(Narrow River)and the animals are not being managed by"best practices"which the Planning Board seems willing to believe that Tenedios will do. If the large pump is drawing such a significant quantity of water that it is pulling bacteria and/or salt water toward itself in the water table which is very close to the surface, it could represent a danger,not only to our well,which never tested positive before,but to the water that supplies the wells in Browns Hills and other neighboring properties. It goes without saying that Tenedios' water itself could also be jeopardized. We encourage more study about the impacts of a massive structure like the Tenedios barn and the increased water that is being drawn from an already fragile water table by such a dramatic increase. Since ely yours Helen Hooke and Colleen McDonough 9-18-18 P P :i� � Michaelis, Jessica --7-777777777 From: Reed Super <reed@superlawgroup.com> pl ,ypr+ Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:08 PMoMaoNM��w.w To: Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon; Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Domino, Michael; Spiro, Melissa; Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Mike DiGiulio; william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com; pcmoore@mooreattys.com Subject: Site Plan Application - Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm LLC Attachments: 18-0914 Ltr to Town re FreshCo application.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the attached correspondence dated September 14, 2018, addressed to the Planning Board, with copies Board of Trustees, Land Preservation Committee, and Town Attorney, regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm LLC). This letter concerns an activity that occurred on the PDR parcel on August 25, 2018. Very truly yours, Reed Super *************************************** Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) reed(a-),supei law,oupvcom %V\VW stag lc.9III ' CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead. please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. a SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 14, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Tia Electronic Mail and Federal Express Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman 1 and members of the Town of Southold Planning Board swHiold Tovjj H 54375 Main RoadI anfgiui�y 1��u�iu�1 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board„ This law firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. As the Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee, Planning Department staff, and all other reviewers have agreed, the Deed of Development Rights for the 29.5-acre former Cullinane property now owned by Fresh&CoFarm, LLC prohibits use of that property for any purpose other than agricultural production. See Deed at 1, 4; Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. Thus, the applicant may not use the property for public or private events. Your staff correctly recognized the public's reasonable concern that events might cause noise and traffic problems and disrupt the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Southold Planning Department Staff Report, August 20, 2018 at 10. Staff recommended to the Planning Board that "Special events" on the property should be explicitly prohibited in any site plan approval. See id. ("Special events would not be allowed in the barn or on the PDR [Purchase of Development Rights] land.") At the July 9, 2018 public hearing on the application, representatives of the applicant expressly disavowed any intent to use the proposed barn or the property for anything other than agricultural production. In response to public concern caused by previous statements ti•om the applicant, published on-line and in the media, suggesting that the barn was designed to be used as a commercial event space (sometimes referred to as "agri-tainment"), the applicant's representatives stated that the applicant has now been made aware the Deed prohibits all events, And they told the Board that there would be no events on the property. It comes with great concern then that local residents observed what they believe to have 180 MAIDEN LANE, Surrl 603 - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 ,I,GL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board September 14, 2018 Page 2 been a possible event taking place on Saturday, August 25, 2018, on the 29.5-acre parcel subject to the Deed of Development Rights. In the afternoon of that date, a large commercial size tour bus was parked on the property with the logo and company name "The Villages" displayed on its side. The tour bus exited the property and turned onto Main Road (State Route 25)via the driveway on Main Road that leads from the north-south road on the 29.5-acre property. A large number of people could be seen riding the bus. The Planning Board and its staff should investigate and make inquires about the facts surrounding the events of August 25th to determine whether the applicant has violated the provisions in the Deed and whether, notwithstanding the applicant's representatives statements at the public hearing, its intentions for the property are inconsistent with the reasonable conditions the Board is developing. In light of the history of this application, it is critically important that the Board impose specific, unambiguous, and enforceable conditions in order to ensure that it is crystal clear to the applicant, all other stakeholders, and the general public as to what types of gatherings are considered to be prohibited special events. Thank you for considering the community's significant concerns in this regard. Please take steps to address them. We can be reached at 212-242-2355, should you like to discuss the matter. Sincerely, Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email) Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee William Duffy, Town Attorney Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant Super Law Group Mail-Tenedios/Fresh&Co Site Plan Application https:Hmail.google.com/maiVu/0/?ui=2&ik=aOlbb454d0&jsver=3OGyf.. Reed Super<reed@superlawgroup.com> Tenedios/Fresh&Co Site Plan Application pcmoore@mooreattys.com <pcmoore@mooreattys.com> Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:41 PM To: Reed Super<reed@superlawgroup.com>, bill.duffy@town.southold.ny.us, damon.hagan@town.southold.ny.us, "Lanza, Heather" <heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>, "Cummings, Brian A." <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>, elizabeth.cantrell@town.southold.ny.us, michael.domino@town.southold.ny.us Cc: Mike DiGiulio <mike@superlawgroup.com>,william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com, Steve Tenedios <stenedios@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Super: Thank you for the copy of the letter submitted to the Town. My client advised me that when he contacted his farm hand about the picture and incident reported by your letter yesterday, his farm hand apologized to Mr. Tenedios and told him that he had brought in a temporary farm hand to help him out, and that farm worker had inadvertently left the gate open. He brought in additional farm help in order to have him collect all the horse and cow dung from the property. My client goes far beyond the typical requirements of proper farm management practices, he has a significant investment in his property and your client's oversight is unnecessary. I believe this sufficiently addresses your client's observations. Thank you Pat PATRICIA C. MOORE physical & mailing address 51020 Main Road Southold NY 11971 tel # 631.765.4330 fax # 631.765.4643 www.mooreattys.com --------Original Message-------- Subject: Tenedios/Fresh&Co Site Plan Application From: Reed Super<reed@superlawgroup.com> Date: Thu, September 13, 2018 3:28 pm To: bill.duffy@town.southold.ny.us, damon.hagan@town.southold.ny.us, "Lanza, Heather" <heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>, "Cummings, Brian A." <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>, elizabeth.cantrell@town.southold.ny.us, michael.domino@town.southold.ny.us Cc: Mike DiGiulio<mike@superlawgroup.com>, william.kelly@mortonbuildings.com, pcmoore@mooreattys.com Please see attached correspondence addressed to the Planning Board, Board of Trustees and Town Attorney regarding the site plan application for the former Cullinane farm property (Fresh&CoFarm LLC). 1 of 2 11/1/2018,2:28 PM Super Law Group Mail-Tenedios/Fresh&Co Site Plan Application https:Hmail.google.com/maiVu/0/?ui=2&ik=a0lbb454d0&jsver=30Gyf.. *************************************** Reed W. Super SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 (Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, NY 10038 (212) 242-2273 (direct) (212) 242-2355 (main) (646) 345-9658 (mobile) (855) 242-7956 (fax) reed@superlawgroup.com www.superlawgroup.com *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. 2 of 2 11/1/2018,2:28 PM SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 13, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic]Hail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees5v`c P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1 179 79LO—L IVYE S Southold, NY 1 1971 Southold, NY 1 1971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Fs yy0 �,( f 1 7 2M Town Hall Annex j 54375 Route 25 Southold Town Southold,NY 11971 Planning Board preViO�kJ\y Re: Application for Site Plan for Teuedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 230, Article XXIV of the Town Code. As you are well aware, the 34.5-acre former Cullinane property that is the subject of the Fresh&CoFarm LLC application and its surroundings contain high-value water resources, including wetlands, Narrow River, and Hallocks Bay. There is a direct connection between the property's tidal wetlands and Narrow River through at least two culverts that convey surface water—along with any pollutants in that surface water— from the propenl:y to Narrow River. The survey submitted by the applicant to the Planning*, Boaid shows tidal wetlands on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property in its southwest corner. The survey•indicates that these tidal wetlands extend on the Fresh&.CoFarm LLC property in a northeasterly direction by approximately 100 feet as shown in this detail: \\ 1P !t 5 l d + 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.supei-lawgroup.com Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 2 The most recent Staff Report, dated August 20, 2018, reports the Trustees' suggestion that the Planning Board require an "[i]ncrease ... [in] the buffer to the high quality wetlands in the southwest corner by fencing off animals farther away than the current deer fence." Southold Planning Department Staff Report, August 20, 2018 at 4. The LWRP coordinator recommended 100 foot wide vegetated buffers and to"[p]rohibit animal grazing and browsing in the buffers." Id. at 8. The USDA/NRCS recommended establishing minimum 50 foot buffers to wetlands by "[f]encing off wetlands to prevent access by livestock." Id. at 6. In their site visit, however, Planning Department staff noted that"[n]umerous goats were allowed to browse in an area with direct access to the high-quality wetlands in the southwest corner. Id. at 9. This was presumably of great concern to the Planning Board, its staff, and anyone else interested in protecting the water quality of Narrow River and its environs. Following the August 20, 2018 work session, in order to protect that southwest wetland area and the high-value downstream waters from pollution and degradation, the Planning Board directed the applicant to"[a]dd 'buffers to protect the adjacent tidal wetland to the west of the property (and Narrow River and Hallocks Bay) lrom stormwater runoff, and access by livestock." Letter from the Planning Board Office to the applicant, dated August 24, 2018 at 1. That particular buffer is to begin in the southwest corner and run 200 feet along Narrow River Road and then in an are to a point that is 90 feet from the western property line, as shown on a marked site plan attached to that letter. Id. at 2 and attachment. Attached hereto is a photograph taken today, September 13, 2018, at approximately 11:30 a.m., showing livestock in the southwest corner of the property, inside of the fencing that is purportedly there to keep animals out of the wetlands and the 100 1,00t wetland buffer area. The animals, which are approximately 20 in number, appear to be inside the buffer, in or very close to the wetlands themselves, and very close to the culvert that drains under Narrow River Road to Narrow River. This jeopardizes the quality of those wetlands and the downstream water resources. Compliance with the wetland buffer conditions is critical to environmental protection of those water resources. Please consider the attached photograph and the continued grazing or browsing of animals in and around the tidal wetlands in your consideration of the application. if livestock is not kept at least 100 feet from these tidal wetlands at all times, the quality of the environment and water resources, including.shellfish beds in Hallocks Bay, will suffer. Erecting a fence along a wetlands buffer is, of course, meaningless if livestock is permitted to cross the fence into the buffer or into the wetlands themselves, or to pollute water running.through the culvert. We can be reached at 21,2-242-2355, should you like to discuss the matter. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 3 Sincerely, f } 7 Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant `V 4�!. 1 y !'k s Aft 4� .. "' AU� 40 1 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 13, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of TrUste P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1179 v Southold,NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Esq, Town Hall Annex f:�I' 4. 2018 �- 54375 Route 25 Southold NY 1]971 qn`H)0_k,.11p1 Re: Application for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. As you are well aware, the 34.5-acre former Cullinane property that is the subject of the Fresh&CoFarm LLC application and its surroundings contain high-value water resources, including wetlands, Narrow River, and Hallocks Bay. There is a direct connection between the property's tidal wetlands and Narrow River through at least two culverts that convey surface water—along with any pollutants in that surface water—from the property to Narrow River. The survey submitted by the applicant to the Planning Board shows tidal wetlands on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property in its southwest corner. The survey indicates that these tidal wetlands extend on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property in a northeasterly direction by approximately 100 feet as shown in this detail: 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.supei-lawgroup.com Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 2 The most recent Staff Report, dated August 20, 2018, reports the Trustees' suggestion that the Planning Board require an "[i]ncrease ... [in] the buffer to the high quality wetlands in the southwest corner by fencing off animals farther away than the current deer fence." Southold Planning Department Staff Report, August 20, 2018 at 4. The LWRP coordinator recommended 100 foot wide vegetated buffers and to "[p]rohibit animal grazing and browsing in the buffers." Id. at 8. The USDA/NRCS recommended establishing minimum 50 foot buffers to wetlands by "[f]encing off wetlands to prevent access by livestock." Id. at 6. In their site visit, however, Planning Department staff noted that"[n]umerous goats were allowed to browse in an area with direct access to the high-quality wetlands in the southwest corner. Id. at 9. This was presumably of great concern to the Planning Board, its staff, and anyone else interested in protecting the water quality of Narrow River and its environs. Following the August 20, 2018 work session, in order to protect that southwest wetland area and the high-value downstream waters from pollution and degradation, the Planning Board directed the applicant to "[a]dd buffers to protect the adjacent tidal wetland to the west of the property (and Narrow River and Hallocks Bay) from stormwater runoff, and access by livestock." Letter from the Planning Board Office to the applicant, dated August 24, 2018 at 1. That particular buffer is to begin in the southwest corner and run 200 feet along Narrow River Road and then in an arc to a point that is 90 feet from the western property line, as shown on a marked site plan attached to that letter. Id. at 2 and attachment. Attached hereto is a photograph taken today, September 13, 2018, at approximately 11:30 a.m., showing livestock in the southwest corner of the property, inside of the fencing that is purportedly there to keep animals out of the wetlands and the 100 foot wetland buffer area. The animals, which are approximately 20 in number, appear to be inside the buffer, in or very close to the wetlands themselves, and very close to the culvert that drains under Narrow River Road to Narrow River. This jeopardizes the quality of those wetlands and the downstream water resources. Compliance with the wetland buffer conditions is critical to environmental protection of those water resources. Please consider the attached photograph and the continued grazing or browsing of animals in and around the tidal wetlands in your consideration of the application. If livestock is not kept at least 100 feet from these tidal wetlands at all times, the quality of the environment and water resources, including shellfish beds in Hallocks Bay, will suffer. Erecting a fence along a wetlands buffer is, of course, meaningless if livestock is permitted to cross the fence into the buffer or into the wetlands themselves, or to pollute water running through the culvert. We can be reached at 212-242-2355, should you like to discuss the matter,. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 3 Sincerely, d r Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant � 7� � ( � � � � ��s°, /a r�; � � I �� '% J,� � +:� a ff', � y6 , u "`+ i �� I� ,� .. � �r � > �, � �; f P � � � I „� 14. ll �J�� ,�v; 1F�' � fg �� ,Gl�"��' �, 1.. ,W �I P d� �q � IP �� I` I(✓ � f k � �Y( �„ � � I 4 �� b � J° ��` �5i1�"X4+1 �6 �' lei '.:�r%� �e �� 1 ,�� .,,- i iii f ��,� ��.: �� 1 ��, �' ' �� • w� N r l G � t I � �li' y � ' y d � 1 I � n I y,: 1� 4�� i, "I' „) �� Q V II f Submission Without a Cover Letter .i -Pl6i JAL i ffW Sender: ��. J�:Gervo fJ l f � rl k Subject: SCTM#: 1000 - r Cl , 1 —) . 4. Date: 8/510/119 Comments: Ivy " fktz, 4TFL"-) TO �ov f August 29,2018 Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Re: Teiiedios AgriculftuA Building dt and the Tenedios Incorrect Survey We are neighboring property owners to what was formerly Maureen Cullinane's property and is now owned by the corporation fi=h&co farm LLC "T ,. ", ,located at 28410 Rt.25, Orient,NY. Patricia C.Moore sent us a letter dated June 28,2018 together with a survey/site plan map of the Tenedios property 'es . Upon review of the Tenedios survey it was immediately clear that their surveylske plan is incorrect. survey/site pbw shows the pond to be 10%on the McDonough/Hooke bad when, fact,this designated wetlands po d is on the Tenedios pwperly by approximately Enclosed is a copy of our survey which was done by Joseph Ingogno in 1999 and is We attended the Planning Board work session on August 20,2018 and the Ptanning Board work session didn't reflect the correct location of the pond.As we undenmxd it,you were discussing only a 50-foot buffer from the west property line regardless of pond location. This creates a buffer 0-20 feet from the pond,which is a DEC designated wetland The buffer from a designatedwetland is supposed to be 100 feet. After the nice&&nice", we asked Pat Moore and Bill Kelly about theirsurvey/site plan and showed them the pond discrepancy.Mr.Kelly said that the Tenedios survey was done by GPS. Clearly the many tall trees and exh+eme overgrowth made the location of the pond very hard,if not impossible,for the GPS to"see." GPS is not reliably accurate when surveying property with trees that block a direct view from the sky.It seems obvious GPS surveys cannot replace a formal survey with field mstruments. Is it possible that during the Planning Board site visit to the property,that you did not careNly review the pond location because the survey/site plan you were referenchig does not show the pond to be on the Tenedios property? It is impossible to accurately make a ruling or recommendations based on an incorrect GPS survey when the pond location has everything to do with wetland buffers. Therefem we are formally t thePlanning Board ensure that the Tenedios property be accurstely surveyed showing all wetlands locations,and that a 100 foot buffer be instituted around those areas. We would like to add that TenRAos is currently and actively pumping water fi+om this pond which he states is entirely on our property,and the pump location may very well be inside the DEC limit of clearance and ground disturbance area. Sincerely, 9 Colleen McDonoug&h el Nie 27752 Main Road Orient,NY 917-428-9733 PATRICIA C. MOORE Attomey at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(631)765-0330 Fax:(631)7654643 June 28, 2018 CERTIFIED 1Vllb RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: fresh&co farm LLC PROPERTY: 28410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & Route 25, Orient SCTM: 1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 Dear Neighbor: I represent the above with regard to his site plan application. The Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a continuation of the public hearing. Enclosed is a reduced copy of the site plan map. The full site plan application is available at the Planning Board office between normal business days between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00 p.m. located in the Town Hall Annex, Main Road, Southold (21 floor) or on line as more fully outlined in the attached notice. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Monday, July 9, 2018 at 6: 06 p.m. p.m. at Southold Town Hall. If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. r truly yours, trivia C. Moore o--' PCM/]0- encls. In 7 Ispo RUN Sir 101 Mg not 1' All A E5 'i �j --�. . ........ r a . �� 4 .x _ •" gg1. 6 � x HIM L � ��# m I � ..�' 'gip ��c ` x Hill "� � Y r \ c Ev logoM. 13 IR is 10 a � s F LY {■JL" Bull "N �. M a5 f P Dt7 x HO I r VA e- pit rw � I,x No p i M tool fig juga All 1p K �� o� e Yoh' 5 � O Asti '" M' PRE '�� II SIM 011 8 p" tit All V, vy o � `a n Fix J 1 m Ina w" Ya I e s I " oK�� ' 5 5 50" r ,� Sl slot „ t u n toy I 9 i n � Nil " &�7 1 �" 3 "V t og ..� ....:................-..-.....,... ... TEIEPLA PARK _ ...-,... ...... .,,..�.........,......� ._.......m .� SITE PLAN FOR: 1D410 RLVTE 20A ORIENT.IK Sr TN W 1000-M-01-Ij A1014 \I I fl1Nl'Y OF 41FFlX K TOhV OF S01T101 P O MDOX 631 aew �4��\1// \ ••••••••�•,•••••.,•••,••••-•,•,,• CARL, DAIMARA%SIT SURVEY OF' PROFIERTY �i:t )MINTUR SITUATED AT MYELUNG Rif NT s'-r i OWN S II`:'° SOUP I10� ��° �ti y� FF.OL (M1111'�'TY, P��I�� .. YO RK �,Grf l 1 'lu S,C, 1 No, 1000-18-06-21 ,8 SCALE 1 ° UIIPT EMBE III'R 23, 1999 3 'i 9 Iq EA = '74,34,8,53 sq, 11. � 1,707 ac, rc6ilErN mcbolqommr OTi AAJG'.'VA'EUI NS ARE PEOMMCE:IIIN TO N.G.VD& 1929 DATUM C—J EXISING NJ u INTI bP 54��MPrn�9MON, M,LFOki��,tl1 ��uMw9 WIN a w A"IrvA��m? 'r ! "1�:��w � "� � re1u1M�.• w 1w r'� 1 u M If, �. �@�E �NV� w122E1 V�IV�Po1 �, � U 'W'V� w 2� 'VA HOUSE E 'U�Y�F,�&.P. dm '�.'.'WE. r 1, i A,"1 � H '�.'& � 11�"1N��Y2N f u . .Lr° � . w v �� I1'21'4IE"' 'D pr..7ig2AFw2ndlnnwn'I Pt'UV"!2.. ... x ,. f'b14btl Y'8°I@II fa h P6ud oP4F@SRo f f.'l(X. . �'M UnAVON E,�� w'%"V�; Vww '� f"w"M 'q 5 II 4E n� V"u�re'u �� LLS A114D CES9110,015 SHOWN U'Pwm"ON ME n Rom n��ik OBSERVATIONS AND � MrA"41ll1:0. EIIIM OV tlnnS r I11 11uE GMOIA ) 1�W�� M I100 1101112 URATEew ll 6p1 a ONE wlFOSAREE FLV IRON11m lu w2YEAR TOM; ,. �V'71'E OF fnV2—'s'DwM"" IY"N„ 2'V Y2u8'TtlF m"a'P,'4WEuHilStlC I ” •""" `''r Nq V"oi.0 +t u141,'V"u'�w'ap'w a VE,'�;p'F` H�MP"V�u 117iwv"nrem4'+n'In'ww2" w r1 M6 V'PEA V F PT"r tl� wY'2VI'ff U"1 AI!'7� Anl Vdwew7 w'N;�llD Yi Vol OV"II°,IDE orrop.,'WAR llf�'UM"^i� "n`'wd tld, —V'tl��,�'C" V�I,Ru�E! I ',�u'aluh AREAS UpERWP1,E� W� p�'4'%"'N,dFll�wd' 1 2rnIIr Fr^90 1 TYPICAL w A HGf,`u, ID " ' 010 a° woos � e w awe 9 � w, w ""00 r rw>w r w re ,°we �,, w _ - "`ww' •. E �,w n wr, . n I I �;.�'' wru nim g o � N I y 6 J " " .. h"v&s.wne tlpNa y wok `IJ� 2 bmw twlww,M!stl dfmMlN I!„F4rwmmU+�lro'Ymmwl t.waro+9slwf's'rymwmrYw✓'wKKwV n*tlmKWWww.''dI"WMMw''i�'wWb!wpwwFa pmMx@M,alWmu�WJY WAY".,+"�tliGLuwImrNw.YIcw^xw NBmn�renV a mIOVlrJNJM#m poowo✓'w„wue u a,Zl N 1'M'aa4C� iwwwrwm �.. .m Ilwwa NwA` o A wW Y wUp r , qlwiiil, ...a 2 0.. 0— iv M? 'Lww w.w uw ww�w,mwmry iimiww w"+,wwx Po t 1A. I r� gnu-w'wwuAJ IN u"ma,blw 1 0('1 w wwx wmn.noww" WIM"I. y rnuma q. w,A�wa:r uxF'r,�,wrm wars %, ww wan renin ws. w +,oa.w.u. W OINIx wavy ow D N Jb .M-0,a m ,w+wrem wv�ar n-.w,wa ,w w rw•wu f„ 4 �k h AH �9 mitfli L rml rwr lw w, „ w� «ww�w� wwmmm. rwm�«uwr �mwwwmamrmmoo mwo C PI d fV_r L` r0 re � W01 �i3 g i rr r i o- @+; hk «www"A f 1 f�k�d�fl.l 4A P�p' hl fN f4,�,p 1''1i (11 w"*n h "Pw7P ,w,N1, ��II ��w,µ, W I'Mf rw"«el �y `h w"!ww IIIIY�w�seph II no fills Gf2 d 9I I,NJl C� 6Y�IirN6 "' o. w M'w Lao a'1"v C v MIFSLY[fllu CrQ �Y ^^~w S.pn,V'a. pi moo I ,P-SF IN ilwF P£f:.p Wf MnH� Ya.YF; ? AN /,,pyy ) P Vn Land " IIV'' a "SII Ileo"j Po M r 7 '"" ( f h w p W d I4 L e rrelw NUJ Ufl NJJ4iik%;. p x i 41 mu nlY rfANw"e lol larew,'E�1r 4U✓A,d 6,Mk f U 5EAl U P21P NlP Yitr!d4i FJl P PY ,rwrem^1oSrBwuOfwlbs A�fmdwwl@IrwPq,1lt'i:p'@I„I,�OwO1IO11l7awV0rIMI✓IrA P{19k Pu6'.9wAaaI�nap1191BSrvVlN aw,�,I ,i�I 9L `f,,F405'cDM r"UP1 1001lih16pRfrxmPROM : w�ww . PROM wVw NGt,EI�od I�w»II7.I„P ,"P_w-r. M!'. )rawati'.u..uh.�.ms. wr.., I Wwtlw�ukwmNMd'w"Eu�e�p�m"reB�F"" II ia0r� ^ 'AA!M, @MEMAL414 00l11vNM0117A eVf Alk, w0Pr llrll 1101PkMflk 04""pi I? 4NUrfpm r'u wIIw `. Awoi VdD P7011wmllwFwl mwnbFAI 9mualdARPfI r;+ d wf4.ir14ru, Nom �w rYYv��PmdOMwYawkV �. wI M vmmw1024w r August 15, 2018 E: Proposed Site Plan for the Teneios Farm Agricultural Building,Narrow River Road,Orient A copy of the attached letter was e-mailed to Heather Lanza,Melissa Spiro,Elizabeth Cantrell and Michael Domino on August 14d. Thank you. David C. Miller Southok d Town ..��... 1 kart irii�r; w:ap��p 370 out vie Drive Orient Point,New or August 13, 2018 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino,President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 RO. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold,NY 11971 Norman"Sam"McCullough, Chairman Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: Proposed Site Plan for the Tenedios Farm Agricultural Building Dear Messrs; Wilcenski, McCullough and Domino and Members oft Planning Board, Land Preservation Committee and Board of Trustees: I am a resident of Orient and am writing concerning the proposed construction by Fresh&Co of a large barn on a restricted development parcel in the hamlet. Such a barn violates the to of the deed under is Southold acquired the development rights, including a scenic easement, tot parcel. The Town owns the right to"open lands" in perpetuity under the express to of that deed. The deed also expressly provides that the use of the property"shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement" and"as a covenant running with the land in perpetuity, further covenants and agrees forte part oft first part...that the parcels of the real property described herein...shall remain op n_. lands." The scenic value easement is not just a matter of personal taste,judgment or esthetics. It requires the continued maintenance of"open lands"that are used as"open space". Under the plain English meanings of those words, a large barn of the sort proposed is not consistent with the Town's ownership of the right to"open lands" and"open space". Fresh&Co does not own anything but"open land" on the restricted parcel; the Town owns the rest oft property rights. To build anything there, much less a large barn, violates the to of the deed, amounts to an alienation of the Town's property rights too land, and should be subject to the procedures the deed requires in order for such an alienation to be made. Even the structures that owner has constructed there to date without the Town's consent amount to a claim of adverse possession against the Town's right to"open lands". Fresh&Co should be notified that the Town is not relinquishing its property rights by allowing them to remain --assuming the Town believes it has the right to to those structures to remain on the 2.) property under the to of the deed without complying with the deed's provisions regarding alienation oft Town's property rights. Some history is in order. In 2002, our friend and neighbor,the late Maureen Cullinane, owned 34.5 acres of land at the southwest comer of Narrow River Road and the Main Road. She conveyed the development and scenic value easement rights to 29.5 oft acres to the Town of Southold that year, reserving approximately five acres for development. As shown below, her intention in making that conveyance, and that of the Town at the time it occurred, were clearly that the land would remain essentially "as is". If the Town hopes to encourage similar acquisitions from willing landowners int future, a history of its observing the good faith understandings and reasonable expectations of prior transferors will be important. What Maureen's intentions and reasonable expectations were ens conveyed the development rights and the scenic easement too land to the Town are clear from the contemporaneous statements and the subsequent behavior of the parties. The following facts are all a matter of written record. The to paid $425,000 for the rights it acquired, with the conveyance being approved by the Town Board. Negotiations for that acquisition were conducted, and a recommendation to undertake it was given,by the Southold Land Preservation Committee. The purchase was approved by the Town Board ata public hearing held on April 9, 2002. At that hearing, Melissa Spiro spoke on behalf of the Land Preservation Committee, saying: "The total parcel is 34.5 acres and the proposed development lights easement is 29.5 acres. There will be one five-acre reserved area with development rights intact, [as shown on a map]. Maureen, intends,to construct an agricultural barn aventua ly her home on the 5-acre reserved area." [Emphasis added] Ms. Spiro then stated that the parcel in question is designated under the Town's Community Preservation Plan in three classifications: agricultural preservation; lands of ep ional scenic yalue; and wetlands protection. These are three separate classifications, each with its own significance. This letter concerns only the second of the three,the scenic easement, and not anything related to the entirely separate subject of agricultural use. After noting that Maureen had originally applied for there to be three residential lots and one agricultural lot out development rights, Ms. Spiro continued: "After reviewing teapplication and conducting field inspections, the Committee decided that they would like to see more preservation and less development on this parcel. That is, they wanted to make sure as much agricultural land as possible was preserved, in addition, to the scenic value of the 04rcel. The Committee felt that the proposed development, even though it was nota full development, did not achieve those goals. The Committee worked diligently with the applicant, who also wished to see as, much of the pro tsITty_Wa eserve d as possible, and they were able to negotiate the proposal we have before you tonight, is does meet the goals of both agricultural and scen kj),Keservat ion." [Emphasis added] 3.) The Chairman of the Land Preservation Committee, Dick Ryan, spoke. After first congratulating Ms. Spiro and endorsing her statement, he said: "It is a fantastic success. It is a win for Southold Town and the Orient Community to make one more step into preservation of the rural character of Southold." The deed itself is it clear. It expressly provides that the lots in question are and shall in perpetuity remain"open lands", and that the use of the restricted property"shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement." The environmental report prepared by Nelson, Pope& Voorhees at the time of the conveyance noted that there were"no foundations or structures" on the property. The land was open. So there were no buildings on the restricted property, and no subsequent buildings were contemplated by the parties, when Maureen Cullinane conveyed the right too land, used as open space, to the Town in perpetuity. According tote minutes oft Town Board meeting, Maureen intended to build a horse barn on the reserved five acres, not on the scenically restricted parcel. The viewsd oft restricted parcel, on the open land, would remain unimpaired. Maureen did apply tot Land Preservation Commission any years after the original conveyance for special permission to it a very small, unobtrusive chicken coop on the restricted lot. That permission was granted, to her, the original donor. A few years after that, she applied for special permission to it a deer fence around property, not willing even to affect the scenic viewsd to that limited extent without the Town's approval. Maureen knew she had no unrestricted right to build on the land, that she had conveyed her right to do so. Fr has ignored the Town's property rights too land and open space inthe construction it has undertaken to date. Maureen's voice has been stilled,but part of the community's interest int i r is the memory of what she thought would happen tote parcel, what she thought she had ensured. Every single friend and neighbor to whom she spoke about it of confirm that building a large barn anywhere on the restricted lot would never have occurred to her as a possibility. Her often-stated intention was to it a house and a barn for her horses on the reserved five acre parcel, as noted by Ms. Spiro in her statement tot Town Board. Allowing a barn on the restricted parcel—indeed allowing any significant buildings to be built on the"open land" there--is not a regulatory exercise. It is an alienation of the scenic property rights tote parcel that are owned by the Town. Any such alienation by the Town of those scenic property rights should be one in accordance with the to of the deed and the Town Code. The deed expressly providest t the Town's light to"open space and scenic value" is"protected by this development rights purchase and ease t". In the immediately following paragraph, it goes on to say that any alienation of those purchased development lights must be made in accordance with Chapter 25 of the Town Code oft Town of Southold. Then it describes that procedure. The deed, and Chapter 25 oft Town Code, require a vote of a majority oft Town Board, followed by a vote of the electors at a special election or a regular biennial town 4.) election,before such an alienation can be made. Unless the Planning Board claims the right to dispose of Town property rights by administrative action in violation of the terms of the deed and the Town Code, those procedures should be followed. All this has no implications for North Fork agricultural land in general. It is not a regulatory issue regarding agricultural use. It is not out zoning, or environmental considerations, or water quality, even though all those issues are certainly present in the proposed uses oft property by res o. The Town of Southold is not regulating an owner's agricultural use of property, but is defining what the Town owns and what the owner of the remainder of this particular parcel owns. If the Town chooses to surrender its express property rights by a regulatory administrative action, future prospective donors of scenic easement property rights will be well advised to consider the implications of that action, in light of the Town's evident view that Maureen Cullinane's counsel failed to draft a deed with the precision necessary to carry out her manifest intent. It would also mean that the Planning Board thinks that the to "open lands" and"open space" have some meaning other than they have in plain English. Very Truly Yours, David C. Miller 104 Edwards Avenue, Suite 3 Calverton, 33 Tel (631) 727-3777 Fax (631)727 373 21 s.rdu , is�N� ion AskUs®lif`b.comm www.lifb.com �1C3�f}�9v�Ti r3L July 9, 2018 I� 1 i .... f Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board . ... .e 59374 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Site Plan Review for Tenedios/Fresh &Co. Farm LLC 8410 NYS Route 25 SUM#1000-19.-1-1.3+1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski+ Planning Board Members, Long Island Farm Bureau is a membership association comprised of 3,000 farmers, fishermen, agribusinessmen and women, and individuals interested and engaged in protecting a rural quality of life and the preservation of our agricultural industry on Long Island. We are writing to you today to express concern over items that you have been asked to review by the public regarding the proposed barn on the Tenedios property. In particular, items such as uses of the farm land, water withdrawals, animal waste, buffers on agricultural land, setbacks on the farm, best management practices, crop protectants, limits and accounting of animal populations on the land, etc. While we duly respect and support the role of the Planning Board and your purview, we also ask that you not overstep your role by restricting items or placing covenants on the parcel that are not within your authority. The potential covenants and restrictions that you have authority to place on this property will run with the land and has the potential to impact not only the current farm operations but also any future farming operations on this land, as well as, the potential for setting precedent on other lands within the Town of Southold. Farming has a long, rich tradition in New York State and in particular Southold Town. Farmers provide the food and sustenance that we all need in order to survive, as well as, providing as an additional benefit the rural character of Southold Town. Farmers have been stewards of the land in Southold for over 350 years, keeping the land in production for many generations. We would like to point out that this is an application to construct a barn on the property. The idea that uses, overview, and regulation of the entire farm operation that has now come into play could be an over reach on many different levels. Additionally: Agricultural operations are governed by the NYS Department of Ag & Markets Law. No covenants should be placed on the land that restricts farm operations as far as types of crops grown, agricultural practices, as well as, uses of farm land. Those guidelines are already established under Article 25 AAA of NYS Department of Ag& Markets Law. The Town of Southold has no authority to regulate or restrict pesticide or fertilizer applications. The authority to regulate pesticides is ag!gjy a function of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The Town should not require a nutrient management plan for the farm operation. Currently, the only farms that are required to do so are those that qualify as a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feed Operation). However, many farmers have voluntarily undertaken a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) and an IPM (Integrated Pest Management Plan). We recommend that you encouira +e the farm to have a voluntary NMP & IPM done by the local Soil & Water Conservation District and Cooperative Extension Service. Water withdrawals and water use is solely regulated by DEC, as well as, the buffers and wetlands on the property. Buffers may also be a part of an NRCS Conservation Plan on a voluntary basis by the farmer. Regarding the number of animals or equipment used on the farm,this should be the purview of the farmer and should not be a covenant placed by the Planning Board or the community. The development rights on the farm land have been sold. That does not in any way allow for additional restrictions on the farm land. The purpose of PDR's is to keep the land available for agricultural production not for having the community or Town determine how the farm should be operated and managed. Again, farmers have been engaged in farming activities for over 350 years on Long Island. Farmers are good stewards of the land and provide the rural character in Southold Town. We respectfully request that the Southold Planning Board limit its focus to the mission and items it has been charged to oversee. Very Truly rs, Robert Carpenter Administrative Director July 9, 2018 P.O. Box 473 . Orient,NY 11957 lImfli 9g ardl Southold Town Planning Board Dear Planners, Many years ago I served on a committee given the task of defining why the Main Road in Orient should be declared a Scenic Byway. The road has now been an official New York State scenic byway for some time, and the decisive reason was the extended views of Orient's historic farmland. The sceneshed was specifically referenced when the late Maureen Cullinane sold an easement on the property to Southold Town. The development proposed by Tenedios disrupts that scene with an oversized"barn"that unavoidably imposes itself on the view and is entirely out of character with the rest of the area. There are many other reasons to deny this application—most importantly ground water and the health of Narrow River and the Bay—but the specific contract that the town made with Ms. Cullinane should not be ignored. Sincerely Freddie Wachsberger Firoi w Barbra LaCorte It)arIxannC0VrtE)@P ollxorun Subject: Proposed Site for Tenedios Bam and Animal V)unite: Today at 1:15 PM ti ro.- Bill Latham IB011703@aU2;or I i it f"fr �, . C l�rmsiesr�; Boud�. . To: Town of Southold Planning Board My husband and I have lived in Orient almost 30 years and we love the peace, the quiet, the serenity and the magnificent landscape. We walk, fish, clam and boat. And love everything about Orient. The first and foremost concern about the proposed Tenedios plan is the pollution of our waters in Hallock Bay. And our second concern would be the impact of his proposed agri- tainment plans. How come no one is talking about that? The busloads of people that will be coming in to our area. The traffic, the noise, the cars parked all over the place, the trash. (Note: the Lavender Farm - but on a much larger scale). But we know, and you have to be mentally challenged not to realize what he is up to!! Last year we caught him red handed for plans for a Bonfire, Petting Zoo, Food, etc. on his web site. He was shut down for lack of a permit. This guy doesn't give a damn about us or our way of life. His arrogance is evident in his letter about the photo taken of the water and the feces of his animals. He is the kind of guy that if you give him anything he will run with it and do as he pleases. You gotta get a handle on the type of man he is and how he operates. It's obvious to me, is it obvious to anyone else? (And Mr. Tenedios, what did we talk about at the Country Store before you got here? We enjoyed our way of life, the peace, the quiet and the beauty of Orient.) We must stop him. Period, the end. Be smart and listen to the people who live here. Orient will forever be changed if he is allowed to do what he wants. Barbara LaCorte Latham and William Latham, Orient, N.Y. ,,, -'X\t RioTAINMENT IN ORIENT?"7015 NO WAY'. . '.,'. Fresh and Co. is proposing to build a 91000 square foot barn on land protected by Southold land preservation program.This structure would be on land bordering on Main Road and Narrow River Road. They have indicated in press releases that they plan to have food and wine festivals, cooking classes and other entertainment events at this location. Fresh &Co has announced it is holding a Cookout and Bonfire on this property which is now surrounded by fencing, keep out signs and spy cameras from noon to 6 P—M October 7, They have no permits to hold such an event. This use is totally illegal. (-4- They also plan to raise animals on this site. 300 chickens are already there. They also plan for sheep,90 goats, and 30 hogs. Local animal husbandry experts believe there is a serious potential for runoff from animal waste which will run directly into Narrow River which flows into Hallocks Bay. Animal manure is high in nitrogen and antibiotics and is detrimental to wetlands.This could mean the death of Hallocks Bay. The proposed barn is not suitable for egg candling,goat milking or any other agricultural use and has no refrigeration. So what is its purpose other than as a palace forAgri-tain a t? A hearing on the Fresh & Co application will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board: Monday,, September 11 at 6:00 PM at Town Mall Please come and let your voice be heard. AGRI=TAINN ORIENT 1P 2g O WAY11811 The Committee To Save Narrow i ^er REL601WEA@AOL.COM 516-885-4457 YORK c .o c Sc,�b-� Box 282 ORIENT NEW Y RK 11957 ORIENTASSO IATION R Statement of the Orient Association �, �� -wl?:, Tenedios Agricultural Barn - Planning Board Hearing-July 9,2018 J U�, 1 0 201f'3 sol'ttfi(Wl Town an I am Robert Hanlon, a member of the Board of the Orient Association. -yM µ `s,ng Howdr The Orient Association does not support or oppose this project. What the Association does support is the provision of accurate and sufficient information, to the public and to Town officials, so a sound decision can be made. Our community values the tremendous role agriculture plays in shaping the nature of the Town of Southold and, in particular, Orient. We want to foster the health of farms, and the success of farmers and baymen. But we do believe that certain steps need to be taken to care for all of our lands, our homes, and our waters. At the previous hearing, in submissions by community residents and other groups, and in the comments of various organizations, three main issues were raised about this project: 1. The scale of the building- does it comply with the requirements in the deed to protect the scenic vista? 2. The plan to raise a large number of herd animals on the property -will the wastes from this operation threaten the water quality in Narrow River and Hallock's Bay? 3. The owner has stated he plans to hold events, classes, and other non- agricultural activities on the property - does this violate the usage restrictions for preserved land? Since the hearing, there has been substantial communication between Town agencies and the applicant. The Planning Department staff has asked for a range of information, including the numbers and types of animals to be raised on the property and a farm management plan. The applicant has refused to provide such information. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP) noted a number of areas where the proposal was inconsistent with LWRP policy, and several other areas of concern, including: * raising animals and field crops in a floodplain could lead to water quality impairments; * animal waste near wetlands and surface waters could pollute wetland areas; * Narrow River has already been closed to shellfishing, and animal pathogens may worsen that situation. LWRP indicated that it could support the project only if a number of steps were taken to address these concerns, including: • a nutrient management plan to protect surface and ground water; • a water runoff analysis to determine if there is a danger to Narrow River and Hallock's Bay; • a collaboration with the County Water and Soil Conservation District to determine if the proposed buffers will be sufficient to protect local waters; • a prohibition of grazing in buffered areas; and • covenants to maintain and protect buffers. The elected Town Trustees, who are responsible for protecting our Town waters, and the Shellfish Advisory Committee, have expressed extreme concern out the raising of animals so close to wetlands and the fragile waters of Narrow River and Hallock's Bay, because of the threat it poses to shellfishing in those waters. They have conducted dye tests to measure the potential for pollution. They found that runoff from increased animal husbandry on the farm poses a serious risk, even after minor all, that could lead to fecal coliform levels high enough to force closing of shellfish beds. They urged that any consideration of approval of this site of require extensive measures, beyond standard stormwater controls, to prevent such runoff pollution. The Trustees also noted that the farm already has placed animal bedding and manure too close tothose sensitive areas, and insisted that they be removed. While the owner said he would move the materials, he was disn-dssive of the problem, questioned the appropriateness of the Trustees involvement, and characterized those residents and officials expressing concerns as "clueless." Under Town law, this Planning Board is required to do site plan approvals. One of the stated purposes of this review is to: itigate the environmental impacts of new development on the land, air and water resources." Sec. 280-128 (B)(5). The code goes on to require that: "the .planning Board shall take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the economic impact and the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood :in particular and may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards." Sec. 280429. In particular, the Planrung Board is directed to give high priority to: ""The conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to natural drainagecours es, fresh- and saltwater wetlands and. marshes, ... flood hazard areas and wildlife breeding areas."' Sec. 280-129 D. (1). And it is charged with: "'The protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by .pollutants." Sec. 280-129 D. (2) This Boardis empowered to examine site plans and determine whether they are meeting those goals and obligations. The question before you is: "Flas the applicant provided sufficient and persuasive information to the Board about the key issues?" fie has provided a visual impact analysis, and we appreciate that information. The Board will have to decide, after isteni to interested parties, whether the proposal as in keeping with the restrictions on this property under the deed, and the needs of the community. The owner has provided no mearfingful information about ho will. protect the wetlands on and around his property, nor plans to protect the water quality in Narrow River andliallock's Bay, both in normal operations and in extreme weather. In fact, he insists :fie las no obligation to provide that information. We disagree. Finally, the owner has issued several public statements and advertisements of events, classes, and other non-permitted uses on preserved lands. it these do not appear in his actual application, it seems appropriate for any consideration of site approval to explicitly reaffirm the restrictions that prohibit such uses. .As we initially stated,we do not endorse or oppose the project. We do have serious concerns that there is not enough information to give the community and the Town sufficient assurances that tine project will address the critical issues. We urge the Board to require the necessary information and assurances. If the Board does eventually proceed to give site approval,we urge that it impose sufficient conditions to safeguard the overall community's interests with regard to vista, water quality and the protection of preserved lands s4b-�- ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM 13015 Main Road PO Box 1424 Gig UI, � Mattituck, NY 11952 Pla nn'iuq B oaGd July 9, 2018 Planning Board,Town of Southold Main Road Southold NY 11971 Re: Fresh &Co. Site Plan application Gentlem4 L I am submitting these comments on behalf of myself as a farm owner, and not specifically in favor of or against the application. However, issues have been raised as to which your decision could have broad implications for farm owners by virtue of precedent, policy, and Town Code ("Code) interpretation. 1. Oen space,.vistas and placement of agricultural structures("Ag Structures". It is essential to allow farmers to determine the best location and use of their ag structures, and that is required by the Code. These matters are, of course, subject to specific Code restrictions and application of applicable deeded restrictions. In this case,the language of the development rights deed is very specific with respect to the open space, vista and placement questions, and goes beyond customary development rights restrictions. These factors are not, however, controlling. The deed does not preclude a balancing of agricultural production needs against these factors,and the Code certainly does not. Your decision should clearly state that any aspect related to building placement and design is based upon the authority granted by these specific deed provisions, as it should in no way govern the treatment of site plans on other farms. In fact, it is not the Planning Board's jurisdiction to enforce deed restrictions in any event. Your decisions must be based on the extent of authority granted by the Code and State law. 2. Specific building use questions, I have handled many commercial and farming site plan applications in Southold Town. None of my clients have ever been asked how many cans of paint or tanks of propane they will be selling; how many cars their auto body shop will be painting per day; how many drinks and dinners their restaurant will be serving per evening;or how many rows they will be planting per season or spraying per day. Your inquiry is as to site issues only. This proposed use is allowed in the zone in which the property is located, so the questions relating to specific use must recognize that fact, as must any conditions imposed. 3. Special Events. The deed does not place any restrictions on special events. Therefore,this property should not be subject to any further restrictions on the holding of special events than any other property under the Code, to the extent that Code applies to the particular event. 4. Sanitary issues and drainage issues. These are the province in the first instance of the Health Department, the DEC, and the Town Trustees, within the parameters of their jurisdiction. The nature of the area and this property in particular cannot be ignored, and installation of dry wells for roof runoff, interior roadway drainage, and similar matters must be addressed on the site plan, but how many animals is not an appropriate inquiry. And by the way,what happens when those animals reproduce. Is the owner in violation of a per-acre animal limit? I have not reviewed the plan as to placement of manure storage and other buffering issues, as I am sure you will address this in your review, but your review cannot extend beyond that of the Code and State law, and should not supercede the restrictions of those authorities having jurisdiction of these questions. I do not mean to understate the issues in this application that are valid site plan concerns, but given the extreme breadth of the requests made by those commenting, I trust that you will sift through what is appropriate to your decisions and what is not. It is customary in a public hearing over a controversial project that all objections are stated whether or not they fall within your purview,you will have to consider those relevant to your inquiry, and leave the others to those authorities having jurisdiction over those matters. Thank you for your consideration. Vertr lyyours,,,, KK Abi A. Wickham Lanza, HeatherFrom �- Senor. Thursday,Shainker 05, 2018 111 PM owstreet c.com> µ, Howard To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Fresh &Co. JUL VImn4q Burr d Ms. Lanza, —�.,.,— ....�.._. ...��. �,. I am writing as a concerned citizen who lives in Orient. In advance of the town planning meeting next week, I wanted to voice my opposition to Fresh &Co's development plans. I believe that area along Narrow River Road is environmentally delicate,given that the creek along Narrow River Road feeds directly in Hallocks Bay. My family and I are frequent swimmers, clammers, boaters, paddle boarders in the Bay- using it nearly every weekend. I worry that run off from livestock will contaminate this beautiful area and increase bacteria levels. Unfortunately, once this process of livestock runoff and infiltration into the Creek begins, it takes years to unwind. This Creek is nearly ready (after a long hiatus)for clamming again, and this farm will undoubtedly be a major step backwards in the town's plans for clearer and healthier wetlands. Furthermore, I want to express my concern that the roads and public access areas—should any agritainment be featured on the property—are decided not intended for mass use. These are narrow country roads which don't get much traffic now except for local runners and bikers. If this development become the destination that Mr.Tenedios intents, the entire character of the landscape will undoubtedly change for the worse and the roads and other public access will be stretched well beyond their design. I believe the towns-people of Orient chose to live here because it is a quiet hamlet. Talking to neighbors and friends, there is general concern that one citizen's plans will ruin what the rest of us cherish about this special place. We aren't anti-development, but are pro-sustainability and healthier wetlands. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this in further. Sincerely, Howard Shainker 725 Maple Lane Orient, NY t SuO- July 5, 2018 Dear Planning Board Members, Pann4,ii B(ord As I am unable to attend the public hearing on July 9, 2018, 1 am writing to let you know of my opposition to the site plan proposed by fresh&co for their property in Orient. A building this size is unnecessary for housing the livestock and equipment that would be required for the operation that is being proposed. The intention of our town code, as I understand it, is that for properties whose development rights have been sold, a small building accessory to the agricultural activity onsite may be built. I am further concerned that the site will be used for "agritainment" - a use I do not think is in the best interest of our community and do not support. In fact, when it was announced that fresh &co had purchased the property, the following information was published: "...fresh&co will continue to give back through events at the farm including, tours, dinners, cooking classes, culinary educational programs and a local food and wine festival." prnewswire.com, August 1, 2017 Please vote against this site plan proposal. Very truly yours, �Jm �s P Latham Michaelis, Jessica MUMOMMEM 700 To-Tri-7-1 From: Brian P <brianpushic@gmail.com> Ucu�uiu11Gaud , ► M Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 12:10 PM �Qj �L T i To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: Proposed Conditions for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh &Co. Farm, LLC, Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1-1.3 & 1.4 Attachments: Planning Board Letter.docx Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Board, Please find attached my letter to the board regarding the aforementioned proposal to be discussed at the Town Planning Board hearing this evening, July 9, 2018. I have also pasted the text below, should the attachment not suffice. Thank You, Brian J. Pushic July 9, 2018 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Proposed Conditions for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh & Co. Farm, LLC, Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Board, I write this letter as a resident of Orient and neighbor of the Tenedios property on Main Road (NYS Route 25). My home is located at 29535 Main Road, Orient, NY and sits across from the Tenedios property and proposed development of a barn to house pigs. Furthermore, my background in Microbiology, Environmental Health, and Environmental Insurance has given me the education and experience with these types of operations to give an informed opinion regarding the proposal. After reviewing the proposed structure and use of the property, I've found many concerns regarding the proposed development. Among those are harmful effects to the Narrow River Road watershed, potential special events at the property, visual impacts to the area, and odor/manure issues. Due to the proximity to Narrow River Road watershed, runoff from manure poses a direct impact to water quality from increased nutrient loads and potential fecal coliform bacteria entering the watershed. It has I. SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 September 13, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic]Hail and First Class Mail Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees5v`c P.O. Box 1179 P.O. Box 1 179 79LO—L IVYE S Southold, NY 1 1971 Southold, NY 1 1971 Town Attorney William M. Duffy, Fs yy0 �,( f 1 7 2M Town Hall Annex j 54375 Route 25 Southold Town Southold,NY 11971 Planning Board preViO�kJ\y Re: Application for Site Plan for Teuedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building—Special Events 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski, President Domino, Members of the Planning Board and Board of Trustees, and Town Attorney Duffy: This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property. We write on their behalf in regard to the above referenced application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 230, Article XXIV of the Town Code. As you are well aware, the 34.5-acre former Cullinane property that is the subject of the Fresh&CoFarm LLC application and its surroundings contain high-value water resources, including wetlands, Narrow River, and Hallocks Bay. There is a direct connection between the property's tidal wetlands and Narrow River through at least two culverts that convey surface water—along with any pollutants in that surface water— from the propenl:y to Narrow River. The survey submitted by the applicant to the Planning*, Boaid shows tidal wetlands on the Fresh&CoFarm LLC property in its southwest corner. The survey•indicates that these tidal wetlands extend on the Fresh&.CoFarm LLC property in a northeasterly direction by approximately 100 feet as shown in this detail: \\ 1P !t 5 l d + 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.supei-lawgroup.com Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 2 The most recent Staff Report, dated August 20, 2018, reports the Trustees' suggestion that the Planning Board require an "[i]ncrease ... [in] the buffer to the high quality wetlands in the southwest corner by fencing off animals farther away than the current deer fence." Southold Planning Department Staff Report, August 20, 2018 at 4. The LWRP coordinator recommended 100 foot wide vegetated buffers and to"[p]rohibit animal grazing and browsing in the buffers." Id. at 8. The USDA/NRCS recommended establishing minimum 50 foot buffers to wetlands by "[f]encing off wetlands to prevent access by livestock." Id. at 6. In their site visit, however, Planning Department staff noted that"[n]umerous goats were allowed to browse in an area with direct access to the high-quality wetlands in the southwest corner. Id. at 9. This was presumably of great concern to the Planning Board, its staff, and anyone else interested in protecting the water quality of Narrow River and its environs. Following the August 20, 2018 work session, in order to protect that southwest wetland area and the high-value downstream waters from pollution and degradation, the Planning Board directed the applicant to"[a]dd 'buffers to protect the adjacent tidal wetland to the west of the property (and Narrow River and Hallocks Bay) lrom stormwater runoff, and access by livestock." Letter from the Planning Board Office to the applicant, dated August 24, 2018 at 1. That particular buffer is to begin in the southwest corner and run 200 feet along Narrow River Road and then in an are to a point that is 90 feet from the western property line, as shown on a marked site plan attached to that letter. Id. at 2 and attachment. Attached hereto is a photograph taken today, September 13, 2018, at approximately 11:30 a.m., showing livestock in the southwest corner of the property, inside of the fencing that is purportedly there to keep animals out of the wetlands and the 100 1,00t wetland buffer area. The animals, which are approximately 20 in number, appear to be inside the buffer, in or very close to the wetlands themselves, and very close to the culvert that drains under Narrow River Road to Narrow River. This jeopardizes the quality of those wetlands and the downstream water resources. Compliance with the wetland buffer conditions is critical to environmental protection of those water resources. Please consider the attached photograph and the continued grazing or browsing of animals in and around the tidal wetlands in your consideration of the application. if livestock is not kept at least 100 feet from these tidal wetlands at all times, the quality of the environment and water resources, including.shellfish beds in Hallocks Bay, will suffer. Erecting a fence along a wetlands buffer is, of course, meaningless if livestock is permitted to cross the fence into the buffer or into the wetlands themselves, or to pollute water running.through the culvert. We can be reached at 21,2-242-2355, should you like to discuss the matter. Planning Board, Board of Trustees, Town Attorney September 13, 2018 Page 3 Sincerely, f } 7 Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio cc (via email): William Kelly, Agent for Applicant Patricia Moore, Attorney for Applicant been previously documented that shell fishing in the area had been closed for several years due to poor water quality although has improved recently. The proposed structure use will only set back the efforts to improve the water quality in the area due to its adjacent proximity to the water and drainage culvert flowing into the watershed. Additionally, most of the property sits in a Flood Zone AE and Category 1 Storm Surge Zone. A catastrophic storm would likely inundate the property causing a significant flood event and subsequent environmental impact to the area. Additionally, the beach along Narrow River Road, and "downstream" from the property is popular with kayakers, fisherman, and families with young children, among others. An increase in nutrient pollution, and potential fecal coliform bacteria contamination poses a threat to the health of the environment and health of those who utilize this body of water. As was previously noted, the applicant's website listed potential special events at the property. Hosting special events/"agritainment" is outside of the deed restrictions of this property and would impact the neighboring community due to an increase in traffic and noise. Main Road is already quite busy due to the ferry traffic and ever increasing popularity of the North Fork. Holding special events will only increase traffic causing public safety issues for the residents of the area and many people who walk, bike, and exercise along Main Road and Narrow River Road. Additionally, with special events often comes an unintended increase in noise and litter. These are fairly self-explanatory in their impacts to the bucolic area surrounding the proposed site. Along the same lines, the visual impact of the structure will further affect the area due to the size and scope of the structure. Understanding that barns are prevalent along the North Fork, the property in question has very few trees or buffers and thus the open landscape views we enjoy would be impacted. Also, the Insured has recently erected several small structures on the property including what look to be animal storage facilities and a large pergola seating area. The latter being questionable as its intended use (see aforementioned special events concern). Additionally, the property has recently installed an eight foot deer fence, understandable due to the crops grown on the northern part of the property and destructive nature of the deer population, but including several large security cameras and no trespassing signs. Possibly most concerning is the end use of this structure as a pig/hog farm. Pig farming is a notoriously dirty industry due mainly to manure management, or lack of, and the runoff associated with the manure and/or the spreading of the manure on adjacent fields. Also with manure comes methane, a combustible gas and odor irritant. The lack of clarity around the number of animals to be stored at the facility is very concerning as it directly affects the aforementioned issues and also its status under Local, State, and Federal regulatory bodies. At the very least, clarification should be provided regarding the number of animals to be stored at the facility, venting procedures for methane, manure management program including any spreading of manure on adjacent fields and/or transportation of manure offsite, animal processing on-site, and liability insurance held by the Insured to protect against bodily injury, property damage, and environmental impairment to third parties. Furthermore, I question the addition of more livestock to the farm as there are already dozens of animals occupying the property including goats, cattle, chickens, and guinea hens that I've personally witnessed. While I understand it generally not within my rights to dictate a neighbor's use of his/her property and I generally shy away from the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude, when the proposed use of the property directly affects my home and family, my fellow residents properties, and the surrounding environment we enjoy on a daily basis, I feel it is imperative to speak up regarding the impact on the residents of Orient. I urge the Planning Board to require clarification on the use of the property, impact to the environment, and impact to the comnnunity, and for the Board to proceed with extreme caution as the proposed structure could have severely detrimental effects on the Community. 2 Thank you for your consideration and the work you do to serve our Community. Sincerely, Brian J. Pushic 29535 Main Road Orient,NY 11957 3 July 9, 2018 Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Conditions for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh & Co. Farm, LLC, Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25, Orient SUM # 1000-19.4-1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Board, I write this letter as a resident of Orient and neighbor of the Tenedios property on Main Road (NYS Route 25). My home is located at 29535 Main Road, Orient, NY and sits across from the Tenedios property and proposed development of a barn to house pigs. Furthermore, my background in Microbiology, Environmental Health, and Environmental Insurance has given me the education and experience with these types of operations to give an informed opinion regarding the proposal. After reviewing the proposed structure and use of the property, I've found many concerns regarding the proposed development. Among those are harmful effects to the Narrow River Road watershed, potential special events at the property, visual impacts to the area, and odor/manure issues. Due to the proximity to Narrow River Road watershed, runoff from manure poses a direct impact to water quality from increased nutrient loads and potential fecal coliform bacteria entering the watershed. It has been previously documented that shell fishing in the area had been closed for several years due to poor water quality although has improved recently. The proposed structure use will only set back the efforts to improve the water quality in the area due to its adjacent proximity to the water and drainage culvert flowing into the watershed. Additionally, most of the property sits in a Flood Zone AE and Category 1 Storm Surge Zone. A catastrophic storm would likely inundate the property causing a significant flood event and subsequent environmental impact to the area. Additionally, the beach along Narrow River Road, and "downstream" from the property is popular with kayakers, fisherman, and families with young children, among others. An increase in nutrient pollution, and potential fecal coliform bacteria contamination poses a threat to the health of the environment and health of those who utilize this body of water. As was previously noted, the applicant's website listed potential special events at the property. Hosting special events/"agritainment" is outside of the deed restrictions of this property and would impact the neighboring community due to an increase in traffic and noise. Main Road is already quite busy due to the ferry traffic and ever increasing popularity of the North Fork. Holding special events will only increase traffic causing public safety issues for the residents of the area and many people who walk, bike, and exercise along Main Road and Narrow River Road. Additionally, with special events often comes an unintended increase in noise and litter. These are fairly self-explanatory in their impacts to the bucolic area surrounding the proposed site. Along the same lines,the visual impact of the structure will further affect the area due to the size and scope of the structure. Understanding that barns are prevalent along the North Fork,the property in question has very few trees or buffers and thus the open landscape views we enjoy would be impacted. Also,the Insured has recently erected several small structures on the property including what look to be animal storage facilities and a large pergola seating area. The latter being questionable as its intended use (see aforementioned special events concern). Additionally, the property has recently installed an eight foot deer fence, understandable due to the crops grown on the northern part of the property and destructive nature of the deer population, but including several large security cameras and no trespassing signs. Possibly most concerning is the end use of this structure as a pig/hog farm. Pig farming is a notoriously dirty industry due mainly to manure management, or lack of, and the runoff associated with the manure and/or the spreading of the manure on adjacent fields. Also with manure comes methane, a combustible gas and odor irritant. The lack of clarity around the number of animals to be stored at the facility is very concerning as it directly affects the aforementioned issues and also its status under Local, State, and Federal regulatory bodies. At the very least, clarification should be provided regarding the number of animals to be stored at the facility,venting procedures for methane, manure management program including any spreading of manure on adjacent fields and/or transportation of manure offsite, animal processing on-site, and liability insurance held by the Insured to protect against bodily injury, property damage, and environmental impairment to third parties. Furthermore, I question the addition of more livestock to the farm as there are already dozens of animals occupying the property including goats, cattle, chickens, and guinea hens that I've personally witnessed. While I understand it generally not within my rights to dictate a neighbor's use of his/her property and I generally shy away from the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude, when the proposed use of the property directly affects my home and family, my fellow residents properties, and the surrounding environment we enjoy on a daily basis, I feel it is imperative to speak up regarding the impact on the residents of Orient. I urge the Planning Board to require clarification on the use of the property, impact to the environment, and impact to the community, and for the Board to proceed with extreme caution as the proposed structure could have severely detrimental effects on the Community. Thank you for your consideration and the work you do to serve our Community. Sincerely, Brian J. Pushic 29535 Main Road Orient, NY 11957 Palmeri, Allison From: Bufkins, Erica Sent: Monday,July 09, 2018 10:34 AM To: Lanza, Heather;Terry, Mark; Cummings, Brian A.; Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri, Allison Subject: FW: Letter for Southold Planning Board July 9th Meeting Attachments: RamaRaoSouthold planning Board Meeting Tenediossigned.pdf FYI.Just got these comments in for Tenedios. From: Eleanor Thomas [ riaiIto:ethlgrggg (ameteoraIIc.�coin] � U 0 Sent: Monday, Y Jul 09 2018 10:05 AM To: Bufkins, Erica0010 I CC: raoram kt�mail.con� V�qBoard Subject: Letter for Southold Planning Board July 9th Meeting Hi Erica, Thank you for providing your email address. As we are unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the Tenedios Agricultural Barn SCMT#1000-19-1.4& 1.3,we ask that someone read the attached letter into the minutes. Please confirm you have received this letter. Kind regards, Elly Thomas and Rama B. Rao Eleanor L Thomas Managing Director Meteora Partners,LLC 11 Broadway, Suite 965 New York,NY 10004 (0)(212) 514-4983 (C)(646)234-4000 (F)(646)304-5899 eth,om ds '!A°o�c&c�rrrallc rr,,T Disclaimer: This email contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. 1 July 7, 2018 Re: Tenedios Agricultural Barn SCTM#1000-19-1-1.4 & 1.3 To The Southold Planning Board, I regret that I am unable to attend the Planning Board meeting on July 9, 2018 and ask that this letter be read into the minutes, a copy of which has been faxed to the Southold Planning Board Office. I am writing to you regarding the Tenedios Agricultural Barn and site plan. By full disclosure I am an owner of a property in Orient on King Street. I write to you however, as a board certified physician of both emergency medicine and medical toxicology. I ask that any plan please consider the environmental impact of the proposal on the potential deposition of nitrogen and phosphorous into the nearby waterways, more specifically Narrow River and associated bays and the potential for the production of harmful algal blooms. Over the past 20 years, toxins associated with a variety of algal blooms have been identified throughout Suffolk County. The conditions contributing to algal blooms are multifactorial, but growth is facilitated by the components typically found in agricultural waste. Algal blooms form as a result of overproduction of microorganisms that produce a variety of different gastrointestinal and neurological toxins.1-3 These toxins concentrate in shellfish making consumption of contaminated shellfish a health hazard. These blooms can also cause enough overgrowth that inhalation of some toxins can cause neurological illness to persons exposed to air from above the blooms. Historically, in Suffolk County and across the United States, algal blooms have had serious public health consequences 1-3 and a significant impact on aquaculture industries. I specifically request that there is close attention to the plan for handling and storing of any agricultural chemicals or wastes that can potentially be directly toxic in the form of chemicals or pathogens that can reach adjacent recreational waterways and ground water. I also request consideration of the secondary impact that may arise from the production of harmful algal blooms if the waste management plan is inadequate or unenforced. I hope that the Planning Board's review the proposal for the above referenced barn will consider these concerns. MistnCerel ,, X113"1 1 "1 �«i� . M[ , I ACMT 1725 King Street Orient, New York 1 l 957 raoramab@gmail.com u G a,u�t;i°R ,�, 41-• Gru � r i 17. ini .� WVr ulfl�l<<�ai,riir.w oawl� Urtl 1uniil M2 ¢ip,,&;^i iaa Qr.O. Q ' � ' VQ' n39i4ii4,r�I�u�4:nuru�r..gEu011 C a:��2'or1r.2015 Michaelis, Jessica 5(Ab� From: Ambriel Floyd Bostic <ambrielfloyd@gmail.com> pd' *Cd � � �� 1 Sent: Monday, 09, 2018 1:09 PM Vv ; Y Y � �� To: Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A. Cc: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: Fresh and Co Petition Update hattiiwt j D)w d Dear Southold Town Planning Board, Heather, Brian, and all: I'm writing to let you know that as of today, July 9, our petition imploring you to deny the Fresh and Co / Tenedios application has more than 3,000 signatures. hill s,/Iwww,cla ad �7 c1M' /so thoId-r).1anninL-board-deny:permission-to a-tenedips-ancl4resl -and-co-to-bu i14: Iivea Lock-liarm-on �acsc�rved-laa�ci-aat-? �I(�-amain.road-orient-a��✓ This is a watershed moment. The preservation of the scenic value of this land is paramount to sustaining what we know and love about our area. Fiercely protecting our wetlands, our water, and our environment is our shared responsibility. We encourage you to feel supported and empowered to act decisively tonight and reject any plan that does not demonstrate responsible stewardship. Warmly, Ambriel Floyd Bostic i SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273 July 6, 2018 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail and Federal Express Mr. Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Conditions for Site Plan for Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm, LLC Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road &NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM# 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board: This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm property, including Ambriel Floyd Bostic, Hawes Bostic, Douglas Gray, Clifford Cohen, Leslie Cohen, David Miller, and Judith Scofield Miller. We write in regard to the application of Fresh&CoFarm, LLC and Steve Tenedios, as its Managing Member, for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code, which is scheduled for a public hearing on July 9, 2018. Attached to this letter are a set of proposed conditions that we ask the Planning Board to include in any final site plan approval to ensure that the proposed site use does not adversely impair the environment or otherwise affect the well-being of the community. The proposed conditions generally fall into three categories: (1) explicitly prohibiting special events or other activities that are proscribed by the conservation easement that was created by the Town's purchase of development rights; (2) ensuring that the visual impact of the barn is in accordance with the scenic and aesthetic value of the property and surrounding environment, as well as the easement; and (3) protecting groundwater, wetlands, surface water, and other natural resources, including Narrow River and Hallocks Bay, from pollution or degradation. Also attached hereto is a report entitled"Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold,NY,"prepared by Donald W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management and a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution. The agriculture/water-quality-related conditions we recommend here are based upon Mr. Meals' report. 180 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 603 • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.sup erlawgroup.corn Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property being site planned and its surroundings are scenic and contain high-value water resources, including wetlands,Narrow River, and Hallocks Bay. The Planning Board has significant authority under the Town Code to protect community character and the Orient environment by imposing reasonable conditions on any approval. State and Town law do not prioritize agricultural production over environmental protection; the two goals must be harmonized to protect health, safety, and public welfare. As submitted,the site plan does not show all existing and proposed structures; it should be revised to do so and to show the culverts draining to Narrow River along with their drainage areas. Any final site plan approval should contain a condition explicitly prohibiting events on the site as they are not permitted under the conservation easement created by the Town's purchase of development rights, and because they would increase traffic, causing public safety concerns, and the environmental impacts that would be caused by such events have not been reviewed under SEQRA. To protect scenic resources and comply with the easement, any final site plan approval should require the proposed barn to be located 200 feet west of the currently proposed location (as recommended by the Land Preservation Committee), which would also separate the barn from the designated Critical Environmental Area and wetland buffer to the east. The barn's siding should also be changed to a less contrasting color (as also recommended by the Land Preservation Committee) and the barn should not serve as an advertisement for the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, either through its color scheme or signage. Such signs should be explicitly prohibited. The Board should also include reasonable environmental conditions. First, the applicant should be required to establish, manage, and covenant 100-foot-wide, fenced-off, vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands or surface waters. Second, the applicant should be required to develop and submit an approvable plan, evaluated by an engineer, to prevent pollutants from flowing from the property through the culverts under Narrow River Road into Narrow River and ultimately Hallocks Bay. Third, the Board should prohibit the application of animal waste to land or crops, require the applicant to continue off-site disposal of animal waste and bedding, and limit the numbers of animals to sub-commercial levels in order to keep waste generation at manageable levels. Fourth,the applicant should be required to develop and implement a farm conservation plan. Fifth,runoff from the barn roof and other impervious surfaces should be directed away from agricultural operations. Finally, portable bathrooms should be placed in a location away from the property line as approved by the Board, and any bathroom facilities in the barn should be nitrogen-free. These conditions are described below and a full list of proposed conditions is attached. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 3 II. BACKGROUND A. The Property and its Environs As you know, the Tenedios/Fresh&CoFarm property is in a scenic location with sensitive natural resources both onsite and adjacent, including three different wetlands—freshwater wetlands, a pond on the northeast portion of the property, and tidal wetlands on the southern and southwestern portions of the property. Adjacent to the property just across Narrow River Road is Narrow River, a tributary to Hallocks Bay, an important shellfishing and recreational resource. There is a marina where the river widens into the bay. The bay and the river(starting at a point adjacent to the Tenedios property)have been dedicated by the Town and the New York State Department of Conservation as a"Critical Environmental Area."' The Bay,River, and adjacent wetlands—including wetlands on the Tenedios property—are designated New York State "Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat."2 Long Island's sole source aquifer underlies the property, and this groundwater has a subsurface connection to the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies. Of particular importance, there is also a direct connection between the property's tidal wetlands and Narrow River through at least two culverts or other drainage infrastructure that convey surface water from the property under Narrow River Road to Narrow River. These tidal wetlands extend north-northwesterly from the road in a relatively narrow corridor and likely receive runoff and snow melt from the fields to their east and the paddocks to their west. As a result, pollutants entering the wetlands from either of these areas via stormwater(or through direct incursion by animals into the wetlands) will flow through these point sources into the river and bay through the culvert. In short,the property and its environs have valuable scenic and natural resources that make the North Fork special and deserving of protection. B. The Application The original site plan application listed"Steve Tenedios" as the applicant and the property owner. In contrast, the resubmitted application, dated November 8, 2017,was on behalf 'See https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ei operations pdf/hallocksbay.pdf a See https://www.dos.ny.gov/ovd/l)rograms/consistency/Habitats/LongIsland/Long Beach Bay.pdf. See also April 25,2018 memorandum from Mark Terry,Assistant Town Planning Director and LWRP Coordinator,to Planning Board at p. 10,Figure 3(showing proposed barn location in close proximity to NYS Significant Coastal Habitat; there would be no buffer between the barn and the habitat area). Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 4 of"Fresh&CoFarm,LLC' (Steve Tenedios, Managing Member)" as the property owner. Given that crops are grown commercially on the site (by a tenant farmer) for use in the Fresh&Co restaurant chain, and animals are raised there for what has been described as Mr. Tenedios' personal (non-commercial) use and consumption, the Board should pay close attention to those dual, and sometimes shifting or conflicting,roles when considering the application and drafting conditions. It is also important to note that the site plan itself,prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C., dated March 22, 2017, and received by the Board on June 28, 2017, does not accurately reflect current conditions on the site. As noted by your staff, there are several smaller existing structures on the site that are not shown on the plan; these should be drawn in or otherwise indicated by the applicant on a revised plan. Furthermore, there are currently rail-and-wire fences on the southern portion of the property that are not shown on the site plan. These fences are visible from Narrow River Road near the southern corner of the property, for example as in this photograph: The new fences appear to be used for containing livestock and some them may have been erected along 100-foot wetland buffer line. If so,that is a positive step towards protecting water resources. However,the new, existing fencing and any proposed fencing should be shown on the site plan both so that the plan is up-to-date and accurate and so that their location relative to the wetlands can be determined. The site plan on file shows what is described as an existing split rail and wire fence s The New York State Department of State,Division of Corporations website states that the entity's name is "Fresh&CoFarm,LLC." We use the name here as it is listed on the state website. The resubmitted application transposed the words"Farm"and"Co.,"presumably in error. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 5 enclosing a rectangular area closer to the center of the property. Much of this fencing and the area it encloses crosses the 100-foot wetland buffer line and falls well within the"wetland boundary offset,"coming extremely close to the wetland itself at its northern end. This fencing and any structures within 100 feet of the wetlands should be removed,to the extent not done already. The site plan should clearly show all currently existing and proposed structures, and those structures should be outside the buffer areas. C. The Planning Board's Authority Under the Town Code In our April 16, 2018 letter to you, we discussed the Board's authority under Southold Town Code §§ 280-128 & 129 to consider a broad range of factors and to impose conditions and safeguards to protect the unique rural and open space character of the Town as well as the public health, safety and welfare, including groundwater and surface water, all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to natural drainage courses, fresh- and saltwater wetlands and wildlife habitats. We hereby incorporate by reference our April 16 letter rather than repeating its contents herein. Naturally, your Town Attorney can, and may have already, advised you in this regard as well. Furthermore, the easement imposed on the property in connection with the Town's purchase of development rights includes both agricultural and scenic components. The Southold Land Preservation Committee has explained that the conservation easement contains both agricultural and scenic components. As your staff explained in the March 1, 2018 staff report, only approximately 15% of conservation easements in the Town specifically mention scenic values, as this one does. The Land Preservation Committee therefore plays an important role in ensuring that the easement and deed restrictions are not violated. The Board should not be dissuaded or intimidated by threats or other unfounded assertions from the applicant and its representatives, claiming that the Board is "micro- managing" operations on the site or otherwise overstepping its authority. Requesting comprehensive information regarding the proposed uses of the site,making referrals to other agencies, carefully evaluating the proposal, and crafting reasonable conditions to protect community character and the environment are not only right and proper; they are the Planning Board's responsibility under the Town Code. While other agencies (such as the NYS DEC) regulate water pollution,that does not supplant the Board's authority under the Town Code. The Board is on solid legal ground in this regard. (See also the following section regarding alleged farmers' rights.) Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 6 D. Protecting North Fork Agriculture and the Environment The applicant, its representatives, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee have repeatedly cited Town and State right-to-farm (or farming "bill of rights") laws as though they might exempt the applicant from reasonable environmental safeguards. They do not. The Town Code's right-to-farm provisions explicitly subject agricultural activities to"compliance with applicable federal, state, county and Town laws,rules and regulations." Town Code § 280- 97(B). Further, they state that farm practices may constitute a nuisance if the activity"has a substantial adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare." Town Code § 280-99(B). Left unchecked, the proposed site use may cause a substantial adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare. As discussed above and in our prior letter,the Planning Board has the authority and duty to protect the natural environment and community character. The Town Code provisions aimed at supporting agricultural activities do not supersede those responsibilities of the Planning Board. In enacting the Town Code, the Town Board intended agricultural activities and environmental protection to be harmonized. We understand the Planning Board to be doing exactly that. Similarly,the State Legislature has sought to "maintain the economic viability, and environmental and landscape preservation values associated with agriculture." NYS Agriculture and Markets Law § 321 (Statement of legislative findings and intent; emphasis added). Thus,the state Agriculture and Markets Law explicitly authorizes local government to impose reasonable restrictions and regulations on farm operations to protect the environment and the rural landscape; only"unreasonable"restrictions are prohibited. Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a(1)(a). Moreover, the same provision allows a greater degree of regulation where "the public health or safety is threatened." Id. Furthermore, the state Agriculture and Markets Law defines "Farm operation" as land, buildings, equipment, facilities and practices "which contribute to the production,preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise." Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(l 1) (emphasis added). Likewise, it defines "land used in agricultural production" as "land used as a single operation . . . for the production for sale of crops, livestock or livestock product." Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(4) (emphasis added) Notably, the applicant and its representatives contend that Mr. Tenedios is not a commercial farmer, and that he merely raises animals for his own personal pleasure and consumption, not for use in his restaurants or for sale to others. See letter from Steve Tenedios, dated October 24, 2017,to Planning Board. The applicant cannot simultaneously argue that he is not a commercial farmer and that he is entitled to benefits enacted for commercial farming operations. Finally, the applicant's statements, and those of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, that it would be difficult or unnecessary to provide specific, detailed information on farming practices because the farm is small or because farming practices change over time are incorrect and unsupportable. While New York State regulates CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 7 Operations) with large numbers of animals, CAFOs are not the only farms to report animal numbers. Reporting of animal types and numbers is a standard component of most agricultural regulatory/permitting programs for farms of all sizes.' Thus, the applicant's refusal to comply with Item"e" (request for numbers of animals) in the Board's list of items requested has no basis in law or fact. The applicant's response to Item"f' (request for farm management plan)was similarly off-base. The contention that this information is not reviewable by the Town is simply incorrect because it directly relates to environmental impact that is squarely in the Town's purview. The notion that a management plan cannot be prepared because farming practices change is baseless. Larger farms report detailed management plans and nutrient management plans even though crop rotations, field boundaries, animal numbers, etc. are routinely changing. For the same reasons, Item"i" (request for location, size, use of structures) is relevant to site planning and the operation's pollution potential (i.e., location of animals with respect to buffers, drainage ways). Overall, the applicant's refusal to provide information on animal numbers and farm management issues like the location of buildings and pastures is not reasonable. In light of the applicant's intransigence, the Planning Board has two appropriate options. One option is to deny the application for failure to comply with the Town Code. See Town Code § 280-131(M); see also letter from Town Attorney William M. Duffy to Patricia Moore, Esq., dated April 5, 2018, at 2 ("Please be advised . . . should the applicant decide not to submit [requested information], the applicant runs the risk of having the application denied(without prejudice) if the Board feels it does not have enough information to proceed."). The other option, in the event that the Board were to waive the obligation to submit information such as animal numbers and more specific farming practices or to otherwise conclude that it can proceed in the absence of such information, is to include conditions in any final site plan approval limiting animal agricultural operations to non-commercial activities and to small numbers of animals consistent with personal consumption only, in order to protect the environment from the damage that a commercial operation or a larger operation would threaten. Such conditions are reasonable and appropriate given that the applicant has stated repeatedly in writing that raising a small number of animals on site purely for personal pleasure is both the current practice and the future intention. a The statement in the January 31,2018 memo from the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Planning Board that a request for animal numbers conflicts with CAFO regulations is patently incorrect. CAFO rules(both federal and state)require regulation of farms above a certain size,but they do not provide that small farms have the right to keep their animal numbers secret. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 8 III. PROPOSED CONDITIONS This section discusses the conditions we are proposing and asking the Planning Board to include in any final site plan approval. The imposition of reasonable, common sense conditions is appropriate and necessary to protect community character and the environment. Many of these conditions are based on offers or commitments already made in writing by the applicant or its representatives, some of which may have already been implemented in whole or part. Formalizing those measures into approval conditions will not impose any cost or undue burden on the applicant. Further, as noted above,the water-quality-related conditions are based on the attached report by Donald Meals, an environmental scientist and nationally recognized expert in agricultural water pollution. First, we discuss a few items of additional information the Board should collect before acting on the application. Next, we discuss each proposed condition. We recognize that in past site plan approvals, the Board has required satisfaction of certain conditions at three different junctures: (i)prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans; (ii)prior to issuance of a building permit; and(iii) after building permits are issued. We note that satisfying conditions earlier in the process will generally lead to a better result than deferring it. A. Completing the Application The applicant should be required to: • Update the site plan to show all currently existing structures including fences. • Update the site plan to show all proposed structures including fences. • Delineate on the site plan or another plan the culverts under Narrow River Road as well as the areas of land on the property that drain through those culverts. In addition, now that the applicant has submitted visual renderings and the Land Preservation Committee has made its determination, the Planning Board should ask the Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee to review the renderings and make its determination. In the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee's September 14, 2017 meeting (received by the Planning Department on September 22, 2017), the Architectural Review Committee "determined to adjourn the application review until a N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Permit has been issued and submitted to the Planning Department." There is no need to wait for any action by DEC; the Architectural Review Committee determination should precede the Planning Board's decision on the application. Further, as you know, the Town of Southold Shellfish Advisory Committee, with assistance from the Town Trustees, has undertaken a dye study in the Narrow River to track where and how quickly the water flows in different tide cycles to help pinpoint where potential contaminants originate and spread. The Planning Board should consult with the Shellfish Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 9 Advisory Committee and Trustees, and, if the dye study report is forthcoming soon the Planning Board should await those results before acting on the application. B. Approval Conditions 1. Conditions Relating to Uses of the Property If the Planning Board approves the application, the Board should attach conditions that ensure the property will not be used for any purposes beyond agricultural production. Any uses such as hosting events at the property or retailing agricultural products on site should be strictly and clearly prohibited. Such uses are proscribed by the conservation easement created by the Town's purchase of development rights, and the applicant has stated in writing to the Board that such events are not being proposed(despite earlier statements to the contrary in the news media or on social media). Such a condition merely recognizes and formalizes the existing legal relationships so that there can be no confusion going forward. As the Planning Board and the Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee have recognized, the Town previously purchased the development rights on the property. The Town purchased the development rights to ensure that the "use of the property . . . be consistent with both the agricultural value and the scenic value of the property." Deed at 5. The recorded Deed of Development Rights requires that the property owner"shall only use the premises ... for the purpose of agricultural production" and grants the Town the right to "restrict the use of the premises exclusively for agricultural production as that term is presently defined in Chapter 25 of the Town Code of Southold and . . . to prohibit or restrict the use of the premises . . . for any purposes other than agricultural production." Deed at 1,4. Chapter 25 of the Town Code of Southold defines "agricultural production" as "the production for commercial purposes of crops, livestock and livestock products, but not land or portions thereof used for processing or retail merchandising of such crops, livestock or livestock products." Town Code § 70.3 (emphasis added). After reviewing the initial application and the Deed restrictions the Land Preservation Committee concluded that any uses beyond agricultural production would"not be allowed within the area subject to the recorded Deed." Land Preservation Committee Letter, October 4, 2017. The terms of the Deed clearly prohibit the applicant from using the property as an event venue or as a retail space of any kind. Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any application approval: • Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be strictly prohibited on the site. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 10 • No events, retail operations, or other commercial activities shall occur on the site. "Events, retail operations, or other commercial activities" include but are not limited to festivals, special events, or other events open to the public. Any violation of this prohibition is a violation of the Approval, the Deed Restriction on the property, and the Town Code, and will subject the applicant to revocation of this Approval, administrative and/or judicial enforcement, a cease and desist order, and monetary penalties. In addition to preserving the agricultural and scenic character of the land,prohibiting commercial activities on the property will prevent the serious traffic problems along Route 25 that would result. A substantial increase in traffic would negatively affect the well-being of the immediate neighborhood and the wider community. This is not only because traffic causes air and noise pollution,reducing scenic value,but also because increased traffic would create public safety issues. Route 25 is an emergency evacuation route, is utilized by emergency services vehicles, and is subject to significant traffic tie-ups. Anything that causes traffic to back up along Main Road, especially long lines of cars entering or leaving the site, would cause significant public safety concerns and could even result in loss of life by delaying the response time for first responders. Furthermore, allowing events on the site would be inconsistent with the Board's determination that the project qualifies for a State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") Type II exemption. On August 15, 2017, the Planning Board determined that the application qualified as a Type II action under SEQRA, Part 617.5(c)(3)because the action falls within the definition of farm management practices. If the Board allows the applicant to use the proposed barn or the site as an event space, the project would no longer qualify as exempt from SEQRA under the farm management practice exception because holding events goes beyond the mere construction, maintenance, or repair of farm buildings and structures in a manner consistent with the generally accepted principles of farming. Thus, allowing events would not only violate the Deed Restriction, it would also trigger violations of SEQRA, invalidating the Type II determination and necessitating a SEQRA determination of significance. In other words, prohibiting events is consistent with the Board's Type II determination. 2. Conditions Relating to the Visual/Scenic Impact of Barn If the Planning Board approves the application, the Board should attach conditions that require the barn be built in a way that minimizes the visual and scenic impacts of the proposed barn with respect to its design, color, and placement. The Town-held development rights require that"the use of the property be . . . conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value" of the property. Deed at 7. Your staff has noted that"only about 15% of all easements held by the Town specifically mention scenic values." Staff Report, March 1, 2018, at 8. As discussed Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 11 above, the easement on the Tenedios property is one of them. On May 30, 2018, in response from requests from the Planning Board and the Land Preservation Committee, the applicant submitted renderings depicting how the barn would look after construction. In those images the barn is painted green and white—the color scheme of the Fresh&Co restaurant chain—and is visually prominent when viewed from Route 25 and Narrow River Road. On June 21, 2018 the Land Preservation Committee, after reviewing the renderings for consistency with the development rights easement held by the Town, recommended moving the barn approximately 200 feet westward in order to"retain the length of the view from Main Road and Heath Drive southeastward across the farm, Narrow River Road, and the open lands beyond." Land Preservation Committee Memo, June 21, 2018. We support that recommendation. Moving the barn westward would also provide environmental benefits by adding separation between the barn and the Significant Coastal Habitat area (and wetlands buffer) that come right up to the edge of where barn is shown in the site plan. Accordingly, the Board should include the following condition in any approval: • The barn shall be built 200 feet west of the location identified in the submitted March 22, 2017 site plan in order to mitigate the visual impact on the property. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan consistent with the revised location prior to the Planning Board Chairman Endorsing the site plans. The Land Preservation Committee also recommended that the barn's color should be changed to reduce the visual impact of the building on the property. Land Preservation Committee Memo, June 21, 2018. The barn as currently proposed contains bright green and white colors that starkly contrast both with the open land aesthetic of the property and the other buildings nearby. Other North Fork barns are designed to be in harmony with the landscape, with natural wood siding or a less contrasting color scheme such as those below. r Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 12 i The Town's interest in harmonizing the architecture in the community is even greater where, as here, the Town has a legal responsibility to maintain the aesthetic and scenic value of this particular parcel of land. Moreover, the applicant's proposed green and white colors are associated with Fresh&Co, the applicant's restaurant chain. Fresh&Co has a history of using agricultural structures as advertisements for its restaurants, as can be seen in this image, which was provided by Fresh&Co to the Long Island Business News,5 from an unknown location: 011 Beyond clashing with the natural beauty of the landscape, the green and white color scheme proposed for the barn, and any commercial signage that might be displayed, would serve a corporate, commercial purpose beyond agricultural production. This violates the Deed restrictions that prohibit using the property in any other manner beyond agricultural production or in a manner that reduces the scenic value of the property. 5"Taking Farm Fresh to a New Level",Long Island Business News,August 14,2017. https://Iibn.com/2017/08/14/taking-fann-fresh-to-a-new-level/ Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 13 With respect to signs, it should be noted that the Checklist for Site Plan Application Completeness, dated July 24, 2017, contains an"X" next to the item stating "The location and plans for any outdoor signs must be in accordance with applicable sign regulations." This may be because the Board recognizes that no signs are allowed. This prohibition should be formalized in the conditions. Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall provide the Board with images of the barn with a low-contrast color scheme. Once endorsed by the Chairman, the applicant shall adhere to the approved color scheme. • The applicant is prohibited from installing any signs or other advertising for Fresh&Co or any other commercial enterprise on the site. As noted above, on September 22, 2017, the Architecture Review Committee reviewed the initial application and determined to adjourn the application review until a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit has been issued and submitted to the Planning Department. To date the Architecture Review Committee has not reviewed the proposed barn. Accordingly, if the Board proceeds prior to receiving a determination from the Architecture Review Committee, the Board should include the following condition in any approval: • This approval is contingent on the Architecture Review Committee's approval of the designs. 3. Conditions Relating to Water Ouality/Water Pollution from Animal Agriculture The site is located in an environmentally sensitive area with designated Significant Coastal Habitat onsite and adjacent, underlain by a sole source aquifer that provides drinking water to the local population, near high-value tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and draining to the Narrow River and Hallock Bay, an ecologically and economically important shellfishing resource that has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area. Animal manure and other agricultural wastes can contaminant water resources with pathogens, excess nutrients, and other pollutants, trigger harmful algal blooms, reduce dissolved oxygen and water clarity, precipitate losses of fish and wildlife and beneficial plant life, and cause other human health and environmental harms. Accordingly, conditions designed to protect those resources from pollution or degradation are critically important. The following proposed water-quality-related conditions are drawn from the attached report entitled"Proposed Conditions and Best Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 14 Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY," prepared by Donald W. Meals, of Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting. a. Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers; Exclude Livestock from Wetlands, Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers— The Board should include the following conditions in any approval wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property: • The applicant shall establish and manage 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. • Vegetated buffers must be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS specifications and managed to stabilize soils, slow water runoff and enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface runoff and dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and denitrification. • Animal grazing within the vegetated buffers is prohibited. • Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures shall be excluded from drainageways, wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated buffers. • The applicant shall erect and at all times maintain fencing along or outside the 100 foot buffer lines. • The applicant shall remove any structures currently within the wetlands or buffer areas. • Nutrient and pesticide applications are prohibited within the vegetated buffers except as required for vegetation establishment. • Herbaceous vegetation within the buffers may be mowed annually to control brush but shall not be harvested for hay or other forage. Livestock exclusion prevents direct deposition of animal wastes into waterways and deposition into riparian areas where nutrients and/or pathogens can be carried into waterways by overland or subsurface flow. The 100-foot vegetated buffers are critical for environmental protection, were also recommended by the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP) coordinator, and it appears that the applicant has no objection to them. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 15 The LWRP coordinator also recommended that the Planning Board"[r]equire a covenant that establishes the boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings within the vegetated buffers." LWRP memo, dated April 25, 2018, at 2. This is a good idea. Accordingly, the Board should include the following condition in any approval: • Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a covenant that establishes boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings for 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. b. Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culverts into the Narrow River— At present, there appear to be at least two locations where concentrated flow leaves the farm property and flows under Narrow River Road in a culvert—which are point sources of water pollution—into the Narrow River. These locations are indicated in Figure 2 in the attached report by Donald Meals. As an immediate step, these culverts must be located on a plan or map and their drainage areas within the farm property delineated. Measures to prevent pollutant flows through these channels must then be taken, through source reduction within the contributing areas and/or treatment of the flow before exiting the property (e.g., through bioswales, settling basins, or similar). Because this drainage flows through culverts under a public highway, hydraulic evaluation of any proposed measures must be conducted by an engineer in order to protect public infrastructure. Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval to protect wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property: • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan or other plan or map indicating(1) all culverts or other drainage features that allow water to flow from the property under Narrow River Road, and(2) the associated drainage areas within the property. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall develop and submit a plan to prevent pollutant flows through culverts under Narrow River Road. The plan shall utilize source reduction and/or treatment methods and shall be evaluated by an engineer. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 16 C. Prohibit the Application of Animal Waste to Land; Continue Off-site Disposal of Animal Waste and Bedding; Limit the Numbers of Animals to Sub-Commercial Levels in Order to Maintain Current Waste Disposal Practices— The applicant has stated that the current animal waste management practice on the farm includes collection and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste. This is a good practice and should be continued. Land application of animal wastes should be prohibited on this site because of the very close proximity of animal pastures and paddocks to tidal wetlands that drain to the Narrow River and Hallocks Bay, an ecologically and economically important shellfishing resource that has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area.6 The application of animal wastes to land or crops should also be strictly prohibited for human health and safety reasons, to avoid pathogens entering the food supply. The applicant does not have a plan in place to safely apply animal waste to crops destined for human consumption and to meet all applicable regulations, such as those under the federal Food Safety Modernization Act. Accordingly, land application of animal waste should be prohibited at the site. Wastes should also be properly managed prior to off-site disposal. However, there has already been one documented recent incident of manure and animal bedding being piled up, presumably temporarily, in a location in or near wetlands and drainage features that drain to Narrow River. See email and photograph provided to Planning Department on April 24, 2018. Contrary to the claims of Mr. Tenedios, this area is frequently wet, not only after record storms, as it is in or very near to tidal wetlands. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as defined the term"adjacent" in the context of defining surface waters to include wetlands that are separated from open bodies of water by a road or berm and/or have a shallow subsurface connection to those waters. Manure and bedding must not be placed within the wetlands or the vegetated buffers. Conditions should be included to prevent this. The Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • Land application of animal waste is strictly prohibited. • All recoverable animal waste shall be collected in a dumpster and disposed off-site. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a plan for collection and temporary storage of manure/bedding(Le., storage prior to off-site hauling) that will eliminate contact with surface or ground water and avoid build-up of 6 It should be noted that the fact sheets and other materials submitted by the applicant's agent in February 2017 regarding animal stocking rates(i.e.,NRCS Balancing Your Animals With Your Forage,OK Cooperative Extension Service Stocking Rate.... ,and NDSU Extension Livestock Water Requirements)are mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand because they focus on maintaining adequate feed for livestock population;these publications do NOT address the land carrying capacity for accepting(and using)nutrients from the animal waste. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 17 large masses of manure in grazing or housing areas. The applicant's Managing Member (Steve Tenedios) has stated in writing that he raises animals only for his personal (including family and friends)use and consumption and has no intention of becoming a commercial farmer of livestock or breeder of horses. This is very important because if animals were raised commercially on the site, or if the numbers of animals raised there were to approach commercial levels, then the amount of animal waste would increase and the applicant might seek to halt off-site disposal and to commence land application of wastes, which, as noted, should be prohibited on this site. The applicant should not be permitted to claim that he is not a commercial farmer, that only a few animals are raised on site, and that animal waste is hauled off-site, all to gain site plan approval, only to then become a commercial farmer, dramatically increase the numbers of animals, and/or change waste disposal practices once the approval has been obtained. The applicant should be held to his word. As discussed above, commercial farms of all types and sizes routinely provide detailed information regarding their operations, including the maximum numbers of animals to be raised on site. Given that the applicant has thus far refused to do so here, based on claims that only a few animals are kept for personal consumption, any approval should prohibit material changes from that scenario on which the application was predicated. Accordingly, the Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • Commercial animal agriculture operations are prohibited on the site. • The numbers of animals maintained on site shall be consistent with personal, not commercial, use. Should the applicant's intentions change in the future, the applicant would need to seek an amendment to the site plan approval, make the disclosures typical for a commercial farming operation, and develop and implement conservation and waste disposal or reuse plans suitable for such operations. d. Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan— The Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • The applicant shall contract with the USDA-NRCS to develop and implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all forms of potential agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water. Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 18 • The farm conservation plan should include at a minimum a nutrient management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control erosion from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste storage and management as appropriate and vegetated buffers. • The farm conservation plan shall provide for reduced tillage and minimization of agrichemical usage. • The applicant shall follow and strictly adhere to the USDA-NRCS farm conservation plan and nutrient management plan. Implementation of the plan must occur irrespective of the availability of USDA or other cost-share assistance. e. Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn— The Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • Roof runoff and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed barn shall be collected, diverted away from sources of agricultural pollutants, and safely directed to prevent erosion and sediment transport. The applicant references dry wells, presumably for such purpose. That is a good approach to managing this runoff. D. Conditions Relating to Water Quality/Water Pollution from Human Sewage The applicant's attorney has stated that only portable bathrooms are presently on site, that the applicant will agree to keep them a certain distance from the property line, and that"if a permanent bathroom is provided in the building at a later date, [the applicant] would install a nitrogen free system." Letter from Patricia C. Moore, Esq., to Planning Board, dated Feb. 8, 2018, at 3. As you know, Long Island's coastal waters are plagued by an overabundance of nitrogen from wastewater travelling to surface waters though groundwater, as well as fertilizer run-off. The Board should include the following conditions in any approval: • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the existing and proposed locations of temporary bathroom facilities for review and approval. The applicant shall place temporary bathroom facilities only in the approved location(s). Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board July 6, 2018 Page 19 • Any septic system or other sanitary system discharging to groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soil shall include a state-of-the-art advanced de-nitrification treatment system. Thank you for considering our input in this application process. The Planning Board has taken a carefully approach to the application thus far, which we acknowledge and appreciate. We respectfully urge you to continue to protect the environment and Orient's community character by imposing these conditions on any approval you consider. Sincerely, WI Reed W. Super Mike DiGiulio Attachments: (1) List of Proposed Conditions (2) "Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold,NY,"Donald W. Meals, Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting cc (via email): Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee Town of Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee Town of Southold Shellfish Advisory Committee William M. Duffy, Town Attorney, Town of Southold Attorney Mark Terry, Local Waterfront Revitalization Coordinator, Town of Southold LIST OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS Fresh&CoFarm, LLC (Steve Tenedios) Uses of the Property • Any and all uses other than agricultural production are and shall be strictly prohibited on the site. • No events, retail operations, or other commercial activities shall occur on the site. "Events, retail operations, or other commercial activities" include but are not limited to festivals, special events, or other events open to the public. Any violation of this prohibition is a violation of the Approval, the Deed Restriction on the property, and the Town Code, and will subject the applicant to revocation of this Approval, administrative and/or judicial enforcement, a cease and desist order, and monetary penalties. Visual/Scenic Impact of Barn • The barn shall be built 200 feet west of the location identified in the submitted March 22, 2017 site plan in order to mitigate the visual impact on the property. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan consistent with the revised location prior to the Planning Board Chairman Endorsing the site plans. • Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall provide the Board with images of the barn with a low-contrast color scheme. Once endorsed by the Chairman, the applicant shall adhere to the approved color scheme. • The applicant is prohibited from installing any signs or other advertising for Fresh&Co or any other commercial enterprise on the site. • This approval is contingent on the Architecture Review Committee's approval of the designs. Water Quality / Water Pollution from Animal Agriculture • The applicant shall establish and manage 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. • Vegetated buffers must be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS specifications and managed to stabilize soils, slow water runoff and enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface runoff and dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and denitrification. • Animal grazing within the vegetated buffers is prohibited. • Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures shall be excluded from drainageways, wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated buffers. • The applicant shall erect and at all times maintain fencing along or outside the 100 foot buffer lines. • The applicant shall remove any structures currently within the wetlands or buffer areas. • Nutrient and pesticide applications are prohibited within the vegetated buffers except as required for vegetation establishment. • Herbaceous vegetation within the buffers may be mowed annually to control brush but shall not be harvested for hay or other forage. • Prior to the Chairman endorsing the Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into a covenant that establishes boundaries, maintenance activities and supplemental plantings for 100 foot wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan or other plan or map indicating (1) all culverts or other drainage features that allow water to flow from the property under Narrow River Road, and(2) the associated drainage areas within the property. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall develop and submit a plan to prevent pollutant flows through culverts under Narrow River Road. The plan shall utilize source reduction and/or treatment methods and shall be evaluated by an engineer. • Land application of animal waste is strictly prohibited. • All recoverable animal waste shall be collected in a dumpster and disposed off-site. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a plan for collection and temporary storage of manure/bedding(Le., storage prior to off-site hauling) that will eliminate contact with surface or ground water and avoid build-up of large masses of manure in grazing or housing areas. • Commercial animal agriculture operations are prohibited on the site. • The numbers of animals maintained on site shall be consistent with personal, not commercial, use. • The applicant shall contract with the USDA-NRCS to develop and implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all forms of potential agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water. • The farm conservation plan should include at a minimum a nutrient management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control erosion from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste storage and management as appropriate and vegetated buffers. • The farm conservation plan shall provide for reduced tillage and minimization of agrichemical usage. • The applicant shall follow and strictly adhere to the USDA-NRCS farm conservation plan and nutrient management plan. Implementation of the plan must occur irrespective of the availability of USDA or other cost-share assistance. • Roof runoff and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed barn shall be collected, diverted away from sources of agricultural pollutants, and safely directed to prevent erosion and sediment transport. • Prior to the Planning Board Chairman endorsing the site plans, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the existing and proposed locations of temporary bathroom facilities for review and approval. The applicant shall place temporary bathroom facilities only in the approved location(s). • Any septic system or other sanitary system discharging to groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soil shall include a state-of-the-art advanced de-nitrification treatment system. Proposed Conditions and Best Management Practice Recommendations for Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm, Southold, NY Prepared by Donald W. Meals Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting Burlington,VT July 5, 2018 1. Introduction I was asked by Super Law Group, LLC, on behalf of its clients,residents of Orient,New York, in the vicinity of the subject property, to evaluate the application materials and to make recommendations on proposed conditions to be included in any final site plan approval as well as recommended Best Management Practices that are designed to minimize environmental impacts from animal farming operations, with a focus on preventing pollution of groundwater and surface water(including wetlands) from nutrients and other pollutants from animal and row crop agriculture. I am an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in watershed management, design and operation of water quality monitoring networks, field research in agricultural nonpoint source pollution, assessment of Best Management Practices, and evaluation of watershed project effectiveness. I am a nationally recognized expert in agricultural nonpoint source water pollution and have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and technical reports to USDA-NRCS, USEPA, and other government agencies. My curriculum vitae is attached. 2. Characteristics of the property The Fresh&Co/Tenedios farm is a 34.5 acre property in mixed agricultural use located near the junction of Main and Narrow River Roads in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. A proposal made for development on the property has triggered discussion and review by local and regional authorities. Part of this review has focused on potential environmental impacts of agricultural operations on the property, particularly with regard to surface and ground water quality. These issues are particularly important considering that the property is located in an environmentally sensitive area with designated Significant Coastal Habitat onsite and adjacent, underlain by a sole source aquifer that provides drinking water to the local population,near high- value tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and draining to the Narrow River and Hallock Bay, an ecologically and economically important shellfishing resource that has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area(Fig. 1). Furthermore, as documented in their draft 2020 Comprehensive Plan,the Town of Southold recognizes the need to control potential pollutants (sediment, nutrients,pathogens, and agrichemicals) in surface and ground waters to protect 1 Hallockrs Bay Critical Environmental Area (CEA) EFfecl've Date of Designation: 3-2488 Designating Agency:Town of Southold rye. i 1 LiLimi. qqq ■ � as �� _ •"l rdlJ}w+• JJ ATE J. Mi r i la . LONG PEACH 84 r i N LANW .1 t7D+A �hvrrt ar,00- . _ V +� y, a Pr�eiµ�r� �• � �C* +8ptIT 'a o A Pip 1.01 rp V 10 1.-:1C-3 2.1300 4.000 13.000 pp Q IWk)WelllayCEA iFeel f1 Bane Map:1:24,000 DOT PranlnwIM Irnapes 1 inch equals 2,400 feet Diommer This map*99 pTomw by trig New York bl^113"tmenr or♦rmronmantai Cmnswryonon uang the moat currow,,a?ra avedsole it is deernad accurate hul Is rmt gusranlee}d NYS DEC is not responsible V any lawrurad%in Um dare. Please ciwracl me daggnaling sulhoMy Ibr addlliurral Ir*g1tra1lur1 regarrirtiy legal WuWary descrlpllms. Figure 1. Map showing Hallock's Bay CEA. (Source: NYS DEC) 2 locally sensitive areas, the local environment, and concerns of local residents. At the same time, the Town also recognizes the need to support an economically viable agriculture within the town. The property comprises a total of 34.5 acres in the R-200 zoning district, with development rights on 29.5 acres held by the Town of Southold,NY. The land is quite flat and is located on soils generally mapped as the Haven-Riverhead Association, soils that are deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained, and of medium to coarse texture. A recent (2017) onsite inspection by USDA-NRCS reports that the majority of the soil at the site is Haven loam(HaA), a well- drained medium textured soil over coarse sand and gravel. A portion of the property is cropped, typically in broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, parsley, cilantro, basil, corn, strawberries and brussels sprouts, according to an article published last year.' According to information filed by the applicant in October 2017, some livestock is housed on the property, including a variable and uncertain number of chickens,pigs, goats, and horses; when resident on the property, most of these animals graze in paddocks and are sheltered in small structures scattered at variable locations within the property(Figure 2). According to the applicant, all of the recoverable2 animal waste and used bedding is collected regularly and sent off-site in the solid waste stream. One incident of release of manure/bedding has been noted by a local resident(4/24/2018 email and photograph from Bredemeyer). Figure 2. View of pasture area looking north from Narrow River Rd. Photo shows several outbuildings and at least 25 goats. (April 28, 2018) The property is bounded on three sides by two highways (Main Rd. and Narrow River Rd.) and is separated from the Narrow River immediately to the east by Narrow River Rd. There appear to be multiple culverts draining unknown portions of the property (possibly a pasture and/or wetland/wetland buffer area)under Narrow River Rd. along the southern boundary of the 'https://www.lancasterfanning.com/news/northern_edition/nyc-farm-to-table-restaurateur-buys-his-own- farm/article OeO35cd6-eabd-5227-bfcb-8clf6c93916chtml 2 Recoverable manureibedding is defined as waste that can be collected and contained for management(e.g., disposal) such as manure deposited in a barn or a barnyard. Manure deposited by animals on pasture or from spillage is considered non-recoverable and still represents a potential pollution source. 3 property that drains to the Narrow River. It is unknown if this drainage is the result of long-past ditching on the property. Rough locations of two such culvert areas identified from NarrowRiver Rd. are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Google Map showing rough locations of culverts (circled) conveying drainage from farm property to Narrow River. An example of one of the drainages under Narrow River Rd. is shown in Figure 4 and 5. This appears to show the western drainageway from the farm toward the road from Figure 3, but the exact location is uncertain as that Google Map image was taken in 2017 and changes occurred on the farm property between 2017 and 2018 when the photographs in Figures 4 and 5 was taken. Figure 4. View looking north of apparent Figure 5. View of culvert draining drainageway from farm property toward a culvert into Narrow River under Narrow under Narrow River Rd. (March 18, 2018). River Rd. (April 28, 2018) Potential sources of quality impacts associated with the property include: • Animal waste (manure and used bedding); • Soil erosion from cropland and animal concentration areas; 4 • Runoff and leaching from cropland; • Runoff from structure roofs and other impervious areas; and • Drainage through the culverts under Narrow River Rd. Pollutants from these sources can move and be potentially delivered off-site by surface runoff, through the culvert or otherwise, or infiltration to groundwater. Potential pollutants include: • Sediment • Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) • Pathogens3 (from animal waste) • Runoff water • Agrichemicals (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides) 3. Approach The Natural Resources and Environment chapter of the draft 2020 Southold Comprehensive Plan states goals for the protection of both surface and ground water quality by avoiding and/or minimizing nonpoint source pollution of surface water, ground water, and coastal waters through implementation of improved management on agricultural (as well as other) lands in the Town. In addition, the draft Agriculture chapter of the plan cites an important goal of preserving agricultural land and the agricultural economy, while protecting and improving both land and water from excess erosion, nutrients, and agrichemicals. The principal means of achieving both of these goals is the implementation of improved management on agricultural land, including structural measures. Such measures and practices may act to reduce inputs of nutrients and agrichemicals, reduce movement and transport of these potential pollutants within the site, and reduce off-site delivery to receiving waters. Such activities are variously termed Best Management Practices, Conservation Practices, or Management Measures; for this report, the term Best Management Practice (BMP) is used to refer to a structural or management practice or combination of practices that represents effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations)means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Regardless of the specific characteristics of individual BMPs, there are some key principles that guide the effort to reduce agricultural nonpoint or point source pollution. These principles focus on controlling the availability of pollutants, their movement and transport, and their delivery to receiving waters. In practice, most agricultural BMPs strive to accomplish the following: • Maintain vegetative cover to prevent erosion and soil loss; • Control runoff and concentrated overland flow; • Reduce nutrient and agrichemical inputs to reduce availability of potential pollutants; 3 The term"pathogen"used here and elsewhere in the report includes nonpathogenic indicator organisms such as coliform and E. coli bacteria that are typically used as indicators of possible presence of true pathogenic organisms 5 • Manage animal waste to minimize potential losses; • Reduce pathogen content of animal wastes; • Keep grazing animals away from water courses to avoid direct inputs of pollutants to waterways and riparian areas; • Capture and treat concentrated flows before they leave the site; and • Provide effective vegetated buffers between agricultural land and adjacent surface waters. The conditions and individual BMPs proposed below address these principles. 4. Proposed Conditions 4.1 Background The following sections recommend conditions that the Planning Board should include in any site plan approval for the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property to reduce potential environmental impacts of the operation to surface and ground water, both on- and off-site. In general, the earlier in the process the conditions are satisfied, the better the results will be. 4.2 Recommended Conditions 4.2.1 Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers Establish and maintain 100 ft wide vegetated buffers between agricultural land/animal operations and wetlands, drainageways, and surface waters within and adjacent to the property. These buffers should be designed and maintained to USDA-NRCS specifications and managed to stabilize soils, slow water runoff and enhance infiltration, trap particulate pollutants in surface runoff and dissolved pollutants in subsurface flow, and nutrient uptake and denitrification. Vegetated buffers can include existing trees and understory vegetation and should otherwise be managed to maintain close-growing herbaceous vegetation. Nutrient and pesticide applications should be prohibited within the vegetated buffer except as required for vegetation establishment. Herbaceous vegetation may be mowed annually to control brush, but not harvested for hay or other forage. Animal grazing within the buffer should be prohibited. 4.2.2 Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan The landowner should contract with the USDA-NRCS (i.e., through the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District) and/or through their technical service provider(s) or certified crop management consultant(s)to develop and implement a farm conservation plan that addresses all forms of potential agricultural pollution to both surface and ground water. The plan should include at a minimum a nutrient management plan for cropland on the site, measures to control erosion from cropland and animal operations, measures to address animal waste storage and management as appropriate and vegetated buffers. BMPs should be selected from the list presented in Section 5, or others as appropriate. While the Conservation Plan should be developed under the standards and specifications of the USDA-NRCS and its funding programs (e.g., cost-share support), its implementation should occur irrespective of the availability of USDA or other cost-share assistance. 6 4.2.3 Implement Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping on Cropland Consistent with common practice in Suffolk County, reduced tillage should be implemented on the farm cropland to prevent erosion and soil loss and to promote soil quality. Furthermore, cover crops should be planted and managed during fallow periods to protect the soil from erosion, to take up residual soil nutrients, and promote soil quality. 4.2.4 Manage Agrichemicals To the extent possible, the use of pesticides should be reduced through the application of Integrated Pest Management practices. When use of agrichemicals is necessary, a safe handling facility should be implemented that protects surface and ground waters from contamination during mixing, loading, and clean-up operations. 4.2.5 Manage Animal Waste and Bedding Current animal waste management practice on the farm includes collection and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste. As long as this practice continues, additional animal waste management need only include the provision of temporary manure/bedding storage protected from contact with surface or ground water and measures to avoid animal concentrations leading to build-up of large masses of manure in grazing or housing areas. It should be emphasized that the farm site is not well-suited for land application of animal waste because of its location on coarse soils over a sole-source aquifer and proximity to sensitive surface waters. Moreover, it is usually inadvisable to apply animal waste to vegetable crops intended for direct human consumption because of the risk of pathogen transmission. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that animal numbers not increase beyond current levels and that land application of wastes be avoided. However, should animal populations increase significantly or manure no longer shipped off-site, waste management practices must be revisited in a revised farm conservation plan. This revision should focus on manure utilization in the context of a nutrient management plan, the land carrying capacity for animals and use of manure nutrients, microbiological safety, and measures to prevent runoff and leaching of nutrients and pathogens from stored and/or land-applied manure. At minimum, the operator must follow regulations governing land application of animal waste to crops destined for human consumption under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and the National Organic Program (NOP)requiring a 90-120 day delay between manure application and crop harvest. 4.2.6 Exclude livestock from Wetlands,Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers Livestock on pasture or in other outside enclosures should be excluded from drainageways, wetlands, wetland buffers, and other vegetated buffers. This exclusion should be accomplished by permanent fencing. Livestock exclusion prevents direct deposition of animal wastes into waterways and deposition into riparian areas where nutrients and/or pathogens can be carried into waterways by overland or subsurface flow. 4.2.7 Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culvert(s) into the Narrow River At present, there appear to be at least two locations where concentrated flow leaves the farm property and flows under the Narrow River Road in a culvert, and into the Narrow River. As an immediate step, these culverts must be located on a map and their drainage areas within the farm property delineated. Measures to prevent pollutant flows through these channels must then be 7 taken, through either source reduction within the contributing area(s), or treatment of the flow before exiting the property(e.g., through bioswales, settling basins, or similar). It should be noted that because this drainage flows through culverts under a public highway, hydraulic evaluation of any proposed measures must be conducted by an engineer in order to protect public infrastructure. 4.2.8 Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn Roof runoff and any other runoff generated from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed barn must be collected, diverted away from sources of agricultural pollutants, and safely directed to prevent erosion and sediment transport. The purpose is to prevent"clean" water from becoming contaminated with agricultural pollutants and prevent its addition to water requiring further management and/or treatment. Discharge of collected roof runoff to drywells or diversion of surface flow to a safe discharge point are appropriate ways of handling roof runoff. 4.2.9 Relocate the Proposed Barn The Town has proposed moving the location of the proposed barn 200 ft. to address potential visual impacts. Because such a move will move the building footprint away from the wetland buffer boundary, relocation can be endorsed as a pollution reduction measure as well. 5. Proposed management practices 5.1. Background The following sections recommend management practices that should be implemented on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property to reduce potential environmental impacts of the operation to surface and ground water, both on- and off-site. These BMPs should be incorporated into the Farm Conservation Plan and Nutrient Management Plan discussed above, as they apply. In the course of development of a Conservation Plan, the landowner/operator will need to disclose specific information on animal types and numbers, location and size of shelters, feeding areas, and other structures, locations and types of manure storage, and other farm management information. Such information is needed to assess pollution potential and identify management opportunities and is standard practice in BMP planning and design. These recommendations are made with several caveats. First, it should be emphasized that BMPs must be designed and implemented on a site-specific basis through a comprehensive conservation planning process that applies and adapts the practices to the requirements, physical setting, and current management operations of the site. Such a planning process can be accomplished through the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)via the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. The NRCS conservation planning process can provide both technical (design) and financial (cost-share) support for implementation of a conservation plan at the request of a landowner. A USDA-NRCS conservation plan(especially if cost-shared) is not considered implemented until all practices have been installed and certified by a technical service provider. In addition, an independent crop management consultant or technical service provider can be engaged to develop a plan. Such individuals are 8 usually certified by an authority such as the USDA-NRCS. Crop nutrient management plans, for example, are typically designed and maintained by a crop management consultant, usually based on the NRCS practice standard(590). Conservation planning on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm property should consider application of risk-assessment tools such as the New York Phosphorus Index and the New York Nitrate Leaching Index. These tools are often required as part of the implementation of a nutrient management BMP. The second caveat relates to BMP definitions. Management practices may be defined or named slightly differently by different jurisdictions or authorities. In New York, for example, BMPs may be defined by USDA-NRCS, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Long Island Sound Program, Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM), or Cornell University Cooperative Extension. It is beyond the scope of this report to select the best precise practice name or definition from among these multiple sources (that level of specificity is developed in the farm conservation plan). Because USDA-NRCS typically sets the standard upon which other entities base their BMPs, in many cases this report will recommend BMPs identified by USDA-NRCS practice code and definition. Standards and specifications for these practices are documented in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, specifically in Section IV Conservation Practices. This use of NRCS practice codes does not imply that these are the only practices to apply in this case. Other slightly different BMPs that address the same goals or principles may be referenced by other authorities. For example, the NRCS practice for Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345) calls for managing plant residue left at the soil surface and limiting soil-disturbing activities on cropland. There are, however, numerous techniques and farm implements that can accomplish the principles of this measure that are suitable for the specific soils and cropping practices of the area. The precise definition of reduced tillage may, therefore, be found in practices documented by other agencies. Such issues will typically be worked out in the conservation planning process. Finally, it should be noted that BMPs rarely address single individual pollutants. BMPs that reduce erosion and soil loss, for example, reduce not only sediment but also pollutants like phosphorus or metals that tend to be carried by soil particles. Measures that manage animal waste my influence pathogens as well as nutrients in runoff. Thus, while BMPs will be listed in the following sections under their primary target or sector, benefits may accrue for other concerns as well. 5.2. Recommended BMPs Individual BMPs will be recommended below, referenced by USDA-NRCS practice code (where applicable)within their primary area of concern or pollutant reduction focus. A brief definition of the practice and its primary purpose(s) are given. 5.2.1. Soil Erosion and Sediment • 327 Conservation Cover Definition: Establishing and maintaining permanent vegetative cover 9 Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill, and wind erosion and sedimentation; reduce ground and surface water quality degradation by nutrients and surface water quality degradation by sediment Application: To over-grazed areas, travel paths, denuded areas around housing or feeders • 342 Critical Area Planting Definition: Establishing permanent vegetation on sites that have, or are expected to have, high erosion rates Purpose: Stabilize areas with existing or expected high rates of soil erosion; stabilize stream and channel banks, pond and other shorelines Application: To over-grazed areas, areas of animal concentration, stream and channel banks • 329 Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till Definition: Limiting soil disturbance to manage the amount, orientation and distribution of crop and plant residue on the soil surface year around Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill and wind erosion and excessive sediment in surface waters; reduce tillage-induced particulate emissions; maintain or increase soil health and organic matter content Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops • 345 Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till Definition: Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year-round while limiting soil-disturbing activities used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is tilled prior to planting Purpose: Reduce sheet, rill, and wind erosion and excessive sediment in surface waters; reduce tillage-induced particulate emissions; improve soil health and maintain or increase organic matter content Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops • 350 Sediment Basin Definition: A basin constructed with an engineered outlet, formed by an embankment or excavation or a combination of the two Purpose: To capture and detain sediment laden runoff, or other debris for a sufficient length of time to allow it to settle out in the basin. Also traps nutrients, metals, and other chemicals carried by sediment particles; reduces pathogens. Application: To runoff or discharge conveyed in channels from cropland, areas of exposed soils or active erosion, animal concentration, structures, or flow in ditches or other constructed waterways • 638 Water and Sediment Control Basin (WASCOB) Definition: An earth embankment or a combination ridge and channel constructed across the slope of minor watercourses to form a sediment trap and water detention basin with a stable outlet 10 Purpose: 1.To reduce watercourse and gully erosion 2. To trap sediment and associated pollutants 3. To reduce and manage onsite and downstream runoff 4. Also reduces pathogens Application: To runoff from cropland, or natural or constructed drainageways 5.2.2. Nutrients • 590 Nutrient Management Definition: Managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application), and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments. A NM plan considers all available sources and forms of nutrients, existing soil nutrient stocks, crop needs for expected yields, and nutrients remaining after crop harvest. Purpose: 1. To budget, supply, and conserve nutrients for plant production 2. To minimize agricultural nonpoint source pollution of surface and groundwater resources by reducing excess nutrient supply or residual soil nutrients after crop harvest 3. To properly utilize manure or organic by-products as a plant nutrient source 4. To protect air quality by reducing odors, nitrogen emissions, and the formation of atmospheric particulates 5. To maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crop or forage production • 340 Cover Crop' Definition: Grasses, legumes, and forbs planted for seasonal vegetative cover on row crop land Purpose: Reduce erosion from wind and water; utilize excess soil nutrients (especially nitrogen)to prevent runoff or leaching to groundwater; maintain/increase soil health and organic matter content Application: To land in continuous or rotational row crops • 656 Constructed Wetland Definition: An artificial wetland ecosystem with hydrophytic vegetation for biological treatment of water Purpose: To treat wastewater or contaminated runoff from agricultural processing, livestock, or aquaculture facilities; to remove nitrogen from runoff by denitrification Application: To organic wastes or runoff from livestock facilities or areas of animal concentration or to cropland runoff 4 In some cases,farmers use herbicides to kill overwintered cover crop vegetation before planting new crops.This practice should be strictly avoided;mechanical means should be used to plant in an overwintered cover crop, consistent with any reduced tillage practices employed. 11 5.2.3. Animal Waste According to information provided by the applicant, all recoverable animal waste and bedding from the facility is managed by collection and shipment off-site in the solid waste stream. Intensive animal waste storage and management practices are therefore not highly applicable to this operation at present as long as the animal numbers remain low and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste continues. Even so, short-term storage of recovered animal waste must be done so as to minimize leaching and runoff, e.g., collected in a tank or stacked on a concrete pad with curbing to prevent runoff. Any short-term collection or storage areas must be located away from ditches, swales or other surface runoff conveyances and outside designated buffer areas. Non-recoverable animal waste—manure deposited on pasture or grazing areas—should be managed in such a way that heavy concentrations of animals (such as around feeding areas) are minimized, e.g., dispersed through rotational grazing. Livestock grazing should not occur within designated buffer areas or within 100 feet of ditches, swales, or other runoff conveyances. As noted in Section 4.2.5 above, expansion of animal numbers and land application of animal waste are not advisable on this site. Should animal populations increase significantly or off-site waste export cease, it will be essential to address animal waste management in a revised farm conservation plan. If these conditions occur and land application of animal waste on the farm site takes place,the ability of the land/cropping system to safely accept and utilize waste nutrients will need to be reflected in the nutrient management plan (see Section 5.2.2 above). Furthermore, animal waste storage and on- farm management will become very important to contain recoverable animal waste from contact with surface and ground waters and to minimize runoff and leaching losses from wastes applied to cropland. These concerns can be addressed by a number of specific BMPs which will need to be developed as part of a revised farm conservation plan. • Animal Waste Storage Definition: Containment of recoverable animal waste (solid and liquid) and used bedding protected from contact with water from overland flow and prevention of infiltration into soil and/or groundwater Purpose: To minimize runoff and leaching losses of nutrients and pathogens from stored animal waste Application: Collection and storage of recovered animal waste and bedding from animal holding areas. Specific techniques and mechanisms depend on form of waste (solid vs. liquid), volume of waste, and collection system(barn vs. barnyard), and other site-specific variables. • Animal Waste Management Definition: Utilization of animal waste for crop production or soil fertility management consistent with a crop nutrient management plan while avoiding environmental losses Purpose: To utilize manure nutrients for crop production in a way that provides adequate nutrients to growing crops while minimizing losses to surface and ground waters or build-up of excessive nutrients in soils Application: Storage and land application of animal wastes to cropland by 12 mechanical means (i.e., not from grazing animals) in the context of an approved nutrient management plan. Specific techniques and schedules for waste utilization depend on form of waste (solid vs. liquid), application equipment(surface application vs. injection), tillage systems (conventional vs. reduced tillage), and crop needs. 5.2.4. Pathogens It should be noted that many of the practices currently used to reduce nutrient and sediment loads from agricultural land have also been observed to reduce pathogen loading. Vegetated buffers, grazing management, and constructed wetlands, for example, may provide reductions of coliform or E. coli bacteria on the order of 50—90 percent. Thus, many of the concerns for animal waste management for nutrients also apply to the issue of pathogens. As long as all recoverable animal waste and bedding from the facility is managed by collection and shipment off-site in the solid waste stream, pathogen losses from this source are likely to be low. Intensive animal waste storage and management practices for pathogen reduction are therefore not highly applicable to this operation at present as long as the animal numbers remain low and off-site disposal of all recoverable waste continues. As long as short-term storage of recovered animal waste is done well (see Section 5.2.3)pathogen concerns will be addressed. Pathogen loss from dispersed, non-recoverable waste, however remains of concern and similar measures to those discussed in Section 5.2.3 should be followed. Grazing animals should be managed to avoid heavy concentrations of manure on pastures, near drainageways, or within buffers. Rotational grazing and livestock exclusion from waterways will address these issues. Livestock grazing should not occur within designated buffer areas or within 100 feet of ditches, swales, or other runoff conveyances. • Animal Waste Storage Definition: Containment of recoverable animal waste (solid and liquid) and used bedding protected from contact with water from overland flow and prevention of infiltration into soil and/or groundwater Purpose: To promote die-off of microorganisms in animal wastes Application: Collection and storage of recovered animal waste and bedding from animal holding areas. Specific techniques and mechanisms depend on form of waste (solid vs. liquid), volume of waste, and collection system(barn vs. barnyard), and other site-specific variables. • Grazing Management Definition: Manage stocking rates and pasture rotations Purpose: To maintain healthy vegetation, minimize congregation areas and travel lanes, and concentrated deposition of animal waste Application: Pastures or other land areas where animals are held for grazing or other purposes. Grazing management should provide adequate feed to livestock 5 It is widely documented that waste storage alone reduces pathogen populations by 90—99%because of heat,UV radiation,desiccation,and other environmental conditions that promote microorganism die-off. 13 while maintaining healthy pasture vegetation. Stocking rate (animals/acre), time on pasture, rotation among pasture paddocks are variables to be considered. While animal numbers are low(as reported at present), grazing management can be relatively simple. If animal numbers increase, the intensity and sophistication of grazing management will need to increase as well. Note that an assessment of the capacity of the farm land to support larger numbers of livestock must be based not only on feed generation but also on ability of the land to support recycling of nutrients from animal wastes if land application of manure is undertaken. Grazing management may be accomplished with a number of individual component practices, e.g., o 528 Prescribed grazing Definition: Managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals with the intent to achieve specific ecological, economic, and management objectives Purpose: 1. Improve or maintain desired species composition, structure and/or vigor of plant communities 2. Improve or maintain quantity and/or quality of forage for grazing and browsing animals' health and productivity 3. Improve or maintain surface and/or subsurface water quality and/or quantity 4. Reduce soil erosion, and maintain or improve soil health Application: Vegetated land where animals are regularly confined for grazing or other purposes o 472 Access control Definition: The temporary or permanent exclusion of animals, people, vehicles, and/or equipment from an area Purpose: Achieve and maintain desired resource conditions by monitoring and managing the intensity of use by animals, people, vehicles, and/or equipment Application: Control of access to and use of pastures or grazing areas • Livestock Exclusion [various practices depending on animal species and numbers and proximity to water] Definition: Excluding grazing animals from direct access to water, riparian areas, or buffers Purpose: To prevent direct deposition of animal waste into streams or riparian zone and to prevent disturbance of vegetation and soil by trampling Livestock exclusion may be accomplished with permanent or temporary fencing, bridges or armored crossings, and provision of off-stream water supplies. Application: Land where animals graze or are held that is adjacent to artificial or natural drainage ways, wetlands or wetland buffers, surface waters, or designated buffer areas 14 • 561 Heavy Use Area Protection [barnyard management] Definition: Stabilizing a ground surface that is frequently and intensively used by animals (e.g., barnyards and loafing areas) Purpose: To provide a stable non-eroding surface for areas frequently used by animals and to protect water quality by containing deposited wastes and/or runoff for collection and/or treatment Application: Areas of regular animal concentration, including barnyards, loafing areas, feeding or watering sites • Concentrated overland flow treatment Heavily contaminated concentrated overland flow (e.g., from a barnyard) is treated by passage through vegetated areas engineered to promote sheet flow and avoid concentrated flow channels. Several component practices may apply: 0 393 Filter strip Definition: An engineered strip or area of herbaceous vegetation that removes contaminants from overland flow Purpose: 1. Reduce suspended solids and associated contaminants in runoff and excessive sediment in surface waters 2. Reduce dissolved contaminant loadings in runoff Application: Runoff from contained sites generating heavily contaminated runoff such as barnyards, loafing areas, animal waste storage sites. 0 635 Vegetated Treatment area Definition: An area of permanent vegetation used for agricultural wastewater treatment Purpose: Improve water quality by using vegetation to reduce the loading of nutrients, organics,pathogens, and other contaminants associated with livestock, poultry, and other agricultural operations Application: Overland flow from areas where livestock graze or are housed or where crops are grown 5.2.5. Runoff Management Managing and controlling surface runoff—especially areas of concentrated overland flow —will help reduce pollutant transport from the farm and delivery to surface waters. Concentrated overland flow from a barnyard or loafing area or from a building roof or other impervious surface should be avoided to the extent possible, with remaining flow diverted or captured and treated before exiting the property. A cardinal rule of runoff management is to prevent"clean water" (e.g., roof runoff, natural runoff from up- gradient) from becoming contaminated by diverting it from contact with agricultural pollutant sources. • 558 Roof Runoff Structure Definition: A structure that will collect, control and convey precipitation runoff from a roof 15 Purpose: 1. Protect surface water quality by excluding roof runoff from contaminated areas 2. Protect a structure foundation from water damage or soil erosion from excess water runoff 3. Increase infiltration of runoff water Application: New construction and any existing construction that involves more than 100 sq. ft. of impervious roof area • 362 Diversion [may be challenging in areas of flat topography] Definition: A channel generally constructed across the slope with a supporting ridge on the lower side Purpose: 1. Break up concentrations of water on long slopes, on undulating land surfaces and on land that is generally considered too flat or irregular for terracing 2. Divert water away from farmsteads, agricultural waste systems, and other improvements 3. Intercept surface and shallow subsurface flow 4. Divert water away from active gullies or critically eroding areas Application: Anywhere where overland flow concentrates and threatens to promote gully erosion; protection of structures and active gullies or critically eroding areas • Vegetated Buffers6 Definition: An area of grass, shrubs, and/or trees located between agricultural operations and watercourses or water bodies (riparian buffer) or between agricultural operations and adjacent land parcels Purpose: 1. To slow surface runoff and enhance infiltration 2. To trap pollutants in surface and subsurface flow 3. To promote denitrification and nutrient uptake 4. To stabilize soils 5. To separate agricultural influences (e.g., nutrient applications, grazing) from surface water or adjacent property Application: Between agricultural activities and drainageways, waterways, wetlands,wetland buffers within the farm property and between the farm property and similar adjacent features Comment: It is essential that agricultural activities such as grazing, animal housing, tillage, cropping, and fertilizer application(except for initial establishment of vegetation)be prohibited from the buffer area. Buffers must also be managed to prevent concentrated overland flow channels from developing through the buffer area. One specific issue of runoff water management is water flow through one or more culverts that passes under Narrow River Rd. at the southern edge of the property and 6 Excellent proposals requiring 100'vegetated buffers are discussed in the 4/25/2018 LWRP memo to the Town of Southold Planning Board and are further discussed above under recommended conditions. 16 discharges to the Narrow River. Runoff that is conveyed to these culverts must be controlled and/or treated before it enters the culverts. Possible measures include diversion, bioswale, filter strip, sediment basin or WASCOB. Such measures must be carefully engineered to protect both the farm property and the public highway; specific design recommendations are beyond the scope of this report. As an immediate measure, these culverts must be accurately mapped and the drainage areas within the farm that contribute to them identified. 5.2.6. Agrichemicals The extent to which insecticides, herbicides, and other agrichemicals are used on this farm is unknown. If used, such chemicals must be managed carefully to avoid surface water loss and groundwater contamination. This is especially important considering the location over a sole-source aquifer and proximity to an important shellfishing area. Management should be focused on efficient use of necessary agrichemicals and prevention of groundwater contamination from spills. • 595 Integrated pest management Definition: A site-specific combination of pest prevention, pest avoidance, pest monitoring, and pest suppression strategies Purpose: 1. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to water quality through leaching, solution runoff and adsorbed runoff 2. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals and humans through drift and volatilization 3. Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to pollinators and other beneficial species through direct contact. 4. Prevent or mitigate cultural, mechanical and biological pest suppression risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals and humans Application: Cropland or other land within the facility that requires or receives treatment for pests • 309 Agrichemical Handling Facility Definition: A facility with an impervious surface and perimeter curbing to provide an environmentally safe area for the handling of on-farm agrichemicals Purpose: To provide an environmentally safe facility to store, mix, load and clean up agrichemicals and to retain incidental spillage or leakage Application: A designated area within the farm for the storage and handling of agrichemicals 6. Discussion The above list of BMPs applicable to the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm is based on current knowledge of the land and the agricultural operations. The list is not necessarily exhaustive. For example, it is not known whether any part of the property is artificially drained with subsurface (tile) drainage. Tile drainage discharge is often a significant source of nutrients (especially 17 nitrogen). Management practices such as 605 Denitrifying bioreactor or 554 Drainage Water Management should be considered if tile drainage exists. It must also be noted that in some cases BMPs may have potentially contradictory effects. A practice that reduces surface runoff, for example, may tend to increase water infiltration to groundwater. A nutrient management recommendation to incorporate (plow down) fertilizers or soil amendments into the soil may conflict with requirements for reduced tillage. These potential conflicts must be considered and resolved by making choices in the conservation planning process. Finally, the importance of operation and maintenance activities for implemented BMPs cannot be overemphasized. Most structural BMPs—such as sediment basins or vegetated filter strips— require periodic maintenance such as clean-out of accumulated sediment or rejuvenation of vegetation. Buffers need to be monitored to ensure that areas of concentrated flow (channels or gullies) do not develop; such flow through a buffer short-circuits the treatment process and does not provide effective water quality treatment. Management BMPs require regular monitoring to verify that provisions of the practice continue to be met and that the practice is effective. Nutrient management plans, for example, need to be regularly updated to accommodate changes in crop rotations and yields, nutrient sources, etc. Regular soil testing (e.g., for phosphorus or for post-harvest soil nitrate levels) is required to update nutrient rate recommendations and to assess the overall effects of nutrient management on soil nutrient status. Finally, the entire farm conservation plan needs to be updated periodically(e.g., every 5 years)to reflect changes in animal populations, cropping patterns, land use, and management. 7. Conclusions The Town of Southold and its citizens have adopted planning goals to protect and improve environmental quality and to promote and support agricultural activity in the town. The proposed development on the Fresh&Co/Tenedios Farm can be managed to achieve both of these goals if certain conditions are met. Management on the farm property should focus on these principles: • Maintain vegetative cover to prevent erosion and soil loss; • Control runoff and concentrated overland flow; • Reduce nutrient and agrichemical inputs to reduce availability of potential pollutants; • Manage animal waste to minimize potential losses; • Reduce pathogen content of animal wastes; • Keep grazing animals away from water courses to avoid direct inputs of pollutants to waterways and riparian areas; • Capture and treat concentrated flows before they leave the site; and • Provide effective vegetated buffers between agricultural land and adjacent surface waters. The following specific conditions are proposed for the proposed development project: • Establish and Manage Vegetated Buffers 18 • Develop and Implement a Farm Conservation Plan • Implement Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping on Cropland • Manage Agrichemicals • Manage Animal Waste and Bedding • Exclude livestock from Wetlands, Wetland Buffer, and other Vegetated Buffers • Prevent Pollutants from Leaving the Site Through Culvert(s) into the Narrow River • Collect Roof Runoff from the Proposed Barn • Relocate the Proposed Barn These conditions and specific BMPs that can be implemented to achieve them are discussed fully in Sections 4 and 5. The key to this effort is a comprehensive farm plan meeting USDA-NRCS standards that identifies current and potential areas of concern and recommends specific applications of BMPs to address the concerns. Implementation of the practices identified in the plan is—of course—paramount. Finally, the importance of operation and maintenance activities for implemented BMPs cannot be overemphasized. In addition to physical maintenance of structural BMPs and regular monitoring and updating of management BMPs, the entire Farm Conservation Plan needs to be updated periodically to reflect changes in animal populations, cropping patterns, land use, and management. 19 DONALD W. MEALS 84 Caroline Street 802-598-8140 Burlington, Vermont 05401 dmealsgburlingtontelecom.net PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ♦ Principal, Ice.Nine Environmental Consulting, 84 Caroline St., Burlington, VT 1995 -present Clients/projects: ■ Champlain Water District, S. Burlington,VT, Use of water treatment residuals for phosphorus management(2005-present) ■ Resolve,Washington D.C. The Way Things Work:How effective watershed projects are organized and what we can do to improve public and private sector watershed programs Report to the Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA (2015) ■ North Carolina State University, Synthesis of Lessons Learned from the NIFA-CEAP Projects. Report to USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2009—2012) ■ USDA-NRCS:Part 602, National Water Quality Handbook(2004-2006). ■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute, Analyzing Effects of Conservation Practices Using Network Modeling, with M. Watzin and E.A. Cassell, UVM-SNR(200 3) ■ North Carolina State University/US EPA,A Farmer's Guide to Agriculture and Water Quality Issues, content development for USDA/US EPA Ag Compliance Center web sites and fact sheets on nutrient management, erosion control, pesticides,pathogens, and wetland/riparian protection(1999-2003) ■ North Carolina State University,North Carolina Wellhead Protection Guidebook(2002) ■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute A Tool forAssessing Bacterial Pollution at Watershed Scale with E.A. Cassell,UVM-SNR(1999-2002) ■ USDA-NRCS Watershed Science Institute,Dynamic Simulation Modeling of Phosphorus Budgets for Agricultural/Forested Watersheds-the Inland Bays Watershed, Delaware, with E.A Cassell,UVM-SNR and Richard Croft,NRCS-WSI(1997-1998) ■ U.S. EPA/North Carolina State University,Writer and co-editor for national EPA Guidance on Controlling Agricultural Sources ofNonpoint Pollution (1997-1998) ♦ Senior Scientist, Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA 2001 —present ■ Environmental and Agronomic Implications of Manure Processing and Irrigation in Kewaunee Co. WI, for USEPA (2016) ■ Yakama Nutrient Management Code, for Yakama Nation,WA(2016) ■ Lake Champlain Basin Nutrient Trading Feasibility Study and Market Analysis, for VT ANR (2014-2015) ■ Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Analysis and Guidance:Nutrient Imbalance Analysis, for USEPA(2011-2013) ■ Support for Chesapeake Bay Program Agriculture Work Group including technical support for Nutrient Management, Cover Crop,and other Expert Panels, for USEPA (2011 -present) ■ Technical Support for the Implementation of the EPA National CAFO Program, for USEPA (2011-2012) ■ Support for EPA National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program, for USEPA(2005—present) ■ Technical assistance in nonpoint source monitoring design and analysis for USEPA Section 319 projects (AR, IA, IL, IN,KY, LA,MI,MO,NM, and TX)and for USDA/USEPA National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) (CA, GA,MD,MA,NH,NJ, OH, OR, RI) (2007-2015) ■ San Jacinto Watershed Integrated Dairy Management Plan and Management Practices to Reduce Nutrient Loads from Agricultural Operations in the San Jacinto Watershed, for Western Riverside County Agricultural Coalition(2007 -20 10) ■ Nonpoint Source Monitoring Guidance, for USEPA(2010—present) ■ Technical guidance publications,workshops, and webinars on nonpomt source monitoring design, data analysis,project management, critical source areas, flow measurement, lag time, for USEPA(2005 —present) ■ Review of San Diego County MS4 Monitoring Program, for San Diego County(2005) ■ Contributor, editor-Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters(2005) ♦ Senior Scientist, Stone Environmental, Inc., Montpelier, VT 2003 —present ■ Assessment of Tile Drainage System Impacts to Lake Champlain and Phosphorus Loads in Tile Drainage in the Jewett Brook Watershed of St. Albans Bay, for Lake Champlain Basin Program and VT Dept. of Ag,Food, and Markets (2016 - present) ■ Agricultural Practice Monitoring and Evaluation, for VT Dept. of Ag,Food, and Markets (2012— present) ■ Identification of Critical Source Areas of Phosphorus Within the Vermont Sector of the Missisquoi Bay Basin, for Lake Champlain Basin Program(2010—2011) ■ Assessment of Dairy Manure Management Practices to Reduce Pathogen Runoff Losses in Agricultural Watersheds, for USDA NIFA(2007—2011) ■ Demonstration of Methods to Reduce Indicator Bacteria Levels in Agricultural Runoff, for Lake Champlain Basin Program(2003-2004) ♦ Watershed Modeling Consultant,Associates in Rural Development, Inc., Burlington, VT (1998 —2006) ■ Balancing Economic and Environmental Impacts of Phosphorus Management; application of watershed P load/land treatment optimization model coupled with farm-level economic simulation to assess impacts of alternative nonpoint source reduction strategies on farm income. ■ Interactive Spatially Dynamic Framework for Sustainable Watershed Phosphorus Management,- combining anagement;combining mass-balance modeling, GIS, and P Index principles into an analytical framework to allow understanding, evaluation, and visualization of long-term spatial and temporal dynamics of alternative watershed P management scenarios. ♦ Water Quality Project Manager,New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission/Vermont Dept. Environmental Conservation, Waterbury, VT (1996-2001) Description: Principal Investigator for long-term watershed research project on effects of improved agricultural management on water quality: Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project, 1993-2001 ♦ Research Associate, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT (1977— 1996) Description: Research Faculty, responsible for planning and direction of externally-funded interdisciplinary research in agricultural nonpoint source pollution,nutrient dynamics in aquatic ecosystems,watershed management, and land use/water quality interactions. Designed and maintained complex water quality monitoring systems, including experimental design, data analysis, and communication of results. Taught undergraduate, continuing education, and professional development courses in water resources and water pollution. Responsibilities and accomplishments: • Established and implemented nationally recognized long-term agricultural watershed monitoring and evaluation programs: -St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1980- 1991. (USDA/USEPA) -LaPlatte River Watershed PL-566 Monitoring and Analysis Program, 1979-1990. (USDA) • Advised USDA in national evaluation of effectiveness of HUA and Demonstration Projects on water quality restoration: Physical Impact Assessment of USDA Water Quality Projects, 1991-1996. • Led and teamed on multidisciplinary research projects in nonpoint source pollution, water quality impacts of agricultural conservation practices, and fate/transport of phosphorus in aquatic systems -Phosphorus Retention in Managed Riparian Zones and Impacts on Water Quality, 1994- 1998 -Phosphorus Cycling, Transport, and Storage in Stream Ecosystems, 1993-1996. Implementation, Demonstration, and Evaluation ofBMPs for Water Quality:Methods for Improved Management of Manure Nutrients, 1993-1995 -Lake Champlain Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment, 1993-1994. EDUCATION Dartmouth College, Hanover,NH B.A., Biology June, 1972 University of Vermont, Burlington, VT M.S. Natural Resources Planning May, 1977 Service: Committees/Work Groups ■ Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Conservation/Environmental Commissioner (2004—present) ■ Conservation Board,City of Burlington,VT (1998—present) ■ Ecosystem Indicators Task Force, Lake Champlain Basin Program(2005) ■ Englesby Brook(VT)Urban Watershed Restoration Project Planning/Oversight Committee (1999) ■ Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions,Board of Directors (1999-2004) ■ Agricultural Advisory Council, Lake Champlain Basin Program(1993-1996) ■ Vermont Accepted Agricultural Practices Steering Committee,VT DAFM(1993-1995) ■ Participant,USDA-SCS Scientific Exchange to Belgium and France (1992) ■ Vermont Agricultural Nonpoint Control Policy Work Group,VT Dept. of Agriculture(1990-1993) ■ Technical Advisory Committee,Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, Lake Champlain Management Conference(1991-1996) SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Meals,D.W., S.A.Dressing,J.A.Ferrando,E.Kress,and Y.Ichishima.2016.Temporal Trends in Five Decades of Published Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Export Data.J.Environ. Qual. (in revision). Dressing,S.A.,D.W.Meals,J.B.Harcum,J.Spooner,J.B. Stribling,R.P.Richards,C.J.Millard, S.A.Lanberg,and J.G.O'Donnell.2016.Monitoring and Evaluating Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects.EPA 841-R-16-010, USEPA Office of Water,Nonpoint Source Control Branch,Washington,DC https://www.epa.goy/polluted-runoff- nonpoint-source-pollution/monitoring-and-evaluating-nonpo int-source-watershed Winchell,M.F., S.Folle,D.W.Meals, J.Moore,R. Srinivasan,and E.A.Howe 2015.Using SWAT for sub-field identification of phosphorus critical source areas in a saturation excess runoff region.Hydrol. Sci.J. 60(5):844-862. Osmond,D.L.,D.W.Meals,D.L.K.Hoag,M.Arabi,A.E.Luloff,G.D.Jennings,M.L.McFarland,J. Spooner,A. Sharpley,and D.L.Line.2012.How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality The NIFA-LEAP Experience.The Soil and Water Conservation Society,Ankeny,OH. Meals,D.W., S.A.Dressing,and T.E.Davenport.2010.Lag time in water quality response to best management practices.J.Environ Qual. 39:85-96. Meals, D.W.,E.A.Cassell,D.Hughell,L.Wood,W.E.Jokela,and R.Parsons.2008.Dynamic spatially explicit mass-balance modeling for targeted watershed phosphorus management, L Model development. Agric. Ecosys. and Environ. 127:189-200. Meals,D.W.,E.A.Cassell,D.Hughell,L.Wood,W.E.Jokela,and R.Parsons.2008.Dynamic spatially explicit mass-balance modeling for targeted watershed phosphorus management, II.Model application. Agric. Ecosys. and Environ. 127:223-233. Meals,D.W.,J.Fay,and M.Barsotti.2007.Effects of water treatment residual addition on phosphorus in liquid dairy manure.J.Am. Water Works Assoc. 100(4):140-150. Meals, D.W.and D.C.Braun.2006.Demonstration of methods to reduce E. coli runoff from dairy manure application sites. J.Environ Qual. 35:1088-1100. Meals, D.W.,E.A.Cassell,D.Hughell,L.Wood,R.Parsons,and W.Jokela.2006. Interactive spatially dynamic framework for sustainable watershed phosphorus management. Final project report to USDA-CSREES.Associates in Rural Development,Inc.,Burlington,VT. Meals, D.W.and D.C.Braun.2005.Demonstration of Methods to Reduce Indicator Bacteria Levels in Agricultural Runoff in Vermont.Technical Report,Lake Champlain Basin Program,Grand Isle,VT. Meals,D.W.2004.Water quality improvements following riparian restoration in two Vermont agricultural watersheds.pp. 81-96 in Lake Champlain:Partnership and Research in the New Millennium. T.Manley et al.,eds. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Jokela,W.E.,J.C.Clausen,D.W.Meals,and A.N. Sharpley.2004. Effectiveness of agricultural best management practices in reducing phosphorus loading to Lake Champlain.pp. 39-52 in Lake Champlain:Partnership and Research in the New Millennium. T.Manley et al.,eds.Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Watzin,M.C.,E.A.Cassell,and D.W.Meals.2003.Analyzing Effects of Conservation Practices Using Network Modeling.Final Project Report to NRCS Watershed Science Institute,UVM School of Natural Resources, September 30,2003. Meals, D.W.and R.B.Hopkins.2002.Phosphorus reductions following riparian restoration in two agricultural watersheds in Vermont,USA. Water Sci. &Technol. 45(9):51-60. Cassell,E.A.,D.W.Meals,S.G.Aschmann„D.P.Anderson,B.H.Rosen,R.L.Kort,and J.M.Dorioz.2002.Use of simulation mass balance modeling to estimate phosphorus and bacteria dynamics in watersheds. Water Sci. & Technol. 45(9):157-168. Meals, D.W.2001.Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project,Final Project Report: May, 1994-September,2000.Vermont Dept.of Environmental Conservation, Waterbury,VT,227 p. Meals, D.W.2001.Water quality response to riparian restoration in an agricultural watershed in Vermont,USA. Water Sci. &Technol. 43(5):175-182. Cassell,E.A.,R.L.Kort,D.W.Meals, S.G.Aschmann,J.M.Dorioz,and D.P Anderson.2001.Dynamic phosphorus mass balance modeling of large watersheds: long-term implications of management strategies. Water Sci. &Technol. 43(5):153-162. Meals,D.W., S.N.Levine,D.Wang,J.P.Hoffmann,E.A.Cassell,J.C.Drake,D.K.Pelton,H.M.Galarneau,and A. Brown.1999. Retention of spike additions of soluble phosphorus in a eutrophic northern stream. J.N.Am.Benthol. Soc. 18(2):185-198. Wang,D.,S.N.Levine,D.W.Meals,J.P.Hoffmann,J.C. Drake, and E.A.Cassell. 1999. Importance of in-stream nutrient storage to phosphorus export from a rural,eutrophic river in Vermont,USA. In Lake Champlain in Transition:From Research Toward Restoration,eds. T.O.Manley and P.L.Manley,pp.205-223. Water Science and Application,Vol. 1,American Geophysical Union,Washington,D.C. Meals,D.W.and L.F.Budd. 1998.Lake Champlain Basin nonpoint source phosphorus assessment.J.Am. Water Resour.Assoc.34(2):251-265. Cassell,E.A.,J.M.Dorioz,R.L.Kort,J.P.Hoffmann,D.W.Meals,D.Kirschtel,and D.C.Braun. 1998.Modeling phosphorus dynamics in ecosystems: mass balance and dynamic simulation approaches.J.Environ. Qual. 27(2)293- 298. Meals,D.W. 1996. Watershed-scale response to agricultural diffuse pollution control programs in Vermont,USA. Water Sci. &Technol. 33(4-5):197-204. Jokela,W.E.,S.Bosworth,and D.W.Meals. 1995.Implementation,Demonstration,and Evaluation of BMPs for Water Quality:Application Methods for Improved Management of Manure Nutrients.Demonstration Report No. 5, Lake Champlain Basin Program,Grand Isle,VT. Meals, D.W. 1992.Water quality trends in the St.Albans Bay,Vermont watershed following RCWP land treatment. pp 47-58 in The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium,September, 1992,Orlando,FL,US EPA ORD, EPA/625/R-92/006. Meals,D.W. 1992.Relating land use and water quality in the St.Albans Bay watershed,Vermont. pp 131-144 in The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, September, 1992,Orlando,FL,USEPA ORD,EPA/625/R- 92/006. Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee. 1991. St.Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program,Final Report, 1991. Vermont Water Resources Research Center,University of Vermont,Burlington. Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program: Comprehensive Final Report.Program Report No. 12. Vermont Water Resources Research Center,University of Vermont, Burlington. Clausen,J.C.and D.W.Meals. 1989. Water quality achievable with agricultural best management practices. J. Soil Water Cons. 44(6):593-596. Manning Hoard CL-1 abt-ur tyL�� Lt-ty dALA- LtV: k -k7 ��r j2"i w, so waivk 46 cJcJ 4-a 4-kcd fa- A�L sLau -�- co O+A /-4-- f IQA� ,p W y $ G � �I L { SAV 49 2018 Southold Town Planning Board W a Donald Wilcenski,Chair Pierce Rafferty .. William Cremers James Rich Martin Sidor Dear Marty and fellow Planning Board Members, Fresh nl _ Livestock, Application Tom and I live across the road from the Fresh&Company farm. We are writing to support you work. We understand that you have asked Fresh&Co.for documents, and they have not been forthcoming. We support the Planning Board's right to prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in order to protect public health,safety and welfare when considering permitthis application for a g,000 square foot livestock barn.We also support the Land Preservation Committee right to receive their requested visual impact study and clarification of intended use. We ask that you continue to demand that Fresh&Co.provide documentation on its scope of operations,how it is going to use the livestock farm building, especially since operations are to be within Soo feet of wetlands, as sited on their petition. We support farming in Orient,and we believe farming more consistent with Orient is appropriate— not an animal farm of pigs,sheep, chicken and cows, and not traffic clogging agro festivals as quoted in The Suffolk Times. Tom and I, as you know,were early founders of Slow Food East End, and are lifelong advocates of farmers markets,farmstands,school vegetable gardens and chefs featuring local produce_ We both served on the board of the Peconic Land Trust,with a mission to support working farms. I also worked for io years at Cornell Cooperative Extension and helped start the SPAT program, educating the public about the benefits of shellfishing, and stopping negligent human impacts the cause polluting road run off and animal waste to get into our coastal waters,resulting in shellfishing prohibitions and beach closures. We bothsay'yes" to another fa rin in orient,especially one that practices sustainable farming, and as the company's website promises"pure foods that are free from synthetic fertilizers,antibiotics,pesticides and other additives." Wesay"yes" to classrooms for students to learn about ftV ,sh fnnts and vegetables.We say"yes"to Fresh&Company supporting local family farms and sourcing food ft-om other Long Lkland farm& But because of its proxty to wetlands, and the increased events of storm surges, extreme weather and warming coastal waters,we ask the Planning Board to consider: -limiting the number of meat animals,and not allowing beef cows or pigs, who are the most polluting; their manure contains nutrients which can run,off into our already near-eutrofic wetlands and bays. We refer to a study of animal feeding operations and their impact on coin iuni ties by the National Association of Local Boards of Health. Nutrient over-enrichment causes, algal blooms,or a rapid inctease of algae gmwAh in an aquatic,environment(Science Daily,n-d.). Arrunonia in mantire causes oxygen depletion from water,which itself can kill aquatic rife. Ammonia also converts into nitrates,which can cause nutrient overloads in stuface waters(EPA, -1998).Manure disd-targe can contain Pathogens such as K coh. extremely hazardous to our surface waters.Fecal bacteria pollution in water from manure disposal through land appliaition can also cause beach closures and shellfislung re-strictions. It can leach into and, contaminate our drinkin g water aquifer. One pollution event from a pig farm could become a lingering source of vim] contamination for.groundwater(EPA, 2005). -requiring a livestock farming,plan including feeding,veterinary program, and waste storage,containment units and management of malodor air emissions,and insect vector control. We would like to request public comment as part of your regulatory PLIM -limiting the size mid number of"special events"as Orient is the tiny tippy end of our island, and is already adversely impacted with car and truck traffic from an expanded ferry service,creatmg dangers for bicyclists,runners and pedesh-ians alike- We,ask you to consider an ounce of prevention is rorty a pound of cure, and in the case of surface and ground wa ter, once polluted there maybe no cure. Sincerely, Mary dfid Tom Morgan 855 S.Viient,NY G LU C K M A N TA 11 l,1 G 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 212.929.0100 gluckmantang.com S-Ill0l 2 May 2018 `. L.N w-i 6 e- Donald Wilcenski, Chairman � � �� Town of Southold Planning Board V Irrtuuuu PO Box 1179 � I !"'�' �� u� Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Wilcenski, I am a concerned resident of Orient, NY and fully support the letter of April 16, 2018 from Super Law Group, LLC with regard to the Proposed Site Plan for the Tenedios Farm Agricultural Building. I live at the intersection of Orchard Street and Narrow River Road and I am concerned about negative environmental effects on Hallock's Bay, which you know is a fragile eco-system that produces the best scallops in the world. My analysis of the last site plan I've seen suggests that a great deal of information is not included. Curb cuts, entry drives and parking, as well as any infrastructural information with regards to storm mitigation, septic and feeding strategies for animal husbandry are all missing. It will be interesting to see a traffic study that considers the effects on event overlapping with the ferry arrival. I am confident that you and your board will deal with these issues and the many more that fall under your purview in a rigorous, fair, and thorough way. Best regards, Rp''h�a d Vuckman 4630 Orc and Street Orient, NY 11957 SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITCR'S DIRECT[)IAL: 212-242-2273 EMAIL:reed@,superlawgroup.com April 16, 2018 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Michael Domino, President Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Board of Trustees -• � P.O. Box 1.179 P.O. Box 1179 P1 I Southold, NY 11971 Southold,NY l 1971 ., Norman "Sam"McCullough, Chairman Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee P.O. Box 1179 ,.., E Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for the Tenedios Farm Agricultural Building 8410 NYS Route 25, s/w corner of Narrow River Road & NYS Route 25, Orient SCTM # 1000-19.-1- 1.3 & 1.4 Dear Messrs. Wilcenski, McCullough, and Domino mid Members of the Planning Board, Land Preservation Committee, and Board of Trustees: This firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside and own property in Orient near the Tenedios property, .including Ambriel Floyd Bostic, Hawes Bostic, Douglas Gray, Clifford Cohen, Leslie Cohen, David Miller, and Judith Scofield Miller. We write in regard to Mr. Tenedios's application for site plan approval pursuant to Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. Our clients wish to express their support for the approach the Planning Board has taken with respect to the application. By requesting relevant information from the applicant, soliciting comments from other interested agencies and the public, carefully evaluating the site plan applicaation, and considering the imposition of aapp 011date conditions nand safeguards, the Board is properly and effectively c-arr)ring out its responsibilities a aadcr the Town Code. Those responsibilities include caasuring that hand uses in Sowliold do not adversely affect the well-being of the community or impair the environment. A Board to Con:sirler a Broad I�,aaal�c tFf 1�;tctors and dta laaar ar)sc t:"a:rarclitir�rc�s ane:] S��l"a��al�raral!s As you are aware, the Town Code requires site plan approval from the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for every type cal"l<aaac rase in the "1 awwa) except liar certain single-family residential and non-agric: ltuaaal as CVSScary uses. § 280-12T In enacting this requirement, the Town Board sought to "protect the a.niclaae rural and openspace claarac:ter of the Town . . . with due regard to the public interest." § 280-128(A). The purpose of the site plan process is to determine whether"the proposed site use would impact beneficially on the well- being of the population in general." lel. More specifically, the site plan approval requirements are designed to: (1) Protect the established character and value of the adjoining properties, both public and private, and of the neighborhood in which they are located. 1130 M.W)1:N Srrrl; 60:3 • N1.11w YoitK, Ni:w YORK 100x38 1'1;1.: 212-21.2-235);1 F�.\x: 85.5-212-Pk)6 www.superlam"roup.colli Messrs. Wilcenski, McCullough, and Domino April 16, 2018 Page 2 (2) Lessen anti, where possible, prevent traffic congestion on the streets and highways uPoal which the site fronts or which provide vehicular or pedestrian access thereto. (3) Prevent overcrowding of land or buildings. (4) Secure safety from fire, flood and other dangers and provide adequate light, air and convenience of access. (5) Mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the land, air and water resources. § 280-128(B). In considering and acting upon site plans,the Planning Board is authorized to "take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the economic impact and the comfort and convenience of-the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular." § 280--129. Not only does the Planning Board have the right to deny site plan applications for failLire to comply with the Town Code, see § 280-131(M), but the Board may "preseribe appropriate conditions and afLg ar"t " as may be required to accomplish certain ohicctives including giving,`high priority's to "It1he protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants- and "I flhe conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to natural drainage courses, fresh- and saltwater wetlands and marshes, dunes, bluffs,beaches, escarpments, woodlands, large trees, unique plant and wildlife habitats, flood hazard areas and wildlife breeding areas." § 280-129(D) (emphasis added). Because the proposed land use involves activities that can be highly polluting, the Board should use its authority to put reasonable conditions on any approval to mitigate this harm. Animal manure is a primary source of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to surface and groundwater and is also a sourcwc of pathogens. Given thal: large aanitnals produce tar niore waste than htarl1aarls, even a small animal husbandry operation U11 cause substamial impacts. F'or example, because pigs produce teaa tholes as ruaa:rclr ICCc,Il Waaste ars lruniaalls the wvarste from tush siva pigs is equivalent to that of 60 people,the waste from ten pigs is equivalent to that of 100 people, and so on, all disposed of without sewage treats-rient. "There are fresh and tidal wetlands, groundw,iter, surface water, and other irnportaan arnd sensitive eravir°ctnmentaal resources on tilld. near tic site, as well as open-space and ;scenic values potentially art risk, Marnture runoff li°oln cropland, pastures or aninud I'ec.ding operations t°rlierr rearellcs surface and groundwater through runoff or intiltraation. Regulating these tactivities and requiring, best in,,,m agement praacticcs are critical to protecting water quality, and these issues are e tplicidy within the purvieW cal'the Planning Board (not only, state agencies) as set Barth in the Town Code provisions cited above. As the Board of Trustees noted in its August 3 I,2017 memorandum to the Planning Board: There is a serious concern that intensified anirnal agriculture on the Narrow River watershed, on lands sub}ect to flooding, may put shellfish harvest at risk by adding coliforms used in shellfish Messrs. Wilcenski, McCullough, and Domino April 16, 2018 Page 3 As a result, the position taken by the applicant and its representatives— i.e., that the Board should rubber-stamp rather than scrutinize this agricultural proposal and all of its potential adverse impacts—is simply incorrect and inconsistent with the Planning Board's authority and responsibility under the Town Code. Authority of alae l,aturatl lire+ervation Committee to :11'aaa tici aatc in the A roval. ?"roce�m aaad Protect tine Public Trust in the Town-l-leld IDcvelo mt»n ll4i,lits The Land Preservation Committee is authorized under the 'Town Code to "serve as a review board for the granting of permits for construction, reconstruction and additions of and to structuress in or on agricultural lends in which the;developrnent rights have been acquired by the "I"own." § 70- (c)(2)(a)(3). 13ccause the Town owns the develop pent rights on the Tenedios site and there is a.conservation crier-neat in place. the Committee has a critical role in this process. The Committee is tasked with determining whether the proposed land use and application conform with the deed restrictions and the Town-held development rights. The Committee correctly reads these; restrictions as protecting both the agricultural character of the property and the.:: scenic character of the property. While the property must be used for agriculture, this use cannot degrade the scenic and open space value of the property. As the CtWtminittee recognizes, the development rights plainly require ar.balancing, which prescrves the :scenic and open space value of the land, including its environmental integrity, while allowing for sonie agricultural production, The Land Preservation CornmitteCs request for niore information, including a visual impact study and a clarification about the intended trees of the barn, is well within its authority. The Board wisely supported the Cora tnittcc in these: requestsand should continue to do so. Notably, the development rights were purchased by the Town for the public's benefit. As a New York State appellatecourt recently explained in a case involving the purchase of development rights in aa,grict ltttral lands olsewhere in Suffolk County, such rights are part of the public trust and require the sanae level oFeare, protection, and attention as any other publicly protected lands. dee lscrrt�I Is'lond,Pine Barrens Socy., Inc. v. Srillblk County Legislature, 2018 N„Y, App. Div, l EE'XIS t563, 5-6(2d Dept., March 14, 20.18). The Town, though its Planning Board an(] Land Preservation Contrnitteee, sire obligated to protect these rights when considering any site plan approval. In particular,the definition of"agricultural production” in the Town Code explicitly excludes "land or portions thereof used for processing or retail merchandising of. . . crops, livestock or livestock products." § 70.3. That definition is incorporated into the deed restrictions imposed on the property. Thus, the applicant is prohibited irorrt selling or othcrwise merchandising any agricultural products or conducting any activities beyond growing or raising food in a manner that does not otherwise conflict see ith the deed restrictions, °Foo a Code.and other applicable requirements. Any approval considered hy they Board and ('r�rrnmittee shoold sanitation monitoring or pathogens into surface runoff and tlallock's Bay, as well as contribute an additional Nitrogen burden capable of promoting, harmful algal blooms. Nearly all the waters of Hillock's Bay are open for shellpsh harvest year round and Narrow River has improving water quality and pending consideration by the NYSDCC Shellfish Unit to restore it to seasonal harvest. Messrs. Wileenski, McCullough, and Domino April 16, 2018 Page 4 include conditions explicitly proscribing all such prohibited activities. The Board's let nests for Ittiftowmation to the ApTlic-ant Following the Planning Board's work session on January 22, 2018, the Board's staff produced a list of items the Plannint', Board is considering requesting from the applicant priorto re-opening the adjourned public hearing, Otir understanding is that the Board has not met since then to detertnine which of those items tile Board will, in fact, TCqLICSt. Nevertheless, the applicant has provided some inforniation, while objecting to other items oil the list Of po ciatia.l requests, When the Board ineds again to finalize its list ol'requests, presuniably in a work sessjona the [,Ioard should continue to insist upon a robust list of items, consistent with its potential list frown January, and not curtail its evaluation due to the recalcitrance ofthe applicant. Agricultural ]an(] uses are not entitled to as Iree pass from regulation; they warrant appropriate Scrutiny and regulation, as we believe the Board understands well. The Board should not let itself`be hamstrung by the absence ofinfiornlation it deems relevant to the application process. Among other things,the Board should request that the applicant clarify the intended uses for the property and specifically respond to the reports that his intention is to operate an agricultural event center on the property. While the applicant has stated that he intends to use the barn solely to Support his personal anirnal husbandry (for personal consumption) and not to support a commercial agricultural enterprise, previous statements in the media and on the ,Ipplicant's website (hater renloved) suggested his intention was to include an event venue on site. As the Coninii1tce has rioted, this would violate the deed restrictions and the Town-held development rights. The Board should request that the applicant explain this discrepancy. Furthermore, the Board should include in any approval reasonable conditions prohibiting such Uses. The Public 111caring As noted above, the re-opened public hearing should be held after the Planning Board has made a final determination as to the material it will request from the applicant and the applicant has provided that inl7orination. The public hearing will provide a vital opportunity for members of the Board to hear directly from all stakeholders and all interested members of the community before it deliberates on the application. Central to those deliberations should be the development of an appropriate set of conditions tai include in any approval. Our chents and avery large number ofolther `f own residents have expressed significant interest ill Supporting tile I`owns review of this proposal to ensure that it does not harm ticighbors. the C(ITIMILIllity 01- tile environment. Thank you for considering the above comments and for your important efforts to preserve and protect the character of Orient and its environs. Messrs. Wilcenski, McCullough, and Domino April 1 b, 2018 Page 5 S4erely' ,r Recd` . Super Mike DiGiulio Lanza, Heather From: Betty Satterwhite <basatterwhite@aol.com> r �,. Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 2:53 PM � To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Tenedios Barn Project �. Dear Members of the Planning Board My husband and I live on Narrow River Road and take frequent walks and bike rides along this beautiful road. It is known as the most scenic and lovely country road on the east end of the North Fork. To have a large farm with numerous animals and an extremely large barn would be a blot on this key attraction in the neighborhood. I am also concerned about the environmental impact on the nearby wetlands, marshes that feed into Hallocks Bay. It seems obvious that the run off from animal waste and the vehicle traffic from trucks and tractors can only be harmful to this unspoiled piece of nature. There will also be increased traffic on Highway 25. Do we need even more cars and trucks added to the ferry-passenger vehicles already clogging that road? Before allowing the construction of a commercial establishment that could easily be located elsewhere, please consider all the negative aspects of this proposed project. Sincerely, Betty Satterwhite 1225 Narrow River Road P.O. Box 121 Orient NY 11957 1 Lanza, Heather From: Isutter1245@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 3:33 PM �� To: Lanza, Heather I�<< "..""`" Subject: Tenedios Barn Project ' 6 Dear Ms.Lanza and Honorable Members of the Planning Board: �ovawna I am a residential property owner in Orient.I write in opposition to the above-referenced project. 1.Pollution.The environmental impact of this project on the Orient watershed and in particular, the Narrow River headwaters has been raised by numerous stakeholders.I wish to add a concern about air/odor pollution.Goats,for example,are smelly animals.The eastern portion of Orient lies downwind from this project throughout the summer(when the prevailing wind is from the southwest) and the village center and many residences lie downwind in the winter,when the prevailing wind is from the north.I have experienced odor pollution from livestock pens and storage facilities.It is not one I would wish to have replicated in Orient. 2.Functions.There seems to be little information about what uses would be made of the property in terms of tourism/visitors/events.In light of the Vineyard 48 fiasco surely everyone on the North Fork is acutely conscious of the dangers of nominally agricultural operations metastasizing into bars, nightclubs and party venues or their equivalents. 3. Traffic.Is this project is primarily designed to raise vegetables and meat for shipment?How much will be produced and how much truck traffic will that generate?Route 25 in the summer is overburdened already.Is it capable of sustaining this additional usage?Have any estimates been given by the applicant?If so, are they realistic?The issues raised in Point 2 above implicate serious traffic concerns as well. Orient's agriculture consists of family-run farms that leave the hamlet's quiet, quasi-rural atmosphere in place for year-round,seasonal and transient residents alike.The introduction of a large, commercial agricultural operation would,in my view,endanger,if nor severely damage,the quality, character and environment of the hamlet,and for that reason and those listed above I am opposed to it. Very truly yours, Laurence B.Sutter 1245 Narrow River Rd. PO Box 121 Orient,NY 11957 1 Lanza, Heather From: Adam Irving <adam'irvin @ ahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February Y 01, 20184:31 PM To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Tenedios Barn Project J Z " I As an Orient resident I am extremely skeptical of the Tenedios project. The project w W," °ii the direction Orient has been heading for quite some time. I am concerned about the animals mentioned and the runoff impact on our fragile waterways. I am also concerned that a large commercial venture like this will make the already crowded route 25 and Causeway even less safe. It is also difficult to trust the applicant given the issues with their paperwork submitted. Much has been left blank or answered in a way that is unlikely to reflect reality. I ask that the Planning Board grant hold this application to the strictest interpretation of Southold Code. Thank you- Adam Irving Orient, NY Sent from my iPhone i September 11, 2017 Heather M. Lanza,AICP Planning Director �' M Town of Southold a Southold, NY 11971 �ruttw�0� Tts �r� Rannirq Board.. Dear Ms. Lanza We are long time renters in Orient, 18 years this past summer and three years in Peconic prior. The North Fork and Orient in particular is heaven on earth to our family. When we saw the recent commercial sign of Fresh and Co. it really gave us pause.We felt it had no place, but understood they were growing produce. Now it has come to our attention that they are proposing significant changes, including a 9000 square foot livestock barn. It is our understanding that development rights on this land were sold to the Town in 2002 and that the deed now restricts uses that would"detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement."Apparently the plans for the proposed barn include the production of vegetables, raising dairy goats, pigs, sheep, and chickens. In addition the plan also indicates the intention to host tours, dinners, cooking classes, culinary educational programs, and a"local food and wine festival"on the property. It is also our understanding that such activities are not permitted on land where development rights have been transferred to the Town of Southold.We are troubled by the extent of possible non-agricultural usage in the presented plan.Why is this usage being considered? Also: Will animal wastes pose a hazard to Hallocks Bay? Will the wastes pose a risk to our well water? Isn't this land in the flood zone:what happens to waste if it floods? How will this project affect the wetlands on the property? How will it affect the nearby wetlands? What provisions are being made for animal wastes, and human wastes by farm workers? What will be stored in the barn and what safeguards are being planned in case of flood? If more water is being drawn to feed animals,will it lead to saltwater intrusion for the larger community? Will this barn be used to store equipment for use elsewhere? How can events and other non-farming activities be held on preserved land? We don't wish to see the Southold Community Preservation Project Plan chiseled away.The Stewardship Plan of the Town of Southold was adopted to maintain and protect Southold's rich heritage of open space and scenic and natural resources and historic places.This proposal seems like an major overstep. Sincerely, Blaise Hayward and Rebecca Nienkamper Michaelis, Jessica �.0) .. M r" . From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:51 PM J To: Michaelis,Jessica W, Subject: FW: Proposed Tenedios Livestock Barn, Orient NY For the mail tray- public input for hearing. -----Original Message----- From:JEANNE MARKEL [mailto:lm.markel@gmail.comj Sent:Thursday, September 07, 2017 1:34 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.nv.us> Cc: Chris Wedge <ichris.wedge@gmail.com>;Jeanne Markel <jm.markel@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Tenedios Livestock Barn, Orient NY Heather M. Lanza,AICP Planning Director Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Lanza, My husband and I have a house in Orient, NY. It has come to our attention that a hearing is to be held on a proposal to build a 9000 square foot barn to house livestock on the Main Road, next to Narrow River Road in Orient. Unfortunately we cannot attend this meeting but we wish to voice our concern about this proposal. It is our understanding that development rights on this land were sold to the Town in 2002 and that the deed now restricts uses that would "detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement." Apparently the plans for the proposed barn include the production of vegetables, raising dairy goats, pigs, sheep, and chickens. In addition the plan also indicates the intention to host tours, dinners, cooking classes, culinary educational programs, and a "local food and wine festival" on the property. It is also our understanding that such activities are not permitted on land where development rights have been transferred to the Town of Southold. We are troubled by the extent of possible non-agricultural usage in the presented plan. Why is this usage being considered? Also: Will animal wastes pose a hazard to Hallocks Bay? Will the wastes pose a risk to our well water? Isn't this land in the flood zone: what happens to waste if it floods? How will this project affect the wetlands on the property? How will it affect the nearby wetlands? What provisions are being made for animal wastes, and human wastes by farm workers? What will be stored in the barn and what safeguards are being planned in case of flood? If more water is being drawn to feed animals, will it lead to saltwater intrusion for the larger community? Will this barn be used to store equipment for use elsewhere? How can events and other non-farming activities be held on preserved land? 1 We don't wish to see the Southold Community Preservation Project Plan chiseled away.The Stewardship Plan of the Town of Southold was adopted to maintain and protect Southold's rich heritage of open space and scenic and natural resources and historic places. This proposal seems like an major overstep. Sincerely, Jeanne Markel Chris Wedge 100 Harbor Road Orient NY 11957 2 Michaelis, Jessica 'V hLI ---------- From: Deborah Marland <debmarland@yahoo.com> .............. Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 2:48 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: Fresh &Co (business profile) Please distribute this information to your board members. We should all know who we are trusting to be responsible for our wetlands, vistas and water table. Deborah Marland W( ` wi oer.- )/s/ aI�I R-- ow loses-6m-tax-break-over-claims-of-uppaid-wages.amp from my iPhone I 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-New York-DNAinfo ASTORIA&LONG ISLAND CITY(//WW W.DNAINFO.COM/NEW-YORK/QUEENS/ASTORIA-LONG-ISLAND-CITY) Business&EconomV(hwww.dnainfo.com/new-Vork/topics/business-economV) Food&Drink(Owww.dnainfo.com/new-york/topics/food-drink) Cafe Metro Owner Loses $6M Tax Break Over Claims i By James Fanelli(//www.dnainfo.com/new-york/about-us/our-team/editorial-team/fames-fanelli) I May 28,2015 7:25am @fanellijames(littp://twitter.com/fanellijames) IF W, p W N 01 �I '�// 7➢4'w� � i D� r 1 u ,o *Iwuu o K' y II it ii uu y; I I "Y 2K � s � I �r Steven Tenedios(right)poses with celebrity chef Dona Arpala at arr event For his casual-eating restaurant chain Fresh&Co. View Full Caption twitter/TheNYCalliance LONG ISLAND CITY---The owner of the Cafe Metro chain wants the city to dish out a $6 million tax break to him to build a food- preparation plant in Queens---but the hefty subsidy has been tabled after DNAinfo New York inquired about accusations that his company short-changed workers. https://www.dnainfo.corn/new-york/2015052-8/long-island-city/cafe-metra-owner-loses-6m-tax-break-over-claims-of-unpaid-wages 1/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-New York-DNAinfo The city's Industrial Development Agency(http://www.nycedc.com/nycida)was slated to vote next month on whether to approve a tax exemption for a subsidiary of ST Management,a company that owns and operates 25 restaurants under the names Caf6 Metro,Flavors, Food Exchange and Fresh Co(http://freshandeonyc.com/). But the IDA put the vote on ice after DNAinfo asked the agency about four lawsuits accusing ST Management and its founder and CEO, Steve Tenedios,of underpaying employees at the restaurants. More than two dozen food preparers,servers,cleaners and delivery people at ST Management restaurants have claimed Tenedios and his company have stiffed them on regular pay and overtime. Tenedios had submitted the application under the holding company 38th St.Bakery LLC,explaining to the IDA that he sought financial assistance in order to acquire,renovate and equip a two-story 2o,9oo-square-foot commissary in Long Island City (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/queens/astoria-long-island-city)that would prepare food for all the restaurants. In his application,Tenedios estimated the project would cost$11.9 million. He asked for$6.2 million in building,land and sales tax exemptions from the IDA,which helps city companies grow and create jobs in hopes of spurring economic development.The project was expected to benefit the city,earning it$13.4 million in indirect and direct taxes. The city's Economic Development Corporation(http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/tags/economic-development-corporation),which administers IDA,pulled the plug on the vote after DNAinfo's inquiry,but had started vetting the ST Management's application weeks ago. The EDC said that it tabled the tax break vote because Tenedios only mentioned one of the four lawsuits in his application. "The decision has been made to not present the application submitted by 38th St.Bakery, LLC,at the June NYCIDA Board of Directors based on the applicant's failure to provide complete and accurate information about its corporate history,"the EDC said in a statement. "We hold all NYCIDA applicants to the highest standards and will work with the applicant as this process continues." In P-olo more than a dozen Caf6 Metro employees filed a class-action lawsuit against him and ST Management in Manhattan Federal Court,accusing their employer of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. They claimed they regularly worked more than 52 hours a week,earning$8 to$9,but were never paid.While ST Management never admitted wrongdoing,the lawsuit was settled for$31,000,which was split among 17 workers. In June 2013,six former employees at the casual-dining chain Flavors also claimed in a Manhattan federal lawsuit that they did not receive proper minimum wage or overtime compensation despite working 50-plus hours. `U,IL,'lawsuit Laos dismissed in April 2014 after a settlement was reached.The terms of the settlement were not revealed.The plaintiffs' I , (IWVw'idnainfo.com/new-vork/) NEW YORK respon to request for comments. In November 2013, a food preparer at Fresh&Co and Food Exchange claimed he worked an average Of 5o hours per week,but was only paid for 40.The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2014 after the two sides reached a settlement.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. In March 2014,Jonathan Agramonte sued Caf6 Metro,ST Management and Tenedios,claiming he was hired as a delivery man at a wage Of$5.65 per hour.But Agramonte was rarely sent out on deliveries,where he would have earned tips,the lawsuits says. Rather he was relegated to in-house duties like preparing salads,washing dishes or cleaning,according to the lawsuit.When he complained about not being paid minimum wage,his boss transferred him to a job as a dishwasher at another restaurant location,where management refused to put him on payroll and pay him at the end of the week. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150528/iong-island-city/cafe-metro-owner-loses-6m-tax-break-over-claims-of-unpaid-wages 2/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-New York-DNAinfo The lawsuit was dismissed in June 2014 after a settlement was reached.The terms of the settlement were not revealed. ST Management and Tenedios did not respond to requests for comment. V Get our it Astoria&Long Island City news and alerts! Einad Addross z:111ii Subscribe By clicking subscribe,I agree to be bound by the and Privacy Policy(Iwww.dnainfo.com/new-Vork/about-us/privacy-politVl ........................._.__.............................. Recommended GREENPOINT.(Ill'TPS://WWW.DNAINFO.COM/NEW-YORK/BROOKLYN/Wll,T,IAMSBURG-GREENPOINT-BUSHWICK) Kosciuszko Bridge to be Blown to Bits at End of September,Police Say(http5:/www.dnainfo.com/new-Vork/20170908/greenpoint/kosciuszko-bridge-implosion- andrew-cuomo) WILLIAMSBURG-(HI'TPS://WWW.DNAINFO.COM/NEW-YO]tK/BROOKLYN/WILLIAMSBU)IG-GREENPOINT-BUSHWICK) f lhilh Dad Punches School Safety Agent in the Face on First Day of Classes:NYPD(http s:lwww.d nai nfo.com/new-york/201 70907/wil I iams bu rg/dad-pun ch-school- safety-agent-207-bushwick-ave-nypd) UPPER WEST SIDE-(HTTPS://WWW.DNAINFO COM/NEW-YORK/MANHATTAN/UPPER-WRST-SI DE-M ORNINGSI DE-HEIGHTS) Woman's Memories Erased After Near-Fatal Collision With NYPD Car(https:lwww,dnainfo.com/new-york/20170907/upper-west-side/pedestrian-car-accident- "Pall angela-sartin-hartung-jeff-hartung) V"�ar ,/"_,� CROWN HEIGHTS-(HTI'PS://WWW.T)NAINFO,COM/Nl�W-YORK/BROOKI,YN/CROWN-HEIGHT -PROSPiiCT-IMICHT�S-PROSPEC'I'-LEFFERTS-GARDENS) linh Apartments for$931 a Month Open at Crown Heights Homeless Shelter(https:iwww.dnainfo.com/riew-york/20170908/crowri-heights/affordable-housing- 11 1pf, 26 7-ro gers-h o m e less-s h elter) yo02e5Kr0908/croi hetghtq%ff6rdabIe- horWngi 267- rogers- homeless- ASTORIA&LONG ISLAND CITY /WWW.DNAIN FO.COM/NEW-YO RK/QU EENS/ASTO RIA-LONG-1 S LAND-CITY) shelter) Transportation(,Ywww.dnainfo.com/new-Vork/topics/transportation) Astoria FerrV Route Counts 28,000 Riders During First Week of Service By Jeanmarie Evelly(//www.dnainfo.com/new-york/about-us/our-team/editorial-team/jeanmarie-evelly) I September 8,2017 11:46am @jeamnarieevelly(http://twitter.coin/j eanm arieevelly) V 91 EZ 10+ https://www.dna info.corn/new-york/201 50528/long-isi a nd-city/cafe-metro-owner-loses-6 m-tax-break-over-cla ims-of-u npa id-wages 3/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid wages-Long Island City-New York-DNAinfo y01/J r � rim rnrlri�rrti i«r y is i/i 1 1 � ru �� i �� f� iii it Grier r io r /l � r d � ,r � � ✓ b. ��r, ✓/ , � , r /, i i � i� r ✓../ riiGr„ ,:,, � ,.. rf ../�. i... // r �, it ��i /� ..�1 r / r � r / �/�, � i ill ✓ R/:,,�/l/ ,�, v/I =, rry :/ ,rlO/.. � � �� /////lei/G,i4 ii�✓�� -,G ,,,,.� ✓/a%i i „✓/ ,.....„ >IY � � r. � i� ,rig r. � i.i v ,., /iii/„t.!r�i/ ,,, ,, v„ ':,, v ,,. ,,,,,.. �r/ .�� I ,// ,. � i .c r.i i �/. /r /ii%� ,,,,✓ ..,4' /,// ,,,, „�,, �;� :,:,ii/I�,ri l„ ,. l ✓ Ii,r / r( ��/ ll////irli E�l�. �Il..a, �. ��/9,Y1�4'II>rJii i„ ,,, ,,,; � a r„fir%Y rll��,. ,�I/ � ,l� i /��I ,,. (, ,.��i/,yl /%ii. ri 11;./.rr i„� '� � �lI z, ,l, ,`., i✓lf r�� ,l ,/,r ,,,, !%, .v 4r r�N�� ,�Ir,i„ � �; � •/. � .li i �� 1, ro,.?�ir� ii � i/// h oil --i✓/ ///9/ro/h�� r `�, � €;', � l � 1,,,9 � � //I ;7��ryyy,�r r� r1 r��,,../r/�.� ,,,,,,, r/i/�a,.rr ,,,i�li��iui/>,r,'% �«a��✓inn/EEr;,/�oi/r«u ,,, „„,v,�.,�r�aer�mviy»rr„r/,i„ ,../ ,.r,�ly;.a(�u�r��a�ld„� ��/�r��/„��,..... � /,,,,/,1��,. �;,,�,��, A NYE Fa:+V IboMO heads to Manhattan from Long Osllarrd City, 016PMPavima6e«s eHV HALLETS POINT—The newly launched Astoria NYC Ferry route(https://www.dnainfo.corn/new-york/2017o829/astoria/nyc-ferry- astoria-route-launch-aug-29)saw more than 28,DOD riders use the line during its first week of service—surpassing ridership on both the Rockaway and South Brooklyn ferry routes during the same period,according to the city's Economic Development Corp. (https://www.nycedc.com/) The Astoria route—which connects stops in Roosevelt Island,Long Island City,East 34th Street and Wall Street—counted 25,115 riders from Aug. 29 through Sept.5,including 6,200 on Labor Day alone.The EDC initially projected that the route would service 1,500 riders per weekday and 3,300 on weekends,according to a spokeswoman. 0, SEE T:NYC Ferry Service Launches New Astoria Route( s:// nainfo.cam / e y0r /2 17o29/as aria/rlyc-fer -as ria®rte to- a nc -a —2 The new line had more customers than both the South Brooklyn(https:// .dnainfo.com/new-york/20170407/red-hook/nyc-ferry- starts June-south-brooklyn-atlantic®basin-bay®ridge-pier-6)and Rockaway ferry(https://www,dnainfo.com/new- york/20170406/rockaway-park/rockaway®ferry-may-l-launch-date-cit de-ferry)lines during the same week,with 21,777 and 27,003 riders,respectively.The East Fiver route,which has been in service since 2011(https:// w.dnainfo.corn/new- york/20110601/downtown/east-river-ferry-se ce-launch-with-free-rides)through another company,saw the greatest number of riders that week,with 47,330 people taking the ferry. https://www.dnainfo.co /new-york/20150528/long-island-city/cafe-metro-owner-loses-6 -tax-break-over-claims-of-unpaid-wages 4/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-New York-DNAinfo Demand for the citywide NYC Ferry has been high since the system launched May i(https://www.dnainfo.com/new- york/201'7042'7/williamsburg/east-river-ferry-bought-nyc-ferry-east-river-route-commuter-boats)at the cost of$2.75 per ride,attracting crowds that have sometimes resulted in long lines and riders stranded on ferry docks. (https://www.dnainfo.com/new- york/2017o612/rockaway-beach/nycferry-hornblower-rockaway-route-wall-street-sunset-park-crowds)The system hit the 1 million ridership mark at the end of July(https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170726/long-island-city/astoria-feriy-route-launch-date- august),about a month earlier than projected,officials said. ► RELATED:Ferry Service Strained as Massive Crowds Flock to Beaches During Heat Wave (https:// .dnainfo.co /new-york/2017o6iz/rockaway-beach/nycferry-hornblower-rockaway-route-wall-street- sunset-park-crowds) ► LATED: LIC Commuters Fed Up With Crowds on'Less Reliable'East River Ferry Route (https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2o 17072o/long-island-city/east-river-ferry-nyc-ferry-complaints-hunters-point) A spokeswoman for the EDC said the Astoria line has been running smoothly so far,with the exception of a handful boats that reached capacity during peak times,including on Labor Day,when the system saw record-setting numbers. The city plans to launch additional NYC Ferry routes in The Bronx and the Lower East Side in 2018. (https://www.dnainfo.com/new- york/2017o811/clason-point/new-docks-nyc-ferry-service-south-Bronx-les-ues) Fares,which are heavily subsidized by the city,are$2.75 per trip.They allow a free transfer to other other NYC Ferry boats,but not to the MTA's subways or buses. 10+ Get our dally Astoria&Long Island City news and alerts! f M '11i 'd Ir M Zip Subscribe 6y clicking subscribe,I agree to be bound by the 7enrrs o_rf_Use�Ywww.dnainFo.mm(new_gork(abaut-us/terms acrd Privacll policy(jwww.dnalnPosom(new-kork(about-us(�ri_e .V-o6[y} �= Recommended GREENPOINT„(IITTPS://WWW.DN,UNFO COM(NEW-YORK/BROOK LYN/WILI.IAMSR 17 RG-G BEEN POINT-I3 USH WICK) Kosciuszko Bridge to be[clown to Bits at End of Septernber,Police SaV(https:/www.dnairifo,com/new-york/20170908/greeripoint/[<osciuszl<o-bridge-implosion- andrew-Cuomo) WI1LLIAMSBURG»(ll'lTPS://WWW.I)NAINFO.CCM/NisW-YORK/BROOKLYN/WII.LIAMSHURC-CRF.GNPCIN'I'-FYUSIIWICI(} Dad Punches School SafetV Agent in the Face on First Day of Classes:NYPD([ittps:iwww.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170907/williamsburg/dad-punch-school e safety-agent-707-bushwick-ave-nypd) UPPL:R WEST SIDE»OIrTPS://WWFV,DNAINFo.COM/NEW-YORK/MANHAl"I'AN/UPP1:R-wt.s'I'SIUL:-MORNINGSIUR lIEIGIII'S) Woman's Memories Erased After Near-Fatal Collision With NYPD Car(https:lwww,dfiainfo.com/new-york/201/090//upper-west-side/pedestrian-carraccident angela-sartin-hartung-Jeff-hartung) rf.. CROWN IIEICIITS.�(I TTl1S://WW\V.UNAINFO.COM/NEtV-YORK/BROOKLYN/CRO\VN IIEIGH"I'S PROSPECT IIL:IGIITS-PROSPI(I LC FF'ERTS-(3ARDENS) Apartments for$931 a Month Open at Crown Heights Homeless Shelter(htt s:lwww.dnainfo com/new york/20170908/crown-hei hts/affordable-housing- Ia(F 267-ragers-homeless-shelter) ga4t'atzV/d-u Un.dnainfI Bao rld R(k1aX&7D88/c roc huf ingb 267- NNJ YORK roger, horrlelpss- (https:.lwww.dnainFo.corri/new-york) shelter) https://www dnairlfo,com/new-york/2015052-6/Iong-island-city(cafe-metro-owner-loses-6m-tax-break-over-claims-of-unpaid-wages 5/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-New York-IDNAinfo DNAmfo is New York's leading neighborhood news source.We deliver up-to-the-minute reports on entertainment,education,politics, crime,sports,and dining.Our award-winning journalists find the stories-big or small-that matter most to New Yorkers. Terms of Use Vwvvw.dnainfo.com/new- york/about-us/terms) Privacy Policy(dwww.dnainfo.com/new- york/about-us/privacy-policy{ Copyright(0 2009-2017,DNAinfo. All Rights Reserved. NEWS FEATURES DNA!nfo FOLLOW US Arts&Entertainment hood-partners) Crime&Mayhern Education Food&Drink Health&Wellness(1vvvvvv,&EdriWatc8 n fony) Parenting&Schools Politics(Iwww.dnairifo.corTfIfieuipqbflf/fbpibV*bl(We*w,dnainfo.corn/new-york/columns/principal-of-weekI Real Estate(lwww.dnainfoTddEn"&WV@kkt(doiw*ahia6*ab4m/new-york/featu rgl`YinMbefi/wvvvv.cma info.cam/new-york/account/news-letter) Transportation cc rri/new-york/featu res/ch ristmas-gift-ideas-new-years-eve-party-cel ebrations-hanu k kah-nvc) Urban Animals Vwww driainfo.corri/new-Vork/topics/urbari-animals) Weather(#www,driainfo.com/i)ew-Voi,k/topics/weaLVier) rerrw.i of Use(hAtVVVV,dnainfo,com/nP.%A1 Vork/about-us/itenn'sl I:Jriv�.tcVl-'C)IiCV(IWrAl"i.drnaiiif(.�cosyilr)pw Voi,k/,7.ibout-ij5/fii,ivacy-I)olicy) Copyright(1)2009.2-017,DNAhifm Ali Righl.s Reserved https://www.dnainfo.cor,ri/new-york/20150528/long-island-city/cafe-metro-owner-loses-6rri-tax-break-over-claims-of-unpaid-wages 6/8 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$OMTax Break Over Claims ufUnpaid Wages Long Island City New York DNAinfo xupo:8wwwdnoinfo.onm/new-york/2O15o52eNunQ-ieend-uity/nooe-me\no-mwn*A"ees-6m-tmx-breek-ove^deimyuf-unpoid-wages 70 9/8/2017 Cafe Metro Owner Loses$6M Tax Break Over Claims of Unpaid Wages-Long Island City-Now York-DNAinfo h ttps://www.d na info.com/new-york/201 50528/iong-isi a nd-ci ty/cafe-metro-owne r-loses-6 m-tax-break-over-cla ims-of-u npaid-wages 8/8 370 Southview Drive Orient Point, New York 11957 September 10, 2017 . ., itroYll'KfJ� Mr. Don Wilcenski, Chairman Southold Planning Board 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Wilcenski and Member of the Planning Board: We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed construction of the Tenedios "agricultural"barn on the land formerly owned by our late neighbor and friend, Maureen Cullinane. Maureen would have been appalled at the proposed development. She thought she had secured it as permanent farmland for the type of small farmers who have historically typified the North Fork,with only limited residential use, on a retained parcel. The activities that are contemplated are not agricultural, but commercial. It is hard to believe that they are even consistent with the existing zoning laws, much less the use restrictions in Maureen's deed. She had reserved 5 acres to build her barn and residence, conveying the development rights to the other 29.5 acres: "The property is adjacent to, and in the vicinity of over 1000 acres of protected land. Maureen Cullinane proposes to construct an agriculatural barn and eventually her home on the 5-acre reserved area....The parcel is located on the Town's Community Preservation Plan under three different classification codes: agricultural preservation, lands of exceptional scenic value, and wetland protection....[After reviewing a prior development application and conducting field studies, The Committee decided that they would like to see less more preservation and less development on this parcel. That is, they wanted to make sure that as much agricultural land as possible was preserved, in addition to preservation of the scenic value of the parcel." [Opening Statement of Melissa Spiro, appearing on behalf of Dan Ryan, Chairman of the Land Preservation Committee, at the Council Meeting approving purchase of the development rights, 4/9/2002] The proposed building- to call it a barn is to ignore reality-- is not on the reserved parcel, but squarely in the middle of the restricted parcel, and clearly visible from the road, severely affecting the scenic value of the parcel in a way completely inconsistent with the terms of the deed and the understanding between the town and Ms. Cullinane. But even apart from that, there is not supposed to be any retail use of the premises. The property is not zoned for commercial use. So why are a culinary school, an event location, with wine tastings and a 42 car parking lot parts of the plan? Why are potential customers invited to a bonfire at the parcel on October 7, 2017 - assuming such a bonfire is even consistent with local law. Are these plans consistent with "agricultural", non-retail use? Do they have anything at all to do with residential use? Could they even be conducted on the reserved parcel, much less the restricted use parcel. The last thing Orient needs, and the last thing that Maureen would have wanted in seeking permanently to restrict the use of the land by way of her deed, is non-agricultural, non-residential, commercial use of the property. The raising of animals for milk, meat, and eggs on the property in the numbers contemplated complicates the proposal. Where will the waste from these animals go? How and where will the meat be processed? What sorts of traffic are contemplated in terms of retail and commercial vehicle use and what effect will that have on traffic on the main road? Why have no studies or inquiries concerning such matters been conducted or made? Finally what about the scenic value of the parcel, and effect of the proposal on the wetlands included in and abutting it, and the environmental effects on Hallocks Bay and the migratory birds and other species found there? The proposed developer gives both the LWRP form and the need for a thorough environmental review and assessment short shrift in these regards. The exceptional scenic value of the property appears not to have entered into any consideration whatsoever. On the LWRP form,various applicable use restrictions are marked "not applicable" without any explanation whatsoever. The wholly inadequate Short Environmental Assessment Form is similarly cavalier, asserting essentially that all environmental restrictions are inapplicable,with no explanation. There is nothing anywhere in the file about the scenic value of the property, although on the LWRP form, Policy 3, which is to "Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold" is marked "Not Applicable." Indeed, it obviously is not part of the proposal. But it is not only Town policy that must be considered here. Why has the commercial developer not complied with the requirements of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation? We refer in particular those found in Ch. 6, Part 617 regarding the State Environmental Quality Review that is required and the related procedures that must be followed whenever any project or physical activity that may affect the "use, appearance, or condition" of any New York State "coastal waters" or other "critical environmental area" requires the approval of any state or local agency. The wetlands on Narrow River Road and Hallocks Bay either abut or are part of this property. The effect of animal husbandry and associated animal waste on these areas and of the increased commercial traffic and of non-agricultural, commercial activity on the migratory birds and other species that live and pass through those areas should be evaluated by the relevant state and federal regulatory agencies. At a very minimum, approval of this proposal should not be given until (i) the community has a thorough understanding of exactly what the intended use of the property is and how that use is consistent in detail with deed restrictions on the use of the property and Maureen's intention in putting them in the deed, (ii) that the intended use is in fact consistent in every respect with the existing zoning laws applicable to the parcel, and (ii) that the proposed construction and business operations on the property comply with all environmental laws and rules relating to the property and all the surrounding coastal areas,wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive areas. The North Fork in general, and the Orient Point area "over the causeway" is a natural, indeed a national, treasure. Once corporate and commercial interests gain a toehold there, the character of the area will be changed, forever and irrevocably. That is what your decision here involves. There is much at stake, and no need to rush to judgment in making a decision about the matter before a thorough understanding of all the facts and law affecting the question is fully developed. We are confident that our friends, neighbors, and community feel the same way, and will, one way or another, make sure that occurs. Very Truly Yours, David Miller and Judith Scofield Miller Michaelis, Jessica ," I )7 From: Mary McfMorgan <mcfm.morgan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:53 PM To: jessicam@southoldny.gov; Michaelis,Jessica rld onSubJect: Planning Board Meeting on Fresh & Company Livestock Barn � om ;dF d,o r, Uoaj r.f.. ... Jessica, please giN-e to N-lart n Sidor and the other Planning 13oar.d members, thank. v/-OU, September 11,2017 Southold Town Planning Board Donald Wilcenski,Chair Pierce Rafferty William Cremers James Rich Marlin Sidor Dear Marty and fellow Planning Board Member, RE:Fresh&Company Livestock Barn Tom and I live across the road from the Fresh &Company farm. We are writing to oppose a 900 sq ft livestock farm building to be operated within 500 feet of wetlands, as sited by the petition of Fresh& Company (Tenedios)to the Southold Planning Board 6/26/17. We believe other types of farming, more consistent with Orient, are appropriate. But not an animal farm of pigs, sheep, chicken and cows, and not traffic clogging agro-festivals as quoted recently in the Suffolk Times. Tom and I, as you know, were early founders of Slow Food East End, and have life-long advocates of farmers markets,farmstands, school vegetable gardens and chefs featuring local produce. We both served on the board of the Peconic Land Trust,with a mission to support working farms. I also worked for 10 years at Cornell Cooperative Extension and helped start the SPAT program, educating the public about the benefits of shellfishing,and stopping negligent human impacts the cause polluting road run off and animal waste to get into our coastal waters, resulting in shellfishing prohibitions and beach closures. We both say"yes"to another farm, especially one that practices sustainable farming, and as the company's website promises"pure foods that are free from synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, pesticides and other additives." We say"yes"to classrooms for students to learn about fresh fruits and vegetables.We say"yes"to Fresh &Company supporting local family farms and sourcing food from other Long Island farms. But because of its proximity to wetlands, and the increased events of storm surges, extreme weather and warming coastal waters,we ask the Planning Board to consider: -limiting the number of meat animals,and not allowing beef cows or pigs,who are the most polluting; their manure contains nutrients which can run off into our already near-eutrofic wetlands and bays. We refer to a study of animal feeding operations and their impact on communities by the National Association of Local Boards of Health, Nutrient over-enrichment causes algal blooms, or a rapid increase of algae growth in an aquatic environment(Science Daily, n.d) Ammonia in manure causes oxygen depletion from water,which itself can kill aquatic life.Ammonia also converts into nitrates, which can cause nutrient overloads in surface waters (EPA, 1998), Manure discharge can contain pathogens such as E. coli. extremely hazardous to our surface waters. Fecal bacteria pollution in water from manure disposal through land application can also cause beach closures and shellfishing restrictions. It can leach into and contaminate our drinking water aquifer One pollution event from a pig farm could become a lingering source of viral contamination for groundwater(EPA, 2005). -requiring a livestock farming plan including feeding, veterinary program, and waste storage, containment units and management of malodor air emissions and insect vector control. We would like to request public comment as part of your regulatory plan. -limiting the size and number of"special events" as Orient is the tiny tippy end of our island, and is already adversely impacted with car and truck traffic from an expanded ferry service, creating dangers for bicyclists, runners and pedestrians alike. 1 We ask you to consider an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and in the case of surface and ground water, once polluted there may be no cure. Sincerely, Mary and Tom Morgan 855 S.View, Orient, NY Mary Foster Morgain Co-LeAde,r, NY-Long Island East Chapter Citizens Chimater Lobby SOO+Lru.,al 40,720 Lcttcrs to 1.392 Uvwr/�Jl's CCIIA Visiow W( 'kV'ffl parSl$a cart ion ffi-biff in 2017. 1130 Box 511 Onent, INcw York.11957 631-259-1.591. -------------------------- 2 Michaelis, Jessica �1 I I� r From: Deborah Marland <debmarland@yahoo.com> ��. z Sent: Monday, September 11 2017 4:10 PM , Se p r To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: Fresh & Co. a ` r Pig°�rxir& P�aiiur Fresh &Co. proposed use of land on Narrow River Road is the very definition of Commercial use.The development rights were sold to the town years ago for a hefty sum and remain in place for perpetuity.Just because Mr.Tenedios has overlooked the development restrictions on his land does not mean that Southold Town should as well. Furthermore I urged you to look at the Fresh & Co.track record of 4 law suits that I have heard of. (see Metro Cafe print out in your folders)Then consider if this company should be entrusted with the health and well being of our precious and delicate eco system ?Our wetlands ?Our vistas?Our tranquillity? Our fresh air? Our values ? Or are they bringing the very thing we escaped from busy towns, city and south shore ? Does this kind of development have a place in our farming and fishing village ? Our"Hamlet" ? Deborah Marland Sent from my Whone Southold Town Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 SEP 1 5 2017 September 11, 2017 Southold Town Planning Board Dear Board Members: We have owned property in Orient for over 15 years and have always enjoyed Orient's quiet beauty and non-commercial nature, something that is increasingly hard to find in this busy world in which we live. We are very concerned about the proposed Tenedios Agricultural Barn. We say this being customers of Fresh & Co in New York City and applauding their commitment to farm fresh products. We welcome their ownership of a typical farm on the North Fork to supply their stores, an extension of the farm to table movement we support. However, this proposal is far more than that. As you know, a host of issues have been raised about the potential dangers to this precious and sensitive area from livestock and related activities. There are many issues related to the risks to well water in the area, its effect on the wetlands, and the impact of animal waste to this area. We are extremely concerned about Fresh & Co's plans regarding a food and wine festival. This kind of event will likely generate huge interest, resulting in large numbers of cars and people coming into Orient on increasingly crowded roads. We already have to deal with the traffic and backups resulting from the seasonal crowds that come to the Lavender Farm in East Marion and other agritainment events along the one lane roads we depend on. Our understanding is that this kind of event is not allowed on preserved land. Past the clear environmental issues and regulatory restrictions that should be adhered to, we do not want Orient to be turned into a congested, transient filled town. We want controlled growth and support local businesses of all types, but,this is something different, and may well spoil an idyllic and special place. It is our hope that the Planning Board will propose that an environmental study be undertaken to examine the impact of Fresh & Co's plans, and that such a large event as a festival be firmly denied. I am sure that the vast majority of Orient residents would not be happy to play host to the crowds, noise, traffic and other derivative issues that would result from such an event. Sincerely, Esther and Steve Rotella 830 Poquatuck Lane Orient Michaelis, Jessica l From: Regina Ebel <rebelgilson@gmail.com> 1 l Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:04 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica LSEPIW Cc: Russell, Scott Subject: Re: Orient ag land. Sauji OILJ Town Plannirq Board The 9/11 meeting was great. I hope that the town officials are listening we need to stop this &all future projects that do not abide by the laws set at the time of DRS. Regina Ebel Sent from my iPhone >On Sep 11, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Regina Ebel <rebelgilson@smail.com>wrote: >Good morning. > My name is Regina Ebel, I am a resident &tax payer&voter from >Orient Village. I would like to state my opposition to the proposed > use, of the Orient preserved farm land, by the group from Fresh &Co. > I could go on &on with a very long note, but will keep this simple & >to the point. >The town of southold has to make sure that the right thing is done, do > not allow the commercialization of preserved land. We do not need another Harbes like spot. > Regina Ebel >Sent from my iPhone i Michaelis, Jessica From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:54 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: FW: re Fresh &Co.'s proposed livestock expansion on Narrow River Raa � L;. E �JU 12 2017 Southold Town From:Jane Lear [mailto:ianelear@gmail.com] Planning;Board Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:28 AM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: re Fresh &Co.'s proposed livestock expansion on Narrow River Road Dear Ms. Lanza, My husband and I bought a second home on Cedar Birch Lane, in Orient Point, almost four years ago. Since then, it has become our primary residence. My husband works full-time out here as a horticulturalist, and, as an independent writer and editor with expertise in sustainable agriculture and food systems, I can work remotely. A big part of why we have become year-round residents and grown roots in the community so quickly is the natural beauty of the maritime ecosystem. It is, in short,priceless, and we appreciate everything the Town of Southold and organizations such as the Peconic Land Trust have done to preserve it. That said, it is with great sadness that we read about the proposed expansion by Fresh & Co. I know NIMBY arguments are tricky ones, but the fact that the preserved land in question is in a floodplain should immediately make it off limits to any sort of scaled-up livestock operation. And we were absolutely stunned to learn that a SEQRA submission would not be required. I've toured numerous pig and chicken farms of various sizes in Iowa, California, and North Carolina, and I can tell you there is going to be hell to pay on a number of environmental levels. If the North Fork powers-that-be are serious about creating agritourismo opportunities for the farmers and other producers who live here, I can tell you, based on 30 years of experience, that this is not the way to go. Unfortunately, I will be traveling on business early next week and will miss the meeting Monday evening, but I wanted to register our strong opposition to Fresh & Co.'s plan. It will destroy one of the most spectacular, pristine, and invaluable stretches of the North Fork. and once it's gone, it's gone forever. Sincerely, Jane Lear 917.365.0235 ianelearCtv'gniail.corn ianelear.com P.O. Box 148 Orient, NY 11957 i SEP 12 2017 This developer has already flaunted many rules you are supposed to en 1,11huldTown While this application has been pending, the applicant has moved in Torre-5�'?Board buildings. Last week they moved in a tenth. The last with windows. I know goats are very intelligent but never knew they liked to live in buildings with windows. Of course we always know goat keepers do need windows in their living quarters. All these buildings are very carefully under 100 sq ft in order to not violate town code. Brush has been cleared within the last 20 days in violation of your rules. Fences have been erected and spy cameras installed. All of this while your signs are posted explicitly outlawing such activity. I know that agricultural buildings are permitted on preserved land when needed for agriculture. But a 9000 sq ft concrete floored, windowed steel building with cupolas beggars belief as far as agriculture is concerned. What is this building for? What is to be housed in it? What will be stored in it? Many of us believe this building is to be used for Agritainment. Fresh & Co has promoted until this day that they plan to have a cookout and bonfire on this property October 7t". We have been told by Town officials that this will not be permitted. Yet we have no indication the applicant has displayed good faith and canceled this event. Fresh & Co has made no bones about their intent to hold cooking classes, wine and cheese festivals and other public events on this protected land. This is a travesty. We in Orient will not stand by and let this destruction of our wetlands and our Hallocks Bay happen. We will fight it with everything in our legal power. But we don't want to fight the Town as well. We want you to stand up and simply say NO. SEF' � � 2011 Southold Tovrri Plannino Board _ My name is Richard Leslie. I have lived in Orient my entire 78 years.-•-Pvty-fa"l settled in Oysterponds 300 years ago. My family are Lathams, Kings, Youngs, Terrys, etc. Our families have been excellent stewards of this pristine community all this time. My great grandfather Charlie Young dug all the mosquito ditches in Broad Meadow in the 20s and early 30s. My uncle Ed Latham put up the dikes around Broad Meadow, Narrow River and Hallocks Bay after the second devastating hurricane in five years inundated our town with salt water in 1946 and 1947. These ditches and dikes protect us all to this day. And they were done without any Federal, State, County or Town funding. They put our family in debt for a decade. My uncle Ed Latham a lifelong farmer purchased Broad Meadow from the Heath family estate in the early 70s with the sole idea of protecting it forever. The state subsequently took it by eminent domain with the idea of protecting it in perpetuity. Broad Meadow covers both sides of Narrow River Road. It is the nursery that provides the beginning of life to Narrow River and thence to Hallocks Bay and beyond. We knew its value and importance 300 years ago. We knew it when I was a kid three quarters of a century ago. And we know it now. Without this salt meadow our way of life here will certainly end. You will never again witness the myriad sea life that has sustained us. Soft shell clams (now gone), scallops (now mostly gone) fiddler crabs, blue crabs. This is the nursery for bluefish and the eT rTre%i i m t4 in -1II Southold Town. And the =n +i+-.�fir nr '--•t./ . l,=� nirrr�Fn kl r^ vc-Ar from Gllatamala and Honduras will be goneBrc, .J 11nz_. - r -1----1— _ �..,r,.�..^nt. rJi.F. ..r...... ;,. �t _� 111/•� 11 -v1 -.. J _- 1i 1• _ 1 C 21 To the Planning Board: Sosu(NM Town Planning 3n-ard I regret being unable to appear before you in person to express my feelings about Fresh& Co. Family medical issues requiring long-scheduled doctor visits up island must, however,take precedence. Admittedly, I have not given serious study to the issues at hand, but I am quite certain you will hear much about them, both pro and con, from others present here this evening. What concerns me is the creeping erosion that I have noticed in the 25 years that I have called Orient my home. Orient is a precious and unique gem. There is no place like it on Long Island. But, people keep trying to tarnish that gem in ways that would utterly destroy it's matchless charm. For example, I cite the repeated attempts to ease the way for increased ferry traffic to and from the Point. Happily, much, but not all, of that has been controlled. A year or so ago there was even a proposal to permit greater heavy truck traffic on our small main road leading to the ferry. The proposal, which was subsequently defeated, came from the State of Connecticut, which had hoped to relieve some of the constant cumbersome commercial trucking that traverses 1-95 in that state, by permitting greater truck traffic on the ferries from Orient to New London. Ironically, that proposal was being floated at the same time the State of New York was touting this area of the North Fork as the perfect place for family day trippers wishing to give their children a taste of the tranquillity of a rare lifestyle held over from an earlier day. Hard to see much of that bygone time and place when your car is stalled in traffic behind an enormous eighteen-wheeler carrying goods to New England. I have no quarrel with Fresh& Co.'s plans to grow vegetables and breed farm animals in and around a proposed barn, so long as their plans and uses adhere to existing restrictions. However, a "local food and wine festival", complete with"Fall Harvest Cookout and Bonfire" seems utterly ridiculous and out of place. There is but one main road through Orient. We all recall what occurred only recently when the Lavender Farm in East Marion was literally invaded by enormous crowds on several weekends when the lavender was full bloom. Cars and crowds made passage thru the area not only restrictive but downright dangerous should an emergency have occurred anywhere east of the blockade. One can only visualize a similar situation as crowds descend upon a"Fall Harvest Cookout and Bonfire". I could go on, but you get my point. I ask that you think of what the Town of Southold, let alone the people of Orient, need and deserve. The area is a beautiful treasure. I knew the property's past owner Maureen Cullinane well. She understood what Orient represented and well-knew it's unique place not only in history but in today's world. The thought of crowds trampling through all that she held dear is heartbreaking. You are the keepers of something extraordinary. Yes, allow progress, but do so in a way that the special beauty that is Orient is not destroyed by encroaching traffic and crowds. Once it is gone, it cannot be resurrected. Use your good judgment, come down on the side of better angels and do the right thing. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen Mitchell fi" Michaelis, Jessica From: Leslie Cohen <lesliecohen207@gmail.com> _ Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:26 PM D To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: Tenedios Agricultural Barn comments for 9/11 meeting� g g SEP 12 2017 Southold Town Jessica- Planning Board I was at tonight's meeting and in respect to what was requested I did not share my thoughts due to redundancy and time constraints. What I had prepared is below and I would very much appreciate it if this could be filed along with other letters and comments. Thank you very much- September 11, 2017 1455 Narrow River Rd Orient NY 11957 Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE: Tenedios Agricultural Barn To the Planning Board: My name is Leslie Cohen and I live on Narrow River Rd. Like so many here tonight I would like to register my opposition to to what has been put forth by Fresh and Co and what the Planning Board is reviewing. While I concur with what everyone here has been sharing, I would like to add my own perspective - related to my recent purchase and construction of my house on NRR. In that process, we had to adhere to a host of regulations related to our proximity to wetlands. And while these requirements were not always convenient, in fact quite inconvenient at times, we first and foremost, recognized our responsibility to the preservation of the surrounding areas, and specifically, the precious wetlands. To think that a private business may somehow be allowed to sidestep these regulations and protections is incredibly concerning - not to mention what a potentially devastating precedent this may set. This, along with how the restrictions set forth in the deed in regard to the protection that has been put in place to preserve the properties scenic value, only makes me question why this is all even being considered. It is my hope that the planning board puts significant time into researching the potential harm this request poses and examines closely what the dangers Fresh and Co's idea of entertainment will bring to the town of Southold. In 10-20-30 years let's look back on the decision and feel proud not ashamed. Thank you- z g� ---_ N K41or- CD ----, C - 7 CCD. 1+ z z ro — - - o v` ID a 'd o p p C G. pi 'L1 qq p 'r. . p m N N O phi '+ O C _ 0F0 V- a ~ 0 W CD w , R. p p oho -0 cn m o � _ � o 00 w * Iv n= o v Z I r O EI®M®®❑ x ogaoQa � c Az, m ?:rn, m 4 � a ori w f l d n a in fTl ey -� cn cn 0 9 (C) Za o n - m —1 W [b• a - t D o (D CoE r p f2 s} _ $ F U'. 4' O -8 a sg 4 .;,o -- � ^ - D 1P. co ,r, •: r �s •. —• rLo r (31 CTI -, _ • r � w F r� P• Ate~ r EE k alf+ Fy v rn M T � 0 z on m0 v � o r a rn 4 'r 4 .0 y , f a' s a Z 0 - —n r c Z Fn Z z ° o --Io m � ° C 1` ,•i Z O •, ' m sa'•�� "t .y ,a • r� .�. op Io .°ter 1 l e, It OFN El Ra„ ' 8j N w N 4 J Y M 0 > Zg 0 a •ti x _,p. .�. g � N O 1 L' t M 809d -;PMIRA3 WWA8 M PUP+WOO lasodsFL7 JaMmelseM-ioj Al111+7e11nS laa-!ed Z-9 a.nAig V a� v m `w C 41 MC IV �i §; fam — S e vm g m r. G7 - - m z 0 'Z'9 am6iof noj sl eua p asayg 10 Lpee to uoqWildde eta 6wMe048 6wdden 1, 0 lU 00 CD PJd Er En CD l V ID :' , C pp:J ►' � T 1" - z 4 7 " R, .. N. h. N. n n o n r c n O r 7^ A- t 7 n• r � 2 ~ - n ^ " a- � V. cr O r, 0 n n� r � a 0 c n r J UD O ae 14 � S G 7 r1 r f N C W u i S G n �" • off a 511 iia .I � • �~��'��s�J ,•�`:�� .• •. � g+l��E3 S " G 1 0° 6a4 • •,• CD • • � O O (D iQ Y ° d.Bagj E1�Q.�4AV I � ' �' ►per I � 00 00 o 00 r PqL Dig rn CI o \ M N 60 @ CD LCD an. co I �d fl ��y • w W 0 �D E (p w mac"• ♦ I ro � °° I I• �. u 7 Y . . O 01 _®J � � a w 6 m P.O.Box 282,Orient,NY 11957 presideaon.orgu SEP 12 2011 Orient Association Statement on the Tenedios Site Plan south a Town Planning Board Meeting September 11, 2017 Piwflimi Board My name is Bob Hanlon. My wife and I own the property immediately across Main Road from the Tenedios farm. But I am here tonight, not as an individual,but as the President of the Orient Association. Because this project may have a significant impact on our groundwater, our bays, our scenic viewshed, all the people of Orient, and all the people of Southold, are affected neighbors. At this time, the Orient Association is not taking a position for or against this project. We rarely weigh in on individual projects,unless they appear to have a broad impact on the community as a whole. We are committed to ensuring that the community has full and accurate information about issues that affect Orient.And we urge our elected and appointed officials to make decisions based on a full record, especially when those decisions can have broad and lasting impact on our hamlet and the Town. The proposal under consideration currently lacks that full and accurate information. The site plan submitted seeks to authorize a fairly large structure on land that had its development rights transferred to Southold. That transfer imposed significant restrictions and covenants on that land. The proposed structure will house a substantial amount of livestock, including meat and dairy goats, pigs, sheep, and chickens. This is a type and level of use that is new to this property. This land is especially sensitive because it contains wetlands. It is part of a New York State designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Long Beach Bay(also known as Hallocks Bay) and the State owned tidal wetlands along Narrow River. It is also adjacent to a New York State designated Critical Environmental Area, Hallocks Bay. These are fragile ecosystems that are crucial to the health of our broader marine ecosystem and to the shellfishing industry in our community. There is grave concern in the community that the proposed use could damage those wetlands and waters because of the wastes generated by a livestock operation. There is also concern that the water needed to support this proposed use may affect the aquifer and increase saltwater intrusion. There is concern that the size and location of the proposed structure may seriously impair the scenic view,which is required to be protected under the restrictions in the deed. The Planning Board has determined that this project should be considered a SEQRA Type II action, which waives the need for study on the range of issues affecting the environment and community character. This decision may have been prompted by the information submitted by the applicant, some of which is materially inaccurate or incomplete. For example: Orient Association o P5 — Policy 11 — "Promote sustainable use of living marine resources . . ." Answer: "Not applicable;"but potential wastewater and flooding concerns can affect living marine resources, especially in areas protected under two State designations, so the question needs to be addressed. • On the Short Environmental Assessment Form o P2 — Q7—1s the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area?"The answer given is "No;"but it does adjoin a listed area, Hallocks Bay. o P2 — Q10 — "Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply?"Answer: "Yes, Existing private on-site well;"but there is no indication if that is adequate for additional uses proposed. o P2 — Q11 — "Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If no, describe the method for providing wastewater treatment." Answer: "No, Non-require at present [sic]." However,both animal and human generated wastewater must be handled; this requires an answer. o P3 — Q18 — "Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of water or other liquids?" Answer: "No."Again,there is no indication about what will be done with wastewater or floodwater when it occurs. This needs to be addressed. Other documents associated with this land make clear that there are additional issues that need to be addressed before the suitability of this proposal is decided. Nearly two decades ago, the Town of Southold placed this land in its Community Preservation Plan and targeted it for a purchase of the development rights. In 2002, at a hearing before the Town Board on the proposed purchase of those rights, Land Preservation Director Melissa Spiro pointed out that the land needed to be preserved for three reasons: agricultural preservation,lands of exceptional scenic value, and wetland protection. [Preservation file, Page 331. The Town proceeded with the purchase. The purchase deed forbids, in perpetuity, any uses that would"detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement." [Deed Pages 6-7; File Pages 61-2]. Finally,the uses proposed in the application submissions only relate to crops and livestock. In fact,the applicant claims accessory uses are not applicable. However, representatives of the owner have made public statements to the contrary. In an article in the August 4, 2017 Suffolk Times,they stated that they would be hosting tours, dinners, cooking classes, culinary educational programs and a local food and wine festival on the property. On the website of Fresh&Co (www.freshandco.com),the restaurant chain owned by the applicant, they are advertising a "Fall Harvest Cookout and Bonfire"to be held on the Fresh &Co Farm on October 7, 2017. 3 ` Attn: Southold Planning Board 7SE017 Southak,Town inn Qoard Re: Tenedios and Fresh and Co application to build livestock farm on`preserveti`` oar --~- land at 28410 Main Road, Orient, NY. My name is Maria Cartagena and I have a home in Orient located adjacent to this farm on 27754 Main Road. I bought this property 4 years ago, but before buying property here I had been coming out to this area for the past 8 years as a renter. We chose to buy the property we own precisely because it was surrounded by farmland. We wanted the tranquility and the lovely view corridors our location provides. Having lived across two farms for the past four years, I have gotten to know that farming can be a bit messy and I easily put up with the dust and noise of water pumps and workers on Latham's farm which is in front of my property. I know Danny Latham and buy his fruits and vegetables as long as his stand is open. Helen Hooke, my neighbor, and I even make Strawberry Ruhbarb Jam together and we make sure to drop off a jar of our home made jam for Danny at his stand every Spring;) When we bought the home we live in now, Maureen Cullinane came over with a dozen of her eggs from her chicken farm and we became friends. We even hired her company, Good Gardens, to work on the landscaping of our large yard. We were very sad to hear about her passing. We were delighted to know someone new bought the Farm last year and was going to keep the farm going. I have even gone into a Fresh & Co. store in New York and proudly ordered a Salad knowing that it literally came from my back yard. I'm not an expert on development but I am a journalist and have written several business books. Having read the application and reviewed the proposed barn plans I have many questions that don't seem to be addressed properly in Mr. Tenedios application like for example: • Will the animal wastes pose a hazard to Hallocks Bay? • Will the wastes pose a risk to our well water? • Isn't this land in the flood zone? What happens to waste if it floods? SEP Y 2 ZOV September 11, 2017 Protest of Proposed Agri-tainment Notes Southold Town Flannitin Board My name is Thomas Foster and I live at 21165 Main Road, Orient, immediately across from Latham's Farm Stand. We look south toward the bay over 30 acres of crops. There's dirt and mud in the early spring, dust and fertilizer in the late spring, constant traffic in the summer, ugly stubble after harvest and noise all year around. Yet the scenic viewshed and the open space provide unrivaled vistas. We know from this personal experience that reasonable agricultural use and scenic beauty can be mutually re-inforcing. We are pro-farm. Mr. Latham, however, is farming on land with development rights intact. Neither he nor the landowners, the Tuthill family, have entered into agreements which limit or curtail the use of this land. That is not the case with the property in question tonight. My focus will be on the Development Rights contract between the Town of Southold and Maureen Cullinane approved by the Town Board on April 9, 2002 and recorded in a deed dated May 22, 2002. This deed specifically curtails and limits the use of this property. The deed provides that: "Use of this property shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement. This covenant shall run with the land in perpetuity." (Deed, pages 6 and 7) These sentences seem perfectly clear, but a quick review of the context of the agreement will show unequivocally that these words mean exactly what they say in the strictest sense. Our community recognized the beauty of this land and its vulnerability over 40 years ago. On May 22, 1974 the town and the then-landowner, the Youngs family, entered into a scenic and conservation easement which promised to Southold citizens the enjoyment of the vistas provided by the farm. When the family sold the property to Maureen Cullinane on February 12, 2001, for$490,000, this easement lapsed. Everyone wanted to know, what was Ms. Cullinane going to do? At first she proposed a modest development consisting of four lots and significant preserved acreage. According to the records of the town board meeting held on April 9, 2002, Southold Town rejected her initial proposal. As Melissa Spiro, representing the Land Preservation Committee, testified, "the Committee decided they would like to see more preservation and less development on this parcel. That is, they wanted to make sure that as much agricultural land as possible was preserved, in addition to the scenic value of the parcel." Ms. Spiro went on to state that"the [development rights] proposal we have before you tonight ... does meet the goal of both increased agricultural and scenic development rights easement." The town agreed to pay Ms. Cullinane$425,000. That is, Southold Town and Ms. Cullinane agreed that the sale of these rights would reduce the value of the property by 86%. At the meeting Dick Ryan, chairman of the Land Preservation Committee, added: "This is probably the most challenging, the most intensive negotiation we have experienced thus far with repeated visits to the property by members of the committee and a lot of conversations with the Planning Board, Planning staff, attorneys, brainstorming in our own committee. It is a fantastic success." Ms. Cullinane concurred, commenting that those representing the town were"extraordinarily hard working, patient and tenacious... and I am proud and pleased to live in a community that has volunteers doing this kind of good work." If this had been a simple sale of development rights for agricultural purposes, there would have been no need for so many site visits or such challenging, intensive negotiations. Obviously the key element in the determination of the restrictive language of the agreement, and of the purchase price, was the open space component. Ms. Cullinane gave up $425,000 in development rights—almost all the market value of the property just over a year after her purchase for$490,000. In return, she deeded to her neighbors perpetual enjoyment of the parcel's scenic beauty. To repeat, she agreed that the"use of this property shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect[its] open space and scenic value." As it happens, Mr. Danny Latham, our farmer neighbor, also farms on this property, and I have never heard any objections to his husbandry. His use has not detracted from or adversely affected the farm's open space and scenic value. The proposal before you tonight requests permission to radically alter this use in contravention of the clear language of the deed, Unlike most contracts, development rights contracts have a third party. All of us in this room are partners to this contract. Ms. Cullinane did not only pocket$425,000 in tax money, she also received a perpetual guarantee that her annual property taxes would be reduced to reflect the sacrifice of her ability to use or abuse the land however she wanted. By 2003 her property taxes were 50% lower. Now, as we all know, when the taxes on this farm are cut in half, the town budget isn't reduced: the Oysterponds School District, the Orient Fire department, the Orient Mosquito District, Truman's Beach, and the Floyd Memorial Library don't get less money. Rather, taxes on all the rest of us go up. We happily agree to this as long as we get what we are paying for. Since 2002 and in perpetuity we are collectively paying thousands of dollars extra a year to insure that the"use of this property shall be conducted in a manner that does not detract from, or adversely affect[its] open space and scenic value." This is a guarantee we would like this Board and this Town to re-affirm tonight. September 11, 2017 SEP 12 2017 Southold Tavia Dear Mr. Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Bo rd, PlannirrpBoard My name is Chris Novak. I am a long-term, full-time resident of Orient. My property overlooks the farm in question — one of the most ecologically critical sites in on the North Fork, the linchpin of the drainage system that becomes Narrow River and flows to Hallock Bay. Maureen Cullinane became a real farmer, and a real pillar of the Orient community. Her farm, her corner of Narrow River, is sacred ground to hundreds of us who live here. Mr. Tenedios is a Fake Farmer hiding behind a slick corporate brand Fresh & Co. This farm, R stunts by an aggressive, cynical corporation that shows no intention of respecting the community and its laws. Gentlemen of the Planning Board, please tell Mr. Tenedios that we are not fooled. We know what "field kitchens" are...restaurant-like celebrity event spaces. We know what a Barn can hold. We know that cute animals are just a ruse. This is how you build a Fake Brand. But brand trust is a fragile thing, and if you lie, if you violate what you stand for by soiling this particular land, and our groundwater, and our wetlands and our bays, the Orient community will publish the truth about Fresh & Co. not just regionally but nationally. This application, in particular, is outrageous, and it openly mocks us. Mr. Tenedios mocks every single person in this room, and every one of us who've worked so hard together to build this community and its Character: - Planning Board - Land Preservation Board - Zoning Board - Trustees - The Supervisor and the Town Board - Agriculture and Architectural review boards etc - DEC - Suffolk County Department of Health NYS Park Administration - Peconic Land Trust - Group for the East End - North Fork Environmental Counsel - Peconic Green Growth - Orient Association - Citizens of Orient and Southhold Town o Real farmers who have worked the land since the 1700's o Everyone who fishes, clams, scallops and oysters and hunts in Hallocks Bay o Every person who walks runs, rides or drives scenic Narrow River Road. o Everyone who goes to the beach, walks their dog at the potato dock o Everyone who boats on Hallock Bay o Everyone who goes to Orient State Park o Homeowners on every side. Mr. Wilcenski, members of the Planning Board, this application as submitted, is not appropriate in Orient. If it is not withdrawn, please deny it. We owe it to all those who worked hard to protect this property in the first place and to the legacy of Maureen Cullinane. Thank you, Submitted by: Chris Novak, resident of Orient, P.O. Box 398. To: The Southold Town Planning Board fSEP 1 2 2.U 1 Ii From: Colleen McDonough and Helen Hooke '27752 Main Road,Orient,NY ��' , September 6,2017 We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed 9,000 sq/ft barn on Maureen C ullinane's former property to house dickens,goats,sheep,and for storage of feed,supplies, and farm equipment Fresh&Co.,the company that the owner of the property owns,has also stated,in a press release dated August 1,2017,that the building and property will also host events significant in scale,including"tours,dinners,cooking classes,culinary education programs,and local food and wine festivals"on the location. The Town of Southold paid Maureen Cullinane$425,000 of taxpayer funds and"listed it on the Town's Community Preservation Project Land as property that should be preserved due to its agricultural value,in addition to its scenic value and its proximity to wetlands,"a quote from Resolution#208 adopted by the Town Board m 2002. When we received the official notice from the Town Planning Board of the application,and then pieced together the 2 page map to get a clearer understanding of the size and location of this huge structure,we realized this was no ordinary local community farm_ This is clearly a large scale commercial operation. Apparently the applicant was granted a SEQRA Type 2 status. This exempts the owner from a more detailed environmental review. Did the Town Board know of the mons for use by the owner? The application filed by the owner,when asked about the proposed use says it is purely agricultural. When asked whether the proposed use would"minimize environmental degradation from solid waste,"responded"Not Applicable". Again,when the application asked whether the property bordered a Critical Environmental Area,the response on the application was"No:' When asked about whether the`proposed action would result m a substantial meas m traffic," the application said"No." How could the environmental impact of an indeterminate amount of livestock,chickens,and possible tourism be"Not Applicable?" Hallocks Bay is a beautiful asset to Southold Town. Those of us who have enjoyed swimming, shellfishing and hiking there know that it is a valuable public resource. What the public enjoys could be in danger if this application is approved,became of the critically sensitive levels of nitrogen already measured m Hallocks Bay. Any more nitrogen and phosphorus than is currently produced could doom the wagers to algae and cause the death of the natural ecosystem there. The Narrow River is directly adjacent to this property,and the river feeds right i%Hellocks Bay. The wetlands which drain directly into the Narrow River are actually on the property. The water table is so close to ground level on this property that 4 acres of the property itself closest to Narrow River Road is listed on Maureen CulWuane's Deed as`wetlands". And yet the applicant wrote"Not Applicable"on the application. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service RCA Issue Brief#7 on Animal Manure Management states that"the annual litter from a typical broiler house of 22,000 birds contains as much phosphorus as is in the sewage from a community of 6,000 people."Would the town allow a huge residential complex housing several thousand people to exist on the wetlands leading to Hallocks Bay? The application lists no method for providing wastewater treatment. And how much water will a commercial farm of animals require,and what happens to the aquifer which supports all homes and farms in Orient when to the amount of water drawn increases on such a scale? The easement for a driveway on Maureen Cullinane's Deed says it is for agricultural vehicles. The application lists zero parking spaces for attendees of the programs and festivals being marketed. Does the owner plan to turn his property into the Orient version of Harbes Farm in Riverhead,when traffic on the Main Road comes to a standstill for miles during the summer months? Is this truly allowed on property the Town spent so much money preserving? The applicant does not appear to be acting in good faith when the marketing materials say one thing and the application says another. The applicant owns a chain of restaurants in New York City,and this is where the marketing will take place,as well as locally. Is the town going to allow a large scale commercial operation in a location it spent so much money to preserve forever? Once this barn is up the"horse is already out of the bam"so to speak. At the very least,the SEQRA status should be elevated to Type 1,so that there can be a more thorough environmental review,and a more thorough disclosure and limitation of the potential uses. Therefore we recommend that the application not be approved. f; E C E Il U E SEP 12 2017 Southold Town Planning Board PECONIC GREEN GROWTH September 11,2017 Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposal for the Tenedios or Fresh&Co. Farm in Orient, NY Dear Planning Board Members, We have many concerns relative to this application. 1. SEQRA The SEQRA classification should be Type I for this proposal due to the environmental sensitivity of the site and the deed restrictions that were put in place to protect the wetlands,scenic vistas and agriculture.This project could easily cause environmental damage that would affect both water quality and quantity, impacting both the sole-source aquifer and adjacent Hallock Bay,considered a critical natural resource and part of the Peconic Estuary.Orient State Park lies on the opposite bank. While an exception in SEAR exists for farm practices,the critical nature of the local environment should trump this exception.The proposed uses on this site will have detrimental impacts on local shellfish and finfish populations, as well as the recreational uses and scenic appeal of Hallock Bay. This project pitches two historic land uses against each other:farming versus fishing.This project could kill Hallock Bay. 2. LWRP This project should also be reviewed for consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.Agriculture is not one of the exemptions listed in Section 268-3. 3. SURFACE WATER QUALITY Where Narrow River feeds into Hallock Bay,AKA Long Beach Bay,the waters are uncertified for shell fishing due to pathogens. Efforts should be made to improve water quality here, not further degrade It. Hallock Bay is also the site of Cornell Cooperative's efforts to reseed scallops after the shell fish decimation due to brown tides in the 1990's. 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 591 2401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org PECONIC GREEN GROWTH SIT£ f / 5 � fY.ry 4. NUTRIENT LOADING Excess nitrogen causes algal blooms that deplete the oxygen in the water and can create toxins. They have caused fish kills and shell fish die-offs. Excess nutrients are also a contributing factor to the local loss of eel grass,which provides habitat.Along the coast line,a nitrogen level of 0.45 mg/L is considered the maximum limit for healthy waters.As can be seen in the map produced for the Peconic Estuary Program, nitrogen levels are hovering at this borderline number.The only worse locations are at the far western sections of the estuary,which experience anoxic conditions and fish kills. Much effort has been made to treat the waste from the duck farm on Meetinghouse Creek to mitigate the detrimental nitrogen levels entering the bay there.We should be mitigating existing practices that contribute to excess nitrogen loads, not allowing new, unlimited ones in sensitive areas.Only by protecting water quality can we ensure a healthy marine ecosystem. 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 591 2401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org PECONIC GREEN GROWTH 0 0 e e O o O o 00 e rs�u"+rrn�4 Total Nitrogen(mg/L) Average July 0 0 ® ® Total Nitrogen o- Y 2005-2014 ti% y� .yo Oh Peconlc Estuary,NY O' O O' O' O N b � b - o�q SV PA1fkm SFwrYw�..+d M�k�.nW cYLU�VLcMLIyM nd (m.iere ll.�'IYDMIUM la�1Y1 S. EXISTING CAUSE OF NITROGEN LOADING consery my ltmcl'laq�++.fhw�rrr0 Wb f to NF4 h1F6 IFS 14Fi / S111� I Nitrogen Load by Source,The Nature Conservancy(detail) 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 5912401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org PECONIC GREEN GROWTH In the report Nitrogen Load Modeling to Forty-three Subwatersheds of the Peconic Estuary,The Nature Conservancy estimated that 77%of the nitrogen entering Hallock Bay was from agricultural sources. 6. POTENTIAL NITROGEN LOADING This area was allocated a R200 zoning category due to the fragility of environmental conditions. If one includes the five-acre residential parcel,there are a total of 30 acres of land excluding the 4.5 onsite wetlands.This would equate to a maximum of six homes if fully developed. Zoned: The expected nitrogen loading,assuming 2.5 residents per home is: 6(homes)x 9#of N/person x 2.5= 135 pounds of nitrogen per year. Loading from the Cullinane farm(assumed): 300 chickens x .5#/N/year= 150 pounds of nitrogen per year 5 goats x 24#/N/year= 120 pounds of nitrogen per year 1 horse x 111#/N/year= 111 pounds of nitrogen per year 25 acres of crop x 23#/N/year= 575 pounds of nitrogen per year TOTAL 956 pounds of nitrogen per year Potential with proposal(assumed—intensity is not identified in plan) 300 chickens x 0.5#/N/year= 150 pounds of nitrogen per year 50 goats x 24#/N/year= 1200 pounds of nitrogen per year 3 pigs x 23.4#/N/year= 70 pounds of nitrogen per year 50 sheep x 8.32#/N/year= 416 pounds of nitrogen per year 2 dairy cows x 232#/N/year= 464 pounds of nitrogen per year 20 acres of crop x 23#/N/year= 460 pounds of nitrogen per year TOTAL 2,760 pounds of nitrogen per year The proposed usage could create as much nitrogen loading as a population of 306. If the nitrogen is not treated, managed properly,and/or removed from this site, mitigation is needed. One would need to treat 228 homes with enhanced onsite wastewater systems at a cost of $4,560,000 to reach a net nitrogen load as measured from the original zoning. 2,760—135=2,625#of nitrogen differential. Nitrogen per household=22.5/2 assuming 50%mitigation 11.25#reduction required per household=228 household to be mitigated at$20,000 per installation= $4,560,000. There are other ways of mitigating agricultural loads,which should be required at the owner's expense if this project proceeds.See an attached list of best management practices from 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 5912401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org PECONIC GREEN GROWTH Chesapeake Bay,which aims to reduce the impacts of agriculture on the estuary. Note that the intensity of use for agriculture is not regulated,so the nutrient loading can be even higher. The development rights of this parcel were paid for with public money, ironically slated for the protection of water quality.We may need to pay millions more to mitigate the detrimental impacts of this project unless strict requirements are enforced. 7. OTHER IMPACTS AND ISSUES RELATED TO WATER QUALITY This operation should also be evaluated relative to the impacts of a. Nutrient and pathogen loading from animal waste b. Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations,which requires a SPDES permit c. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from crop cultivation d. Use of herbicide or pesticides leaching to groundwater e. Process, handling and disposal of dead animals 8. SALTWATER INTRUSION Orient relies on individual wells accessing a sole source aquifer for its drinking water supply.The viability of the aquifer relies on quality and sustained quantities. The impacts of heavy pumping on salt water intrusion could impact the availability of good drinking water locally and/or possibly increase the cost of treatment. The expected rates of pumping from the aquifer should be identified. The volume may trigger a DEC permit.The quantity of water available in this location may also become an issue, if the aquifer lens is shallow. Ongoing studies are finding that the saltwater interface between fresh and salt water is moving inland and will be further affected negatively by sea level rise from climate change. 9. MACHINERY AND FUELING The project indicates that a large section of the barn will house equipment. If the machinery includes vehicles and tractors,spill mitigation and the storage of hazardous materials on site should be located and the containment detailed. If the machinery is for cheese production or other processing, allowable uses should be detailed for preserved land. 10. FLOODING and STORMWATER RUNOFF The site is within the AE flood zone and is highly likely to experience flooding.The floor elevation of the barn is only 5 feet.The design should reflect efforts to mitigate contamination and damage expected during flood conditions, as significant pollution will occur. http://www.peconicgreengrowth.2rE/docs/GISWEB/SOUTHOLD web/SHLD 033 Orient: FL00D.Pddf The stormwater drainage system shown requires a minimum of seven feet of depth as a three-foot clearance is required above groundwater levels.The structures as proposed are basically injecting 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 5912401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org 6 1 tA PECONIC GREEN GROWTH runoff directly into the aquifer.We recommend that vegetated surface filtration be used instead. Also,similar swales should protect wetlands from field runoff. 11. AIR QUALITY(quoted) Air quality concerns arise from odors, particulate matter, and aerial pathogens.Ammonia released from manure can result in odor and may react with other compounds in the atmosphere producing particulate matter(PM 2.5)which can affect the environment and public health. There are a variety of other compounds released from manure such as hydrogen sulfide, greenhouse gases(methane and nitrous oxide), and some volatile organic compounds that can also cause air quality concerns. Particulate matter that arises from dust and reaction of ammonia with other compounds in the atmosphere are also a concern. http://articles.extension.org/pages/8893/nutrient-planning-on-small farms 12. USES The owner seems to be planning on a heavy agri-tourism program, based announcements and PR Information.These uses should be carefully regulated and aligned with the proposed construction and parcels,as one lot had the development rights sold,and the other is residential. For instance, where will parking be, are these uses even allowed,and what will the intensity of use be for such an ecologically sensitive site? In addition,this site is served by only one road.We have already seen the impact on congestion,emergency service,and the ferry schedule by traffic at the lavender farm in East Marion.The planned activities at this site will have an even greater impact on traffic if allowed. While intensity of use has not been regulated, it should be part of the environmental and quality of life issues evaluated by the Planning Board until the code incorporates such language. 13. NEED FOR CHANGES TO ZONING As was discussed in outreach during the development of the town's master plan,there is a need to further define and categorize agriculture as it relates to zoning.This should be combined with a nutrient loading plan for the town or hamlet. For instance, as agriculture is supported,the nitrogen loading in the area should compensate for the excess,such as lower densities, requiring best management practices,or the provision of enhanced treatment of wastewater.Considering locations for environmental sensitivity,such as proximity to surface waters and susceptibility to salt water intrusion from pumping,we suggest evaluating when more restrictive zoning should be applied. Please consider the use of more refined agriculture categories,such as: 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 5912401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org ikJA PECONIC GREEN GROWTH a. Livestock(high nutrient loads, pathogens, air quality) b. Nursery stock(high nutrient loads) c. Food crops d. Vineyards and hop fields (with and without tasting rooms) e. Agri-tourism The town has done a good job of protecting small businesses from the impact of big box stores, it needs to do the same with farming.We suggest a moratorium be supported by the board, as many farms are now changing ownership and we can expect more proposals such as this one. Land Use TN Lbs/Acre TP Lbs/Aad Nursery 240 85 Crop 23 2-2.5 Harvested Forest 20 0.8 Extractive 12.5 3.5 Urban 9.3 1.5 Hay 6 0.4-0.8 Pasture 4.5 0.7 Forest 2 0.15 Olivia H. Devereux, Land Use Loading Rates,Chesapeake Bay Watershed 14. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PLAN There is a need for additional study and safeguards.The following are comments on the specific plan: a. The scope of the use needs to be more fully declared,such as number of acres in identified crop production, number of chickens,goats and sheep and/or other uses. b. The project needs to identify how feed, animal waste, and carcasses will be handled,stored, treated and disposed of.At a minimum, a SPDES permit should be required before approvals are given.The volume of waste materials can be significant. For example,annual stall waste from one horse is 12'x 12'x 6' deep.Additionally, due to local environmental conditions an evaluation of nutrient loading in both flow and pounds per acre should be studied for all uses: crop, livestock, and human,with mitigating treatment proposed to bring loads below those indicated by five-acre zoning. c. Water will be used for feeding,cleaning and irrigation.A study of water use and pumping rates should be executed. We suggest that the USGS be retained to map the salt water interface with the aquifer,the depths to groundwater, and guidance on pumping rates that may impact salt water intrusion and water availability. Rates over 45 gallons per minute need a state permit and could have detrimental impacts on our local system. 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 5912401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org PECONIC GREEN GROWTH d. The plans quote elevation data from 1929.There is a need to establish the highest expected groundwater elevation,as well as measure the elevations at mean high tide using N.A.V. D. 1988 Datum.A test well and percolation test should be conducted. Distances from wells should also be noted, including ones on the homestead parcel. e. The plans do not show stairs, bathrooms,onsite wastewater treatment facilities,storage of hazardous materials,or use of the second floor.While called a one and one-half story building, it is 28 feet in height and appears capable of being a full two-story structure.There is some indication that a part of the building will be climate controlled. Uses and potential uses of the second story should be clarified,with plans and sections shown.The size of the building should correlate with allowable uses. f. The site evaluation combines the homestead parcel with the protected parcel. Evaluations should separate the two as the development limitations will vary. Community Preservation Funds were used to purchase these development rights.The main purpose of the fund is to protect water quality.We respectfully ask that the Planning Board consider the impacts of this project on water quality and quantity thoroughly,as well as uses,traffic and scenic quality. Thank you. Sincerely, AAA,) C Glynis Berry,AIA LEED AP Executive Director Attachment(BMP—Chesapeake Bay Watershed) 651 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631 591 2401 www.peconicgreengrowth.org w 0 U }' T (D c Q Q =o a Z Z a� (n w T O C o 0 L N o 0 a - Lo U) O d aw V L rn4) o 0 O. o LO ti C Z d E rn rn V Q Q O O a o �d c w 0.amL ate+ N rn�yui � E� 15 Nc cmy -3& � 8 ro o om000 *0vN . � y v m p N Nm om0o ° myca E naE8omQE " .0- NQm , �n � 0J � � � U)- 0 '► 4 Nam ""' � "r � �, mc � � L _ E m rn wt5 tm ti W e EroQ CM 0 m (n a N N N m N N fn O C C (U m N Y ; Q C O t N Cp C N - N m N .. d E �c N N E y u e CL C. c' L- E0 °-' Y � `o E O � a'co ° N E aEi U) °' _ � � � ° � ° �, � _ `° � t � �. p� E Z. 0 �- m t m O .0 m .. N 7 0 N Etr 0 d? R 0 0 v N m prL C C CL m C r cya n c �' c m c CL ? mEai2 $ ow m gT ?� � a' � m 0 = c � a � a� a�0 tm w t5 c — � Q m t5 m omm 2EnEoo C g O p 0 O O m N Q C Co CO C m N Q ay`- V N N N m V L C C 7 a m 0 E E co +? E E L> V m tm j N tm m �+ N C � m A O Q r- cq .? N N C a. N O E C C v O O oo_ E •o p a N c N to w -I V V M ca 2 V o O G O C O N M HLO P- CL o O c OiF= .J= w JU `ow " U C 00 o 0 Or O Lo (3 2 .a) o c > ~ - c U o co O a� .Z M UJ J U �w-i C� N cn U) O � 0 D QQ Q Q O N N c ' C. O O C C ` E ul .0 o O .Ot - C N T3 Or �+ O ac T; t ccyacc •la- 6► 0 O N � 6 N wC = Co`Cl CL 12 c 'cwa J � C'OLECCLN pp O ~ C0. LmO "o O c 12 .r.- .O- - E p gyCt6 C _ OCO C � > SyO N O O o Q /! M Oa N L O GE � c O ` cO Qoma o Na > woa - c .0 > co � C OE6 oiCL 8 L OLO "-' pN O ` WO = "O Cm C O OC >, E C CS O p O EcO w IL) 'D Mcm N NOW C � Em O 2 L- V rt - N OvC C OU • O •- p O CNOOC 11 0 .oOc. 0Oc: � EN C_ n E >+ 0 cc E o cdnac � OO W c _ c 0 E- �' oEOMa ro -0 -0 om O0O " >c3 < c6O w � _3 ° Zc8a $ " S vwL) o E � Uoocm ru 'o w Ecc � � o U m � UtS ("0" � M N C cL E O M a� E c C 00 m C PCD0 Poo Poo 0 iu�nODCDv W 0 W J O W J o W J U U U m o C Poo Hoo I= oo 0 0 aAR v 1 1 c 1 I Z T U')LO �LO0 O 01 '2 y'?C'2 N= y — r aw cW�° Uwe OA Uwe U 000 0 oDMMO C V o 0 0 0 0 0 N Ln n c Ln F-P w Z NL N y N yLi6 y y C �JJ N 10 > W N N m �p > N t0 ! CWJ CWJ CQWJ C C T+W U U U U U 2 a Ile 1' � Q a 4) a CL _ a d 4D o •oN NCa"r .° ti�°�7 mO $3o oZ° ° •0oo C3 � NNa HU) �Z N w (a V.c Q to N N � tvi c O 0 " ° ° � O N O V C MN N ° to c 0 N O N O O O S C c Cr 2 N ! mN O2° 0 � cm ° agOmL� 'pcN�6Na " n � o� � 0rnc �N m C W G. W �,-0 m N C N N c c ,� .r ' r°n a— ,. .. ca a� c o m ti = al O O V = G t E d) N N N " m ° W N Q. Coco E o oa�°i +� � � m0m o a, aa � Ztm:i : > 3O7'V '+ N f�/1 C C1 � � N ° O 7 c0 0 C 7 N'004Li d NCL N C N O N N C C 0 oc40 N c ocaim � oMv 0 0 = ° ma, o . " o a-d O oma' of c ° tm ° aim - v_, � am c c� 0 cca ° ° m c ° ° N ° rte ° ° E ca � _� � ° an � � EmENNc -0a m� 00 c E N c u aNi �i - L a u (D ami �' V- E ° .- -aa m cc MD ° o E .N zm m c E c � �' = m c E c � �° 0 E � c 2 a* Q m c c � t � O ' ' o_ *- m � � a� c p m m In m �° ° c m ° a� c N E iyaoaEa �i °•� mv_iENoc ° N _ tsEani ' N3 ° � �. cw 0 v � �. c _ a ° a� ._ N j E a m ° m N N v E N l� N N N Q V C N N ti � N p ftl C A d 0 O � CL O N C c c > ° o a U 8 o0 Z a Z = in ai a E M n °� a� H ° E 2 O c N O m 0 UU C) C) Ua � U O C ga — mCLS } T C O c E_ N Z 0C > = O Z (nW JO -F) L)V Vl C C > >. O O O O o .0 C O N oWE w � c mEC Cn m c 0 c m E Q CD o co 2 " cco c E Z LU J '� O m O O Q Q Q O C O .0 V C C Nl O m O O L O O Z N O N O a N c j .0- O O Q N N O Em m w c�o � c co c m c o = 0 N c Nm aaGO � .S ao Z -pT� OO to � O E L O �'� O fC Q E 0 , O .0, � M O Q O V t O — O C N o o;m 0 -00 a� m wL 0 Om � o � rn t0 - t0 C c O C L) O O C �. 0 E .- N O C ,C O •' _ AAC C c c ) 0. a� U ism d � � � — c .Z O :a N O O ~ Z l0 O a O - .. .O- E 0 O ` C U C L N d Q C �.a C L > O O CL O C Q- Q C = N O L O H C E O C N O d W .0 C C1 ao W �,a �,Z .-: � � a m c' c 3 E c Cm r- m "- > �i8 � g � �, O c 0 4 a 0 () O O () y O 4.. .- c N O V c o V - _ � y D1 O I cOC C 0-C Q V C O (� C E '(u V M a aCL N c� f0 ` C N -a Cl. N '� `_' O d O E O O C N C M - > ° o oa 9a) o f � = E E O m ° m c � m O � vi O C - N .2 LO t C N ., O a c`0 c0 W � m C 0 " °> > ip C �° EULcomo ma cn2yu) 8 aN c c c *. u� a cL N a O c �o c �' oa ° � a o c m 0) n CO ' b m � °� - E c 2 cH c°- 0 °� H 1O o E Oa � *r � st m �, 0 ° ate ° �: c .. cs3 0 rnE - a c Oa T E -o � '= O � > c acc cwo `o c`aW *r- ca Oow � cLioOo ac J am. 0 c0) Z V � d C 0 �,r Z -Oa c a m J M c6 w � O O E O E � o_ a 0 c CL Ed' L � Z = c � � OO in 8 a)r . m z O ZM < aQaO U a� c a- E o m a E c c C � a� .o mo aD � f2 :3 y E .a� � m Cf) W J O J O D U U O C N .0 y .N vaj v C C > O a c tW O aU U A N O C N = N y 2 c > a zw o � V U rn � Q Q C v) O c0 y 'a N CD N U O N C � V vi V CO CD COM l0 a N N ON W 7 �+ Ci N C 5 y V O Z N * N N N N c � m E m o � � N Z' � 'm CL c O O � "' a ' O � "� 'O c C c0 amu) � N 2 (DtS -t $ 2to N a � m 8 o N 016 C O 4) CL 7 N _ C1 O C r U) G7 'a to 'O V o N • N .-. N N O t �V C C 0 0 N vi C N -a l0 m O O N O •p O D. C O W N N C W L w' y C N C 0 ` CO �3 ` C d C C N a1 - N N O C CL cnr U) �O N O l0 CO N C p 0 C p -a .- m ' m L C C ° M y aI CO V �- � � 'a � O � C � N 8 v. � y C V N t N L N N N - CO E g c WW y •� Np ! ° m E0c( im d) o j CN v �, .` m ao 'o (1) ooC >JL- c ao m Cc ° Caf o vi c c � •C U) O -c 0 -0 LLr-Q L p C CO V C ,0N O N C N 0QCc 'O E N 7 N C -o0oOo E O N o N N '-. -O N 'C vi C W CO C c0 = C 8 'O oC C -a CL c >, M A o CO CO N Q Q J ++ Ir E 8 E4° J L O a C O - O C C � N a C J N m am m y=' rno CL � 2w � LOL I Q c a. m o Co acro E c a) C C O N O E ,N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 z " '� o C N a) � (0DLOdLO0LO11 r- C cn w -' 0 ca 2amo L N -.0- 0 0 0 0 0 10-0 3 j o CL CoLnUcot i ConnoU) ' ccco c CL J U a c c C m o me 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' 0 coo I- > a v ZW JU N N r � Q m o a N a) , °L. +m�- (ZO mV LMn m 7 4) C) 0) LO V N C MC cC V aQQno 0) , > . C o : _ (A ' Na " E a 0 Nr. a t ami -0 o mU E � � m x0 4) x c a o � � E � � m c a m mm` Z' a' rnom 5 � (AE mm �' coa� o -a v_ 0 0 o a� �. cn �. N IZ g a o0L) a� m a c voice 4- E aaa m c Q c M m � 1 l aa + o ° m m � a N N1 y, N c � m c� > t -a•� c c m m co oM m c E LL E u) E > 0 0 � oEE >` �^ ami °� � v�ic �O > _ �. � ESE . Z. m c m a� u, aa X32 c 0) a) vi m — c m N ami. ai o a'i 12 c a m Q t N cu N0 a 0 � � .t•r 2vmtm � y ca •r- a �- ani — O cc ai o° a, a cn _ 0 = `n •o' ` m c a ° S 'o c o "" 00100 c�ca m = a `5 a0iaoi oa � E � � c0c Lo � ao mm _ '5 Nm 0 -6 -0 CL -0 -0ao c o vN, - w = m N � a 00 :2 c w c c c . N '� m o L c a a .a) N N m m m m m o � _ y — arn L- 0 � m 9 m e m aE c4 cy- aN D m t7 ow o nm _3 m X E aaD . _ o _ o � m ani c m r m r y 0 � .` N E a � •` c _nm m ikli I Q v EU' m a� � oc m a� � c c 0 0 E ,N . o 0 0 0 0 o a 7 o 'a iiw LO V) ccooLnto N m c c ti m J O U U) c 2V a) O aw LOtiL�nmLOCD N m m e co m J 0 v a) O Ql •(a o O` U co m IT (M (M m C CI m lF= N O C co Z W J U '6 mo o a) c C 442m C c O U X J m Q Q a) J O tm U) m L D N (� C O U 0 W. LL . 0 A C Oy 070 p N bm rap a > O w Cd an aN od cccmmy Ey cm -0 � � 4) a) 0 m � z,v opt mayy- E 0 L- U N E >' TO .0 U m a) m a 0 N m p N N C m E Cp �0 1 I N .N C y p a a C V p c C g UU � N : yod)m bmNN O N a�0 � o o y NC o mm o oa) cn :30 cN tmM G4OV N cO O O O p CQC CIC O 2 Cy0N pa0 — o -0 " O aU)) 0 . m A C0Nw m C m G. aO a) N p G.> Qo oo Ecc r = n L m C m to�o �comaO. aC C � � �N O YOC W Cp Qd aNO NM N N n Qn cm 0) g, a am � m aaaCI a om my U) 5c a c ° •` >m c oyo tV0=10 a �acr OcoE3aNw l 07 ai Ma 70 0 MO c LH m y � 0"LNaa0 a0 pa ) {q mC x0 m w O N m u 5,- J a n M 0ra) � J d i a J C m C ' C tm.O N O C L CI m 'N 'C N 'C m N LL I NLE O m m p L C O L N � (90o- ci U) CL mini 00 m C a E o m Q. E c c � a) 0 mo E ? NO, : La U C > 00 a C > inw � V M � 0 y C C 20 O O O 0CL w v C > o C > 0 W O C co a JU JU C v 0 O C c N , N O > co > C co Zw _jV -jV m 160 m '0U) V V J ¢ ¢ � C a) C y O a) W a) tm E -0 V a) m d) oC O O V N N C m 7 O C t N a) W E tm y. N N N O 7: (� s -6C O � N m a) o CO 0 U) m � O a) y C m C _ a -0 4- () O w f0 U) o L m 0 C V 7 0 C+L. G N N N m C 01 vi C a) a) o a -0 .0 a) X 24- ' ++ N O oa) a) m c � � .5 0 m 12 Tom � >, �+ o .. � c a•- aD 15 s o 00 n N N lV0 t CL o C1 N j C O fO4 O 'r0 N .. O N �' O c C - w 0 m 0 o 2 0 - 5w � � N Z' m � UJ A c c ot L-c c o m e ca 0 -0 � � �' � a EEEwcamia�i -� aocEcwa �. •. ca c c� w b ti o m om' 4 m � r � � c o m g r vi w 0 � m E c c Emmy c o c y.5 m .E c v_' y -ma_ m co w mov �' o � mn sowEo' Eo °� c a� u� o20mc ¢ n m c� 0X 0 F- t m v m v •« m a � � m � 8 3 � L Cl) a o m m rn o m tm c m ma) '0cnm �; ma) ooma) y O c T+O C O N 0 N cna. a � cna a0 � o� m C a. E O CL +C C (j N O C E .� a) r= c c a 0LO � u°icCD � U c N o CL a o 00000 a COLr) t- a (o z W m C a J U C v 4) O N � N p = d (Ostti � ((00 zW 0 A m c Q v C N �O N C C 10 C '� (►II CO M N d O N +�� c � c N � 0 5 4- y -0o . m c � o rn V x C .0 C N � LO C N O` N N E m Iz > A V O N td >+ N c C O C d N O C — C N N N L y 'C p W Co cc 0oo a T° r- UI U.0 o E 0o - C oa � : C :E o > �� ,ovmocNo � L) CCc 0 oC2 tN A0 E E ONE t I N N C N vJ 'O cL co C �+ a"C C (C o .� VdJ 'N 0 ¢m � aa N r_ C 5 7 0 'o O1 W O .V O r N � N C ° 1 a 0 L � M �. O N N � a� d O c� Z ° a o o 0 W Q E 0 W Nom? _ r *- o c ° Co t5 CC Divi aa� -aA -ao 5 .9 M M � 'a o ani � � N m N ` C C C p m = aZi o ° ° � 'X � E mm cu aro � o � CL CL CL k c M � Q 0 m c a- E o m a� E c E .0 V C G) LO U to Z M m � U) w N o V � T aC ,m o o N o o � v M aw LO U) 1.9 o Q 0 .0 tF � o = Z Z Lu Lf) .� r CL U) Q >L. Q _ a U) c m e m o m CL 0 03 �= oZ0:; m � mmw 0V to t � D M -002o m ,E U fn C Q. m V E q L N 0) W o o '� co 0 m um) cM CL° ° m m 0 .0 ca M � c m m c tm IM c 4- Lo c (mom D c o,= � d! o c W> LO G . o �i ° c _a -c o N c N c g c v � ty 8'N c .6 N 0 cb a'>%.a, E -0 15 r- _ m Q. Z > � v c0 00 oo Z E o m0 z � m8 u) z c o IE a mu� wcccm ° = _ 4- > W co - m E o m t0 N O o N w C 8 a O ° (a 8 �' ° '0 N U a > > N .� 8 c Q� m c � � m m � 0 8 � m (� z E N 8 � m = c oma: - c m o ~ ' € � ' E m a c L) € 0 n 1a 0Ea �04 .0 wNZMEfm �a O;) ->> N4- N _ y a' m ° N o o c M aw) ° oCD m oE > Qa _ a teaU) 0 "a a CD0 — N E oo o ulOOo b Qcand C E 0 J mm L N � a cn a� L > ~ } Q < z a� c a E o m a cyg E c � U E v N a) {n W 7 A 0 C o CL o t W N a- >1�. �. I -- co >+ I I cu 2 •v aA2 N y � m � a) � U N :3O ZWC 'CN Op) ami c o 4)) M °1� 0 3 i- (3i c- m N Z W O a m ui 2 ch a U3 o a c CL LU aai c Q Q S' j c N L � 2 W % N o «. eco ` S ui 0 •CL Drnmo o Wigy80 oN -r- t5 � 2m m •cco - 0octi -5O cccm: ' 0 w 07L� 0 = c � a 5? oN ts NawONa` N > a � 0ov ° E � 0om - c vo o O C C t0• O c y a a) ` N N 0 c c0 N .0 0 0 0 0 = w am ao, E - o c :. ca 0m c a cn c0 = = c m c > c o- E c w a� m w o t5 c 'E3 0 Q ca m m a � Ec � w EEo .- �, L- ccc ccw ° � Oa3 � I E � c acro I Doo � 0 mt '� Q � arca a E c ° �Q � ) vl .. c N N a) a) a) N O � vi a) O 00 > C t Z+ O 00 0 -0 N w- E o . d p o O > o O C 5 9 E N g o 0 Y O a) O O O N 0U a ca OW 'P � ° o N c m � � 'EEco rc�yo_v, oo ° Qc ca) c co CL a) o c. E 0- rcom .o o •9 2 cnU ° owI = CL ao ° o am cE E N ci m ELosC yomac0 'o i = m� c c W CL E 0 (00 N Q= s § J C N a cN E m 0 'N O N Of E .`� c � wc QWU m0 - N C a- E O CO d LSO C C O N 4) O C > (`O E .� c = o � •c c°» w Quo 0.5 ° Z Q � c � cE 0 Q N 3 C IL W Q L ` Z m T l0 'E E tm O a� C C .0 loy Zw <0 Lo 0Z m C1 p W o c o v N rn a A-) CA? ° c oma) M 0ma° i3 a3 cc � � L `oo m v c�co a� oc � ° � � o � � 8 E �� ° oY m ° L o 0 0) o �;-0 Ema) rn � c � OL � Z N :. � ° C. u) C. m ° cv o cco � � c� c m c >% a � m � � � ` E 0 � 0 a�0i E Et `mom, m .0 o m c y E �' M- r- Q) a C O C. 0) C V; a u Z6 C. r N N j 0 p L C N C O Q C) iE d `7 N '0 rL co C C. d 0 C C7 U N �`' 0 0 «+ N N N v1 �. _� y N m •L 7 N LL C w O. X 0 N E N m C L p E C D �- C (`p 0 c cL M E C N N .� V C C O C L 0 w 0 w = � Q m 0 -0m2N NS 0c -co 13 o .. 0 0' c m . C. ° a� 1° � a� �e ° o m C . C C O O N O O O O - d N V . C Q N L E N r U 7 r O NJ L p C f0 ,C om E mg� a_�cr- L ° pN � L �. o ° O &Z - mo E s p II 0 a : C) E C. m L- U - c E *L p v� 'C -0 ui c O N = c C ai O O C_ Ntm N C G •~ ° � O N C. C N O O ,_ 6U N C C N � -a2 oaE oN ;° m ami gc $ oM � � � � a� � c9No ' E ° o = 0 C N '� N N 0 � U) G -6 U) O d c O N N p 0 "' O l0 N O 7 U) o "0 E .0 C .a 0 V O o C V w N 0 C. m CL= C1 �O y � 0 �' V V N N N N .� .` y C 0 E O C � O C C '0 ++ E C. Q ` ` cm IX ) E � '�. 3 i CL � c1°•iF`- c°� mm °cmUm .5 is a� m m 0 ° ° 'CL ° ,� m� `o� mm o0 2 CL 2 L) M N C a. E O m d E C C V E N Q Q NF Z Z N m cn w w 2 � L N o 0 0 13 CL w v r r- N aw c o� m O V e I- LnC _ z N N Zw V1 y 'O C D N1 N � Q Q V ¢ Nl U1 N * 0 4L.. O T N C V _ QLr+ L OO �d N 4- p w N ~OON� O NO = am CD O 0 0 N � N U L -0 7 �p ai C O N o1 O c � c oES �;° a y � cm c :� � � mc wo .. Q. -O M M «. rn C 2 `° aQ E > c � c om 2a = gymC S .9 ccO � � y E 0)Em w � m � zcEu) Zm (D C: Cn -�an VENC o �, _ ° C C � •°� U) — oc c0 � 0 � ami mu °' a w 't M z $ -v coo 0 •� �3 N �. �' N O C V C L 2 C C C 0 4-0 C pOC O ` co .Z m C 16 0 C '0 N N O p a 0 O �; O a1 0 U N C N O O �`- E •'�• a (C .-. O N chi c c c "�i c w c O c c `2 O O O N O N N N u� N N 0 a v�,2 c Co O c0 0) € ` v' c $ ` c cc m O ' c = o c a� E WEA a W � W � c :° c� ac E HC, < Eas H1c .6 N N Nm oor- c) rn m ca > .0-.� o •y c M -F¢ ` Ii0 -1 a`. � acn a 0 m c 2 m o m CL � c c � a) 0 a) O E .� � � o V) ami c > c > U) W J O Ln J O U U aC C v a) _O a) O 0 7 c 7 tq.v c > O c > 0W m C m C a JU JU c c m w ' o � N zm e L M m e w 'JU 2 J (°) 4) - - w o c U) c m u ° Q axi m V rn U) v_, aci 402 o �. �. o ; c c� c o � M >% cu m O E � f° � ° ,. mcm c ° c o m c y � E � c � � z- -° m Co w ami C. E t ° N aNi o 4- CL E � ° ° � ami c � c � w m ° moo � � a w0 ° E c � � Mw � 4 E c � �. •ac ° w maw .o > w0 a ( o � I � z � N a ° ° oma Q m vs w m 0E N C 3 � � 0 = c T38 a 000 :5 _ 000CLr 0 p a� -W m rn � c � c� o ° � � � ""' m w o -o Et = o as ,r E 0i a L- c E0 c N m � m map 02, a c ami � w � c rn o o 0 0 � C ? c is o m c CL t � oc 00 � -oC0 ami 0 � >cm � ` o m m a ° cm Q.� C. c cw >. .r Q ° t: a) — a n T) u) 11 L- 0 c� cm a°i a Mm �'n >c > N d w L N m m w C 'C C°j C w w U w O a) m o0 -0 occc Qum •o mw O m — m oaEtCL (D war �wu ° '0erm 9 0N � m m m aL c o - m Em wza_) Qw o o _j a .a C ct w m 0- E 2 � Z 0 t0 .92 � m wii0D Eco 00 m c lLE0 m a cep E c uM me m Q m c .` mE Z ct a co w J U J O U w 2U) N a) c � m = c � .y CL N a M a _ N L > d a w -i J o U c � (DN a) 0 2.0) a a a) CL > a. Z W -j J 0 Q Q a W o m U N � cU) o � � cc " � �. v� 0 o � a rn 0 oma' 3c � cbc ca) oc °- c 2 � c � � o N ` m Q 0) co c V- cn (a a n Eo 4) Mcn o0 c � 0 moc0 m Ear In �- > .a o aE a aEi _ � Za G ca °� a c c• o a c� ' �ilcp cc � o � m8 m :3 U) 0 mm t)c Eco c000L o CMM a c �' aNi cam ca = .6 c & :� m W c$) w a� .c-a c`°�i 0 C Rf d aCw O G) .M�c° .M — O ONcNc "aa 0 M > — p o 0 � M 1NM noa � o E m Q- N o w ao en m a 5 � 'cZ> ca EO R N caN N aov c4) tl omm � - E oo E V w o N c `ofn . rn m E cao mac • _ W- o � oco � o fpE c � NL O � a v = j M c 0 MaE c CQ. gI w uD Om c W c L�ccm � Ovu) cc0 ou. - c : p O NaW rnya ' 'a 0 :� d o C > N V N y 0 C > c = a _Q a r c C c N lap E m 1p m ME '- o o mo m o c o 1p M ca o � + Ow- U Jam' cp NlL' 7v- a-- Ja — � �, M Qom — J — M — N y C 0 Q a.g c0 eco � 9 — m ? M0 -03 — 7 o c N 0 > a C cn - C Z2 �J � � Z � � > WU �o (D C � E O m +C CC U N O N o o � O O (n W LO J O co U C 2 V N O L N o 0 0 W'v O C > O O 0 WE LO C Ln CL J U c c � u� 0 � c o � " o 0 'U N C > Ln ZW M0 C ca N N u v c`3 Q Q Q a o � a cc. -a 2 cN0� cw .� U'> LO 0 c tm Z N m a - C vao c N N a a aam5a a p2vi >u < N m • L) 'o a O OyO IL M o p amoh o o 4) c >% - M a� m 6Uo mo � � > cco o °� C � a a�'i go ocE CL g of wo o m m N o O > 'c a� c w � �•�' � m Om a 0 m E a o c o c � E ma n c c c ymw w E N ° moan Z �a .� a� (DW Z � '� C r = N � O 7 C n� -p O O '- m a cm C O O (DM 0 �'c Z c s � m o m a r-4) r L co Q' cavi oho moo ° y � E CL ° ocEN2E ° oc 7 m U) dfc0r m� > L NLyVia>V,L.mN.l Om E a) m NO p•O v a —Co aN� "fla c � mcc OE ve ma ca � m o p " c ' , mm owpac4oaEo : aCL= mmm � o vi mn3rX 0a> > 2 w E ncn n NN m OOm .. U p — "'� � c � � m >aLrmoc No aacVom c > L O E cn U N N - D : W mCD O O J E 8F- QQLO Ja m a- Naam�wa.di' m C O a 0 '0 c w m � a oa m o c aC7m : � mNa> c m 2 � ai � Aocn0ad -oc (D c ao E c v E0 LD o 0 0 'U CD O O LC) (n W U-) CV to 2 w O C IR L � N CDD C a_ W O O CU f/ D)C o 0 0 Zc� Iq 0 W p m C N Q Q Q J W N D C p O ca a NN c -0 .-. a 0- mCL o c o c o 0 om mpO 0W m W 0 o a m o va CL E L e. E E $'t : E m �' c E `" AR N E o_ �° � c ? Lc) c m � � c � � c c Q � m m T c m tm m 4) m mai �i m .oc m e to C c m 0 C o U) Emui o Cc EoE o a Eo0 0 m e46 mZ, m a o0c � a CL nC -Vc = a Nam m cw co 'cc o c .. m .EM o na) r_ o o = omc o Ev, o_ � cEW = +- � °' E vim � m � o .-. � m � Amo cE � �: E cE N N ` N II tu 4- O N 0 - C �C : Q I=I Q S CL II N 3 CLQ II d) 0 2) QM II 3 N m � c N U C cam c Z' � "" oa c c m -0 c Wo mo om mmo oaf omo �am Na om $ mo 0 C) c m vi C 2 6 C N C 7 N C_: ° :3 .2 N fA O C > N m m U) N C > N '2 y m m 0 C > N m N m C > o � I 0. 0 C ac c N g m o 08 o, N m m � � g � 'C m o m Z'm o � = m }' 0 cn a t a U) 5 a to IL a cn Q 00 a� c Yo m aCc E c C C C N O O O N W f2 7 V _ > C j O O W J O J O kn M U U � c c 2oa� O 0 C 4 � 'fA o 0 CL aN am 00 L W N C m C M L( ) CL JU JU o 0) o a� � C � r- U) z W J U J U c aU'i aWi a> m Q Q Q Q O N �; � � m Xc M ui o0 ° m = c m ai W o 12 E t a ai m m � c ,.a 0 � a :� E co � c a �' U) 0c G! CL 2' :a � ` aN W o3- m �a � mE 4 > S ov, ac� rnvi a0 a a o cc0 ImmGoaTQ. N � ° � �o a� c0 � sca oa c. Ecm a AE ° o_ o n 6 `—° apt `—° M �' °' m `O D `o �. E w mom . c �� a� � c `� C.N 8 c ow c E V o "° °) , (�n Qt cO ° . 10 oE0) oE d0 jo ca0c04o E0 oox ° ° xc 0 U 0 -0 "0 � E - O ' o. QNeo ' � v > ° ° 4-� o N ac$ ° a CL 8E u E0o c- m aacc � Qr cO - CL cm� ar- ca ooo > N E v, c mr- :& o 3 CL_0 :3 E ° o afia y �WMO m0Nm U U a H E Q 12 (O N W C�Zm' cJa C C C C C CL Ca C.and OCO Cv, (coo 0O d c .oi E v C13 ymaaiaia +�+ cy (a 8 ED xa u� .xc cac � � Zo f`- � � � � -1 QST (i = a` CS aD c a. E o C13 E C U (D C o E •a) Q Q N .0 Z Z in W m T O 0 0 Q 3 Q Q `O O Z Z r W T � N C w j e c O C C' p^ f. LL, F y' Z N y 1 > 7 C C Q G or W U) d m co t> M O = m c � 'a o c ao rno 0 m O c ° � (a L. m a m vc o m � a NomU U) =C ELME E C. � U) a) c c c -�+ >, o m c — c M m Z T CO 'o E m a ai 'c EG) m o c N � cE Nm .. -0t � m �� CD w cn O om Q N � � � C c p � � C` � mai a Q U � 2 .0 >, m _ mc .. c ,0 E � " m CL a � :3 m roaa '� �' coa� tm I '� � d movJ o coo- c� 0Eo '� Nom � � � g' mE Q o � L � N � i G O .'Cm y, V m 0 " > O .G O Z c II ` ° cII N Mki § w � m mQ" E a � c msO o u C C O O m '� m D O m N C C m O m 02 m u1 0 O m U. OO ; `ON � yO D w(n O � 0 a NN Oy M � � m a) �. y E iY Z ` m '0 U O l� O 'er f+ N cn OCL m it mad W0 00 > § a rn U rn rn Q c/) 3 c J w N-00 H -ma 0 c a 0 c 0 a cn � a m � 4) m c, E = 0 E � m i aQ 0 m � Q W O a I c 3 � m m 0 >% o m >, 0m4- m cn cn 2 cn co 0 S 2 0 O N C a E o � a' C T E Q U) W Ln LA Z cV CV 0 rn CL'U Ln Ln N aW O O > N T A a) (D N 7 Z Lu O O ; eq cL §0 �a v Mkat = E � 2 > § ■ 2 8 § § ƒ E � § ok U- � � 0 2 e @w � E � 22 / '0 10o c c c $ o Ca — § § @ 3 2 § 2 E 2 0 / m 2 2 " k c 2 b g@ � � ƒ C 0 2k2 $ am EE a ■ 0- ® § ® 2 k ) ® © M� o3 2 CL . § k § � � § E % 2 E § = 2 0 G@ m _ o : fib § a @ 2 � k � � � k ca w 2 . @ U A:! « 0 ' 2 / a) iCLk =� 2 � k tsm 0 a ■ ■ (D 4) § 2S — ' 22 =so im cr 5 n'o ■ % r 2 .0 -0 0 k 2 2 � M g ■ �5 E » 2 0 co 0 © 0CL r m U) 0 % § 2 b ■ ( � § © 0 k CL 2 b 2 @ § . b k � L- fn § M2 � 0) w ■ 22bE awa � � m 2k< 2 -0o � 0 g © — ■ CL m5 k � � � � k � � > k � 2 � � e V.- a '" � L- E c £ r� 2 2 E CA7 k �� D C § . � $ c " U o � o a E n ■ m : 2 (a � & � � 0 co 2 § 2 § c E 2 � U) � cm " 2 kk � " E E -0 m � � Lu CL 9 m D « « 7 S § � ca < |§ m § @ = U 2 U Michaelis, Jessica From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:38 AM To: Michaelis,Jessica SEPT 2 7011 Subject: FW: Fresh &Co. Application Southold Town Plartniny Board Tenedios public comment From: Wood, Elaine [maiito:Elaine.Wood@DuffandPhelps.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:24 AM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.Ianza@town.southoId.ny.up Subject: Fresh & Co. Application Dear Ms. Lanza— I am writing to protest the Fresh &Co permit application—to state that I am sorry we could not be there in person. We received notice in the mail of this application—but it was very"unclear"—to be kind—and did NOT alert us to the placement of the barn or to the environmental impact—which is most relevant and serious. We would not have protested the visual impact—even though we are directly affected—we do most strongly oppose the impact to the land and the environment. We reside during a little bit less than half of the year at 29215 Main Road—directly across from the property at issue. The environment is beautiful and pacific—and fragile. Thank you for considering how the Fresh &Co plans to expand and grow and engage—will disrupt the quality of life in this spot—for the wetlands—and for the people to. Thank you for your kind consideration. Elaine Wood G. Maine Wood Managing Director, Disputes/havestigatioras +1 212 450 2852 E:n +1 347 978 185'7 eleine.woodudL€fiandl)helps.coia� www duffandpllelps coni This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions, including those regarding confidentiality, legal privilege and certain legal entity disclaimers, available at li.ttp://www.dLlf.'fandphelps.co.iii/discIosLire. z 9/14/2017 Driver Education Information Reply Reply All Forward Driver Educalh' Peterson, Diane [peterson@gufsd.org] Silleck, Mary Thursday,September 14,2017 9:0 2 AM Dates: September 20, 25, 27, 29 October 2, 11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30 November 1, 3, 6, 8,13,15 Emergency dates November 17, 20, 27, 29, 30 (MWF)format *all lecture date/times do not conflict with any Greenport Varsity sport scheduled @or before 8/16/17 via Section XI. Not practices, students must work this out prior to season/course as per their availability. Driving schedule: Dates and times do NOT take into consideration games/practices of any Section XI games. Although observation of major holidays is acknowledged. Students can make arrangements to exchange dates as needed with other students. As far as they adhere to the attendance policy. Car 1 (Tues/Thurs) 5:15-6:45pm Dates: September 26, 28 October 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 26 November 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 December 5, 7, 12 Weekend cars Car 2- 6am-730am Car 3- 7:45am- 9:15am Car 4- 9:30am-1lam *Car 5 5pm-6:30pm *car 5 will run if enrollment exceeds 16 students. Dates: September 30 October 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 29 November 4, 5 December 2, 3, 9,10,16,17 Mrs. Diane Peterson Secretary to Secondary Principal Greenport UFSD https://webmail.town.southold.ny.us/owa/?ae=Item&a=Open&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAOZZt3apsXQ5PEELC8mpB2BwBvOIR7MYcxS7mLPyXg3Wcq... 1/1 change.org E Recipient: Southold Planning Board WEV Letter: Greetings, I move to deny permission to Tenedios and Fresh and Co to build livestock farm on preserved land at 28140 Main Road, orient, based on concern for environmental impact to surrounding tidal and freshwater wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats and our aquifer. Proximity to and inclusion of flood zones, freshwater wetlands, and saltwater wetlands makes this property inappropriate for raising livestock. The proposed'0000 square foot livestock barn for Steve Tenedios/Fresh &aWU Co should be denied, among other reasons, because it would directly contradict the deeded sale of development rights to the town of Southold in that it would "detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement." Yz � w�W W tA&► W W.iT W � r r 256 -L6Q 1 r---Wf PUV)�ivf- Heather M. Lanza, AICP Planning Director Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Lanza, As one of many concerned residents of Orient, I am writing to implore you to deny permission for Fresh and Co's proposed livestock barn at 28410 Main Road in Orient. Among the many reasons it is an absolute must to deny a commercial livestock operation of this scale are the protection of Hallock's Bay and Narrow River, designated critical environmental areas, and the protection of freshwater and tidal wetlands on the property and surrounding land. A livestock barn of this scale is not at all what the previous owner had in mind when she sold development rights. This was intended to be preserved land. While I do support local farming on the North Fork, I think this large commercial livestock operation and its associated truck traffic, agro-tourism, food festivals and classes significantly changes the usage of this land and detracts from the beauty of Orient. What's more, what happens to those of us with homes on Narrow River Road the first time we have a major storm or flood? We rely on well water at 5305 Narrow River Road, the place where my children drink, eat and play. I'm attaching for your review a petition protesting the Fresh and Co plan as signed by 615 (and counting) residents of Orient and our neighbors. I am also attaching the comments posted to the petition so you might read concerns as expressed by those of us (like you, I am sure) who understand the importance of protecting this area. Please keep us in mind at tonight's hearing. Thank you for your time and attention. Warmly, Ambdel Floyd Bostic 5305 Narrow River Road, Orient, NY 11957 246 Warren Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 E 11 'E_" P.O. Box 473 Orient,New York 11957 SEP 12 20 September 6, 2017 Southold Town Plaiininl±Board To: The Southold Town Planning Board Re: Tenedios farm application In my opinion there are far too many environmental questions raised by this application to justify a simple SEQRA Type 2 designation. A Type 1 designation would at least provide the opportunity to fill in many of the gaps in information provided by the applicant, including the specific numbers of animals to be installed and the specific projected uses of the building, and would provide for an analysis of the ability of the acreage, which includes wetlands, to support the scale of the projected operation, and identify the potential hazards to Orient's limited aquifer and to the already fragile health of Hallock Bay and Peconic Bay. I believe that the Water Conservation Committee has provided an excellent guideline for the types of questions that need to be answered. However, as the applicant has announced his intention to hold events on the property, which would be illegal under the terms of the deed, and as the proposed building appears to be designed for events rather than animal husbandry,the Planning Board should determine that this application be revised or withdrawn. Too often, in my experience, applications have been permitted to proceed, for months and even years, that should have been identified as non-starters at the beginning. The Board should not ignore the published intentions of the applicant to hold public events on the property, and should make very clear that such uses are prohibited by the terms of Southold Town's purchase of development rights and will not be tolerated. With Orient's single road already impacted by ferry traffic, such "events"would be untenable. If the applicant will not agree to accept this restriction unconditionally, this application should be withdrawn. Orient has some of the richest farmland on Long Island, and the continuity of farming is highly desirable. However, even without the proposed"events,"this application suggests a serious change in the kind and scale of farming practices traditionally utilized here, a change which potentially threatens the stated purpose of Southold Town's Resolution #208, the protection of the environment and of the scenic vistas. The Orient community is alarmed by this project. It should not be permitted to go forward at all unless all these questions are answered satisfactorily. Sincerely, Fredrica Wachsberger rP P 1 2 2011 September 11,2017 ull�old Timm Dear Mr.Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board, nnrnu Board I am Venetia Hands,a resident of Orient. I am extremely disappointed in Mr.Tenedios. It is my hope that at the end of this hearing,he will withdraw his application...at least until he can resubmit it with bullet-proof plans to ensure that the wastes from his barn and livestock do not infiltrate Hallock Bay. There are people in this room who fought long and hard to protect Hallock Bay.This time of year you used to see hundreds of scallops swimming in the shallows flashing their rows of electric-blue eyes.They are not back yet. When I first saw goats in the field I was happy.I thought:Oh good,someone is going to continue Maureen's light touch:some chickens,a horse,20 goats,and 1 sheep. When I saw the Fresh&Co.signs,I was not alarmed.I like Fresh&Co. I have bought many meals from their stores. I went to Fresh&Co's website.It talks about sourcing from local partners they know and trust and says: "When it comes to people and to food,it's what's inside that counts. That's why we serve pure foods that are free from synthetic fertilizers,antibiotics,pesticides,and other additives. We also believe in the importance of supporting local family farms that are committed to sustainable practices." And that's the source of my disappointment in Mr.Tenedios.Because then I saw his application for this huge barn,for an unspecified number of chickens and goats and sheep and pigs. It is woefully inadequate. It is completely lacking an explanation about how Mr.Tenedios plans to make this farm sustainable. It denies that there are any issues of concern at all as if the Narrow River wetlands leading to Hallock Bay were not directly connected to the property.As if there is no connection at all to Orient's shallow aquifer. How can Mr.Tenedios profess those values and beliefs yet seem to have no awareness or understanding of the sensitivity of this piece of land? Mr.Wilcenski,members of the Planning Board,this application as submitted,is not appropriate in Orient. If it is not withdrawn,please deny it.We owe it to all those who worked hard to protect this property in the first place and to the legacy of Maureen Cullinane. Thank you, Submitted by:Venetia Hands Resident of Orient. P.O. Box 398 p EC �� 1 �] C To: The Southold Town Planning Board From: John and Linda Sabatino SEP 1 2 2017 27756 Main Rd Southold Town Orient,NY 11957 Planning Board Date: September 11, 2017 We are attending the Southold Town Planning Board meeting tonight to state our opposition to the proposed 8,664 sq ft., 1 1/2 story barn on preserved land adjacent to our property. We have lived on the adjoining property for 30 years, and have supported local farming efforts, but we oppose the size of the proposed barn at this location for the following reasons: 1. The proposed barn is on Development Right Sold land,paid for by taxpayers money. This proposal would put a large building on prime agricultural soil. The proposed barn is in addition to the current buildings, which the application states, will remain on the property. The addition of this barn will increase the building coverage from 1,752 sq'to a total of 10,396 sq', six times the current amount. 2. Such a large, 1 1/2 story, 8,664 sq'barn disrupts the scenic view shed. The proposed building site is bordered on the north by RT25, which is designated as a scenic corridor, and Narrow River, part of Hallocks Bay Preserve to the east and south. One of the reasons the development rights for this property were purchased was to protect this unique scenic region. 3. This is an ecologically sensitive area. The survey shows that there are wetlands on the property and bordering the site on three sides. Such a dramatic increase in livestock farming has the potential to negatively impact Narrow River and adjacent bodies of water. 4. The applicant has stated in news reports that he intends to use this structure for selling products and holding various events that are not permitted on Development Rights Sold land. For these reasons, we ask the Southold Town Planning Board to not grant this building application until it has a more thorough environmental evaluation and is reviewed by the Land Preservation Committee. Michaelis, Jessica p �Jl 4k-A NAT 0"C 11) -�I From: William S Ryall <bill@ryallsheridan.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:45 PM U To: Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Barry George Bergdoll; Deborah Marland Subject: Fresh &Co r �ltail', I�crlr,, 915 Southview Drive, Orient, New York, 11957 11 September 2017 Southold Town Planning Committee Re : Application from Steven Tenedios/Fresh & Co./28140 Main Road at Narrow River Rd/Orient Dear members of the Town Planning Committee: As a registered voter in Southold Town and a resident of Brown's Hills, Orient (915 Southview Drive) , a community located a short distance from the property under discussion at tonight's meeting, I write to express my deep concern about the application under review. Others have already pointed out that the application violates in many fundamental respects the restrictions placed on the property at the time of sale by our late neighbor Maureen Cullen to Fresh & Co. Others will also point out key issues, in addition to simply abiding by the restrictions legally binding on this property as a signal to the members of your constituency that you intend to uphold such requirements. But I would like to add my voice to theirs and to point out the following needs to be taken into consideration: 1.) The property is in part wetlands and is immediately adjacent to sensitive wetlands in the estuary of the Narrow River. As you know this is not a river at all but a tidal estuary of Hallock's Bay and thus Peconic Bay and of Orient Harbor. The threats to the waters of the bay are already a subject of deep concern and any agricultural uses need to be undertaken with the strictest provisions for maintaining the ground water and adjacent wetlands from further pollution. Drainage here is of prime concern. i 2.) Use of this land for events is deeply worrisome and in violation of the restrictions on this protected open land. Extensive parking on site, especially if a paved parking lot were to be part of the plan, would add further to issues of polluted run-off. Roadside parking is out of the question as Main Road is already very heavily trafficked, notably with ferry traffic. Narrow River Road is itself narrow and is the access road to one of the most cherished local recreational areas for boating, swimming, and biking in and along the Narrow River estuary. The estuary moreover is host to wildlife from birds to shell fish and fish. 3.) Traffic is a vital concern as it is already very difficult for local residents to turn off the access roads on the north side of Main Road (notably Browns's Hills Road) and off of Narrow River Road due to the ever increasing traffic using the Cross Sound Ferry. At least once an hour a steady stream of traffic passes by for 15 to 20 minutes as a ferry unloads arriving in Orient from New London. Not only are entertainment uses of open land in violation of the restrictions on the property, they create potential traffic hazards. One has only to look to the unmanageable situation with the Lavender Farm in East Marion to see what could be in store. Moreover, there are curves in Main Road at both ends of the site, compromising visibility for turning traffic. 4.) Events that involve music or amplified sound of any kind will violate the peace of this neighborhood and recreation area. This has already been experienced by Orient residents when a local property was used for a wedding event recently. I am sorry that I am unable to attend this meeting in person to vigorously urge you to respect the letter of the restrictions on this property and to give priority to the voices and views of your constituents and taxpayers. [Hi Sincerely, Barry Bergdoll 915 Southview Drive, Orient 2 SEP 1 i 2011 L September 11, 2017 saauiiaatir in, si ti3cs.rd Mr. Donald Wilcenski Chair, Planning Board Southold Town Southold, NY Via email c/o Heather Lanza Dear Mr. Wilcenski and members of the Planning Board: We write this brief email regarding the Fresh & Co property as we are now unable to attend the scheduled hearing on their proposal today. Please share the letter As we understand the matter before the Planning Board, the current owner proposes to raise quantities of livestock, build a large barn structure and hold entertainments. We believe these activities exceed the uses allowed under the deed, would likely contaminate the adjacent local wetlands and marine habitat, threaten the purity of Orient's precious aquifer and violate the town code with respect to what's allowed once development rights have been sold. While we are eager to see the farm protected and remain in healthy agricultural use, nothing about this proposed usage adheres to the letter or the spirit of Maureen's intentions when she sold the development rights, nor does it adhere to our town code. Mr. Tenedios' representations as to the allowed uses suggest he was not familiar at the time of purchase with what was allowed on the property or that he simply dissembles for the sake of advancing his agenda for the property. We urge the planning board to reject his application as submitted. My wife and I thank you, the members of the Board and Heather for the work you do on behalf of our town and the consideration you have shown and continue to show towards the Orient community. Sincerely Scott Stein and Andrea Schulz Skippers Lane Orient, NY Michaelis, Jessica 1' �A I From: Leslie Koch <leslie@lkdg.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:14 PM !f To: Michaelis, Jessica SEi' 1 1 2017 Subject: Tenedios Agricultural Barn comment for tonight's hearing { r_�u':nuir� tnu,�r September 11, 2017 790 Uhl Lane Orient NY 11957 Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Tenedios Agricultural Barn To the Planning Board: I am writing to you regarding this proposed "agricultural" barn on the Main Road in Orient next to Narrow River Road. I, and hundreds of my neighbors and fellow Orient and Southold residents, have many concerns about this proposal. Narrow River is an extraordinary place in Southold town, a unique ecological wetland habitat that attracts birds and other wildlife and provides wonderful natural beauty and recreation for Southold residents who swim, walk, paddleboard and kayak. It is a gem not just for those of us who live in Orient but for many people from throughout the town and elsewhere who enjoy it. There appears to be the need for much further study of the impact of this proposed development on the wetlands both on the property and next to it, the water table and other environmental issues related to animal waste, water usage and other concerns. I would ask the board to require all necessary studies before anything can proceed. As you know, this is preserved farmland. The proposal refers to an unusually large facility to house goats and other livestock but the owner has talked openly about all forms of"agritainment"to take place there. Aren't such uses banned on preserved farmland? And if such uses took place where would visitors park? On the preserved farmland? And what happens if the owner proceeds with a supposed facility for animals and then begins to program the dinners, festivals and other events he has discussed in the media? i Finally, my husband serves as a volunteer EMT with the Orient Fire Department and considered Maureen Cullinane a friend and colleague. There was no person more dedicated to community, agriculture and nature than Maureen. Hundreds of us came together last year to honor her memory after her untimely death. I hope that you too will honor her memory and act to protect this unique property from inappropriate development with lasting consequences. Thank you for your consideration, Leslie Koch 2 Michaelis, Jessica lti From: Bergdoll, Barry <barry_bergdoll@moma.org> SEP 11 2017 Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:43 AM !. - Southold Tnwli To: Michaelis,Jessica 1,,,1;,-„„';,.,, Subject: Letter to the Town Planning Board/Committee concerning tonight's litaring on Tenedios/Fresh & Co property/Main Road, Orient. Attachments: Fresh &Co.docx Dear Southold Town Planning Board. Pleae find attached my letter urging you to reject the applicatoin under review tonight. I would like this leter to become part of the hearing reocrd. I am sending it to you know via email and sending with a neighbor as I am unable to attend this evening. Barry Bergdoll 915 Southview Drive, Orient. Barry Bergdoll I 915 Southview Drive, Orient, New York, 11957 11 September 2017 Southold Town Planning Committee Re :Application from Steven Tenedios/Fresh &Co./28140 Main Road at Narrow River Rd/Orient Dear members of the Town Planning Committee: As a registered voter in Southold Town and a resident of Brown's Hills, Orient (915 Southview Drive) , a community located a short distance from the property under discussion at tonight's meeting, I write to express my deep concern about the application under review. Others have already pointed out that the application violates in many fundamental respects the restrictions placed on the property at the time of sale by our late neighbor Maureen Cullen to Fresh &Co. Others will also point out key issues, in addition to simply your insistence on abiding by the restrictions legally binding on this property as a signal to the members of your constituency that you intend to uphold such requirements. But I would like to add my voice to theirs and to point out the following needs to be taken into consideration: 1.) The property is in part wetlands and is immediately adjacent to sensitive wetlands in the estuary of the Narrow River. As you know this is not a river at all but a tidal estuary of Hallock's Bay and thus Peconic Bay and of Orient Harbor. The threats to the waters of the bay are already a subject of deep concern and any agricultural uses need to be undertaken with the strictest provisions for maintaining the ground water and adjacent wetlands from further pollution. Drainage here is of prime concern. 2.) Use of this land for events is deeply worrisome and in violation of the restrictions on this protected open land. Extensive parking on site, especially if a paved parking lot were to be part of the plan, would add further to issues of polluted run-off. Roadside parking is out of the question as Main Road is already very heavily trafficked, notably with ferry traffic. Narrow River Road is itself narrow and is the access road to one of the most cherished local recreational areas for boating, swimming, and biking in and along the Narrow River estuary. The estuary moreover is host to wildlife from birds to shell fish and fish. 3.) Traffic is a vital concern as it is already very difficult for local residents to turn off the access roads on the north side of Main Road (notably Browns's Hills Road) and off of Narrow River Road due to the ever increasing traffic using the Cross Sound Ferry. At least once an hour a steady stream of traffic passes by for 15 to 20 minutes as a ferry unloads arriving in Orient from New London. Not only are entertainment uses of open land in violation of the restrictions on the property,they create potential traffic hazards. One has only to look to the unmanageable situation with the Lavender Farm in East Marion to see what could be in store. Moreover, there are curves in Main Road at both ends of the site, compromising visibility for turning traffic. 4.) Events that involve music or amplified sound of any kind will violate the peace of this neighborhood and recreation area. This has already been experienced by Orient residents when a local property was used for a wedding event recently. I am sorry that I am unable to attend this meeting in person to vigorously urge you to respect the letter of the restrictions on this property and to give priority to the voices and views of your constituents and tax payers. Sincerely, Barry Bergdoll 915 Southview Drive, Orient Michaelis, Jessica From: Regina Ebel <rebelgilson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:54 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica SEP 11 201 Cc: Russell, Scott Southold l'o Subject: Orient ag land. plannii.whopr d Good morning. My name is Regina Ebel, I am a resident&tax payer&voter from Orient Village. I would like to state my opposition to the proposed use, of the Orient preserved farm land, by the group from Fresh & Co. I could go on &on with a very long note, but will keep this simple &to the point. The town of southold has to make sure that the right thing is done, do not allow the commercialization of preserved land. We do not need another Harbes like spot. Regina Ebel Sent from my iPhone i Michaelis, Jessica From: Jonathan Gilson <jongils@aol.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:22 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica SEP 11 2017 Subject: Tenedios Agricultural Barn So IIIJUlC To"vn Flannina Board My name is Jonathan Gilson. I live at 505 Skippers Lane,Orient Village. I object to the use of the intended use of preserved farmland. The board has a responsibility to deny this non-confirming business. Preserved Farmland is just what it is. Preserved Farmland. Sincerely, Jonathan Gilson Sent from my Whone 1 Michaelis, Jessica p o�" L(_MT From: Sherry Thomas <thomassherry99@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 7:46 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: letter to Planning Board re Livestock Barn in Orient SEP E1 t 2017 Sn!!1ho d Tb Dear Planning Board Members, R19019 card I will be present Monday night at the Planning Board hearing on the proposed livestock barn in Orient. Others will speak about the requirements in the preservation agreement that was signed by the town. As a former livestock farmer who raised sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, a steer and horses, I am well aware of the requirements for these animals. The proposed prefab barn is designed for milking cows or raising horses. It is not well suited to raising goats, sheep, chickens or even pigs. Beyond that point there are even more glaring omissions, no refrigeration until for milk or eggs, no agriculture housing for workers to take care of all the animals, and no animal waste disposal program in a property surrounded by wetlands. One pig produces a ton of manure per year. Add 30 to 60 tons of nitrogen loaded manure to Narrow River and Hallocks Bay and you've destroyed a critical wetlands culture. Add chicken manure, the highest in nitrogen of all farm manures, and the problem increases exponentially. What seems clear is that this application is disingenuous. This is not a livestock barn for the purposes described in the application. It is an agritourism facility that is not allowed on either the preserved 25 acres or the single family home zoning of the remaining five acres. I join many Orient citizens in asking you to provide much more detailed review of this application and the requirements under the deed of preservation. sincerely, Sherry Thomas Sherry's Garden Design Low Maintenance Gardens for Busy People SH ERRY THOMAS 631-323-1308 I September 11, 2017 SEP 1 2017 L Southold Town Planning Board: r Southold own Planni,r '` We have owned property in Orient for over 15 years and have always enjoyed Orient's quiet beauty. We were very concerned to hear recently about the Tenedios Agricultural Barn. Besides the many issues related to the risks to well water in the area, its affect on the wetlands, and the impact of animal waste to this area, we are extremely concerned about Fresh & Co's plans regarding a food and wine festival. This kind of event will likely generate huge interest, resulting in large numbers of cars and people coming into Orient. Our understanding is that this kind of event is not allowed on preserved land. It is our hope that the Planning Board will propose that an environmental study be undertaken to examine the impact of Fresh &Co's plans, and that such a large event as a festival be denied. I am sure that the vast majority of Orient residents would not be happy to play host to the crowds that would come to such an event. Sincerely, Esther and Steve Rotella 830 Poquatuck Lane Orient Michaelis, Jessica � � nn � From: Bruce Weber <bweberll03@gmail.com> LL L Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:40 AM _ �1 To: Michaelis, Jessica ��-i Subject: tenedios agricultural barn ,— SU!..1 c,,,i Sept. 11 2017 To the Southold Town Planning Board: This is to register my strong objection to the proposed Tenedios/Fresh & Co. livestock barn along Main Road in Orient. The inevitable animal waste would quite obviously present a threat to the surrounding wetlands, the local fish and wildlife and, perhaps most worrisome, our water supply. The very size of the project -- 9000 square feet, egads! -- is wildly out of proportion for the site and would dominate an area that is known for its rural serenity, one of the rare remaining examples on Long Island of people living carefully and respectfully of the natural beauty surrounding them. Beyond that, the proposed "events" to be held on the property would potentially overwhelm the capacity of the Main Road to handle the traffic and would indisputably undermine the quietude that residents relish. Indeed, it's the very reason that many of us choose to live there. My wife and I bought our house at 625 Uhl Lane in 2016 with the understanding and the hope that the quality of life in our beautiful and remote slice of land beyond the causeway would remain what it has been for generations, unsullied by the commercial and industrial development that has come to define so much of Suffolk County. Please help us keep it that way and reject the Tenedios proposal. Sincerely, Bruce Weber 917-359-0700 environmental impact to surrounding tidal and freshwater wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats and our aquifer. Proximity to and inclusion of flood zones, freshwater wetlands, and saltwater wetlands makes this property inappropriate for raising livestock. The proposed 9000 square foot livestock barn for Steve Tenedios/Fresh & Co should be denied, among other reasons, because it would directly contradict the deeded sale of development rights to the town of Southold in that it would "detract from, or adversely affect the open space and scenic value that is protected by this development rights purchase and easement. Michaelis, Jessica From: Gideon D'Arcangelo <gdarcangelo@esidesign.com> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 1:23 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Cc: Liz Welch SEP 1 :�. 1017 I Subject: Fw: Fresh and Co. permit request: So!a�noiti Ta:, �ra Planninn Town of Southold Planning Board: We demand that the town do a proper and thorough review of the request from Fresh and Co. to build a barn on the property formerly owned by Maureen Cullinane on the Main Road in Orient. This development rights for this land were transferred to the Town of Southold, and it appears that many of the plans of Fresh and Co. are in violation of that agreement. In addition, we demand that a proper SEQRA submission be required for this request, so we can understand the environmental impacts of what they are proposing before agreeing to any of it. The community has a number of important questions about Tenedios' proposal, and we are deeply concerned that their proposal may be approved before these questions are answered. The idea of another commercial facility operating on the Main Road like the Lavender Farm in East Marion would increase traffic congestion and traffic safety issues. This past summer there were backups on the Main Road all the way to Greenport because of the Lavender Farm, causing Town of Southold law enforcement to get involved managing traffic. Adding another business like this to the Main Road could have terrible traffic and safety implications for Orient. We also heard that there is public cookout and bonfire being planned for October 7 - we do not support large scale public events like this in Orient and demand that the town properly review this and determine if a permit for this event is even legal. Gideon and Liz D'Arcangelo 230 Vincent Street (PO Box 293) Orient, NY 11957 (917) 750-6960 Michaelis, Jessica g g y From: DOUGLAS GRAY <dou lash ra @icloud.com> r � Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 8:28 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica SEP 1 1 2017 Subject: Tenedios Farm Proposal Southold Town Planning Board Dear Southold Town Planning Board, Please consider and then reject any development that violates the protections in place for the recently purchased Tenedios property in Orient,NY. The purpose and spirit of development rights are clear. This project clearly violates nearly all of its aspects. The idea of animal wastes so close to the protected wetlands is obscene. Just look at how effective the "protections"that the people of Texas(and Florida)put in place to combat the force of nature. We live on Uhl Lane on the north side of the Main Road. When we purchased our house, we were informed by eight insurance companies that they would NOT have insured our house had it been on the South side of the Main Road(where the Tenedios Farm is located). It's in a flood zone. Map Legends x FEMA Flood Zones Moderate to low risk areas ❑ X , 1% ACF ❑ Q 2% PCT < 1% ACF High risk areas ?, A 1% ACF AE 1% ACF ' ❑ AO =e> 1%ACF, 1-3ft High risk-coastal areas Iorth Ra V =/> 1% ACF +• ❑ VE =I> 1% ACF + Storm waves Fioodway COBRA 41 a +' Coastal barrier resources system area ACF= Annual chance of flooding D 0.5 f 1.5 2 2.5 mile's 1 Also the idea that this farm will also serve as an event space is as misguided as it is dangerous. As a member of the Orient Fire Department, I can assure you that the Main Road is hazardous enough. In this past year I have personally seen a dozen Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVAs)on the Orient Main Road. As a member of the Emergency Medical Corps, I can assure you that a public venue of this scope requires significant study of impact on disaster, medical and evacuation impacts. Please honor the agreements in place and deny this and all future applications for the development of the fragile, beautiful wetlands and farmlands in Orient. There is plenty of farmland for sale(and development)within 15 miles of Orient. Our little historic peninsula needs your protection. Thank you Douglas Gray 790 Uhl Lane Orient,NY 11957 dou lasklkdg.com z