Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthold Commons 1991 MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Environmental Consultants DONALD J MIDDLETON FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NY October 1991 Applicant: E.M. Kontokosta 754 DEER PARK AVE., NORTH BABYLON, NEW YORK 11703 • 516 321-4348 • FAX.516 321-4349 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL TMr STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOCATION: Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York APPLICANT: E.M. Kontokosta P.O. Box 67, North Road Greenport, New York 11944 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York CONTACT: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk PREPARED BY: Middleton Environmental Inc. 754 Deer Park Avenue North Babylon, New York 11703 Donald J. Middleton, President (516) 321-4300 DATE OF PREPARATION: October 1991 DATE ACCEPTED: NOV 1 z 1991 COMMENT PERIOD: Copies of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Written comments should be submitted by NOV 2 2 1991 to be in the public record. TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHOLD COMMONS, SOUTHOLD NEW YORK Page Nos . SUMMARY OF FEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary - 1 thru - 2 Responses to Letters and Comments Received From the Following: Charles J. Voorhis, AICP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CVA Cramer, Voorhis & Associates (Consultant to Town) 54 North Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 (Comments dated 8/13/91 & 9/12/91) Village of Greenport, Supt. of Utilities. . . . . . . . .VG 236 Third Street, P.O. Box 2095 Greenport, NY 11944 (Comments dated 8/21/91) Town of Southold Planning Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PB Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 (Comments dated 8/13/91) Jane Gohorel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JG No Street Address Provided East Marion, NY (Comments dated 8/21/91) Public Hearing Transcripts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .T Southold Town Board (Public Hearing 8/13/91 @4:35 p.m.) SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTHOLD COMMONS This report summarizes and provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed construction of single family dwellings on a 32 acre site in Southold, Suffolk County, NY. The site is located in the Town of Southold and is bounded on the south by Middle Road (County Route 48) , on the north by Hummel Avenue, east of Boisseau Avenue and within a 1/2 mile of the Hamlet of Southold. The project applicant is E.M. Kontokosta. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October 1990, revised January 1991 and its Addendum June 1991) prepared by Middleton Environmental Inc., and this report, together, constitute the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) , in accordance with regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . Approximately 20 copies of the DEIS were submitted and distributed to Town officials, state and county agencies and interested parties. The DEIS was also available for public inspection and review at the Town of Southold offices at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was held before the Town Board on August 13, 1991 at 4:35 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall . The official deadline for receipt of written comments on the DEIS was August 23, 1991 . Summary - 1 SUMMARY OF FEIS - CONT'D The applicant's consultants have reviewed the written comments and the transcript of the public hearing received during and after the comment period. Substantive comments have been summarized, addressed and translated into a comment and response format in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Summary - 2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DEIS FOR SOUTHOLD COMMONS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMENT #1 (Description of Proposed Action - DEIS) Public Need for Project: Page III-8 "The Draft EIS notes that the project addresses a long term need in the Town of Southold; however, the project is currently under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. How has the downturn in the real estate market decreased the need for affordable housing considering the current availability of lower priced housing? What affect does this situation have on the current need for this project and what future trends are expected?" (CVA-1) RESPONSE #1 See Response #2 . -1- COMMENT #2 Public Need for Project Pane III-12 "The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Planning Board position is that the change of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of the Town. " (PB-2, JG-1, T-3) RESPONSE #2 In referring to the article published by the Suffolk Times on Page 1, dated 8/1/91 entitled "Affordable Housing: Who Needs It" . The Southold Community Development Director, Mr. James MacMahon, states that "in many cases, people are not qualifying at the bank for mortgages. " Mrs. Harroun, one of the buyers at Cedarfields is quoted in the article as saying "People would love to pick up a house right now, but they can 't afford it. We are in a recession" . The fact that people cannot meet the minimum eligibility requirements indicates an even greater need for affordable housing. lay, Per a telephone conversation between Mr. MacMahon and the project sponsor he also stated "that even though Cedarfields-Affordable Housing Project of 39 units are almost sold out, (only 4 remaining) and Highpoint-Affordable Housing Project of 27 units are almost sold out, there still remains an ! unsolicited list of 80 families as of 9/26/91 who are looking to purchase affordable homes. The Southold Villas-Affordable -2- Housing Project of 17 potentially available units will only satisfy 20% of the present need. " Mr. MacMahon indicated that he intends to advertise the affordable housing program so as to better inform the general public of its availability. Once the advertising is completed, he feels that the list for families needing affordable housing will double, thus indicating the true demand. Further, once the economic recession has turned around and the employment picture improves, the families not able to meet the minimum requirements will now be added to the list, thus increasing the list further. When this project comes on line in 1994/95, assuming no other affordable housing project is approved prior to Jem and Southold Commons, and assuming the need for affordable housing does not increase (very unrealistic) , these two projects will only meet 40% of the present demand. COMMENT #3 LA, Design and Layout - Total Site Area Page III-13 "The Draft EIS states "The roads are proposed to be 24+1 wide constructed in accordance with the town of Southold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swales on either side as well as leaching pools in each low section of the road. . . " . Please explore the feasibility of this drainage design as compared to recharge basins. If both methods are feasible, please include a brief assessment of the environmental considerations for each type of design in either this section or a latter section of the Draft EIS. " (CVA-2) -3- RESPONSE #3 The swale system is commonly referred to as a non-structural drainage system which is appropriate in areas where the soil conditions allow for a substantial amount of storm water runoff to percolate into the ground as its being channeled to and eventually collected in leaching pools, permanent ponds, or basins. Variables to be considered in the selection of this system are soil type, topography, the groundwater table, and anticipated physical capacity of the system. The most commonly used system is the curb-recharge basin system. It is referred to as a structural system which uses curbing and fixes conduit to channel the storm water runoff into a recharge basin. There the runoff either percolates into the soil or evaporates into the air. This system is used on sites where the soil type and soil conditions do not possess high percolation factors. The final selection for the preferred system for use on this site can only be determined during the engineering design stage of this project. COMMENT #4 Design and Layout - Land to be Cleared Pape III-13 "Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession?" (CVA-3) -4- RESPONSE #4 As indicated in the DEIS, it is the intention of the project sponsor to limit clearing during construction and to keep extensive lawn areas to a minimum for the initial purchaser. It was suggested that this could be accomplished by means of covenants in the deed of each lot (see Addendum Page 7 "incorporate into each deed for each lot that limited lawn/landscape areas be created and that. . .etc. " . Further mitigation measures on future owners limiting lawn areas to promote natural succession of the landscape, can be imposed on all property owners by Town Law Legislation passed by the Town Board. This will allow for the proper and effective policing and enforcement of these mitigation measures and will assure uniform and substantial compliance. COMMENT #5 Construction and Operation Page III-14 "Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant and utilities, specifically identifying intent regarding phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and improvements. ,, (CVA-4) RESPONSE #5 The construction schedule is entirely dependent on receiving all the necessary approvals prior to early 1994 . it is anticipated that the site work for this project will commence sometime in early 1994 and be completed in late 1995. Sewage Treatment Plant construction will commence in early 1994 . Site -5- sanitary and utility distribution lines will be installed during the 1994/95 period. Sanitary and utility connections to the individual residential units will be made as they are constructed. It is anticipated that the 116 units will be constructed on an "as needed basis" over a period of five years. The number of units were previously provided, and are provided again above. Road access is shown on the Plan. There will be two access routes via Boisseau Avenue to the east and Railroad Avenue to the west. I COMMENT #6 Construction and Operation Page III-14 "The sewage treatment plant may cause odor impacts which should be considered. " (T-2) RESPONSE #6 It is expected that a properly designed sewage treatment plant meeting the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and applying proper engineering principles and criteria will not cause odor impacts. -6- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING COMMENT #7 Water Resources - Water Supply Page IV-10 "The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussion in the Draft EIS. What is the current and predicted water supply availability for the proposed project?" (CVA-5) RESPONSE #7 Past correspondence with the Village of Greenport (see paragraphs 1 thru 3 below) , indicates that the Greenport Utility Company is anticipating the additional water demand created by this and other future projects being planned within the boundaries of their system and are seeking to satisfy this demand through the acquisition of new sources. (See reference below to the 51, well located on the Jem Commons site and offered for additional water capacity) . 1 . On 3/23/87 the project sponsor met with the Utility Committee of the Village of Greenport at which time the sponsor offered the Village of Greenport the use of a 5" well on the Jem Commons site to be connected to the entire water supply system. This well, when added to the system, would appreciably increase water availability for this project and many future projects which may come on line. The Village of Greenport was to have the well tested so as to determine whether it complies with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services water quality standards. -7- 2 . A letter from the Village of Greenport dated 3/15/89 to the project sponsor's attorney, Mr. Howard Pachman of Pachman & Oshrin, indicates that the Village is planning to add three (3) new wells which will supply sufficient water for "his" client for both projects. 3 . A letter from the Village of Greenport to Kontokosta Associates (sponsor's design consultant) dated 8/30/89 requested additional information on water hook-up for the Proposed project because the "Village is currently on an ambitious expansion program for water hook-ups" . The current availability of water supply is not significant since the project sponsor does not expect to require water supply until late 1994 early 1995. It is difficult to predict the future availability of, a water supply at the time when this project will go on line (1994/1995) . However, based on the continuing effort of the Village of Greenport to add new sources of water supply to the system, (such as the possibility of adding the existing 5" well located on the Jem Commons property) , the project sponsor is proceeding to obtain the necessary approvals for this project with the confident anticipation that the Village of Greenport's short term year to year expansion program will continue to meet the water supply requirements generated by the population growth in the Town of Southold. The sponsor had made application for connection to the Greenport water system in 1987. It is anticipated that by the time this project reaches the site planning stage, the -8- I sponsor's position on the water allocation list will entitle them to negotiate the typical water service contract with the /,i, � Village of Greenport, making available the necessary water supply for the project in 1994/95 or soon thereafter. COMMENT #8 4� Water Resources - Water Supply Page IV-10 "The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity. ,, (VG-1, JG-3) RESPONSE #8 See Response #7. COMMENT #9 Cultural Resources Page IV-31 "What open space value does the parcel provide to the surrounding portion of the hamlet? Will these values be lost as a result of the project?" (CVA-6) -9- RESPONSE #9 One would have to consider the "Open Space" value this parcel provides to the surrounding portion of the hamlet areas in relation to the intent and goals of the Master Plan, particurlary since it is located within 1/2 mile radius of the Business Hamlet. It is the intent of the planners to develop the area within the 1/2 mile radius at a hamlet density, thus providing moderate and affordable housing for the community within these areas. The Master Plan proposed that the value of open space be fully developed "outside" these hamlet areas. COMMENT #10 Traffic Page IV-la "With the addition of high density land use, additional pedestrian activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedestrian environment and what mitigation measures can be used to minimize these impacts?" (CVA-7) RESPONSE #10 As per Page IV-19 of the DEIS (Pedestrian Environment) - No pedestrians were observed in the area during the on site visit in August 1990. This statement does not indicate that there are no pedestrians. Although the project is relatively close to the Southold Business District (within 1/2 mile) , it is anticipated that people will use automobiles to travel to the business district for shopping and other errands which would be more convenient for carrying packages, particularly during the cooler months. -10- SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMENT #11 Public Water Supply Page V-2 "The Draft EIS acknowledges that the Greenport Water District is an over-taxed resource. What is the current availability of water supply? What water district and/or Health Department policies (if any) apply to increase in water demand resulting from proposed rezoning and what mitigation measures can be employed to minimize impacts?" (CVA-8, T-3) RESPONSE #11 The current availability of water supply would not apply to the proposed project since the project sponsors do not anticipate commencement of this project until 1994/95. In regard to the water district policies to increase in water demand refer to Response 17. Mitigation measures which could be employed to minimize "potential" impacts would be to utilize the most stringent water saving and conservation devices into the plumbing fixtures of the units being construction. In addition, as previously stated in the DEIS and its Addendum, limiting water use on lawns by utilizing alternative groundcover (such as low-fertilizer, low-maintenance vegetation, i .e., fine fescues, wild flower sod, bluegrass and perennial rye grass, etc.) , which does not require intense watering, would also decrease water use. -11- COMMENT #12 Public Water Supply Page V-2 "Regarding the DEIB, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands." (VG-2) RESPONSE #12 Water Demand Analysis: Daily Water Consumption - 116 (3 bedroom) units @300 gpd = 34, 800 GPD Peak Water Demand = (2 x daily demand) 34,800 GPD = 69, 600 GPD Annual Demand - Daily anticipated consumption x 360 days = 34, 800 GPD x 360 days = 12,528, 000 gallons. Fire Flow Demand - 500 gpm/per hydrant COMMENT #13 Open Space Page V-9 "What affect will the loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values?" -12- RESPONSE #13 The loss of open space when this parcel is developed as moderate and affordable housing will have very little affect on the general surrounding area of the Southold Hamlet since one half mile to the west and several hundred feet to the north are numerous acres whose use as farmland provides the benefits of endless open space. The development of this property as affordable and moderate housing is in accordance with the intent and goals of the Master Plan. COMMENT #14 Open Space Page V-9 "This parcel constitutes one of the last open space areas in the vicinity. The Master Plan called for at least two open space areas, and this parcel represents the only open space opportunity remaining. This affect should be considered. " (T-1) RESPONSE #14 Nowhere in the Master Plan does it call for maintaining this property or any other private property as open space. See Response #13 . COMMENT #15 Land Use and Zoning Page V-11 "The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Greenport hamlet should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be give to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. " (PB-1, JG-2) -13- RESPONSE #15 There is only a positive social or economic impact on providing the necessary housing, affordable or moderate, within the 1/2 mile radius of the hamlets as planned for in the Master Plan. 4 ZI.i •CNH/4�t. The Southold Community Development Director, Mr. James MacMahon, stated that the Cedarfields Affordable Housing project, (in Greenport) 39 units are almost sold out, and the Highpoint-Affordable Housing project of 27 units are almost sold out, yet there still remains an unsolicited list of 8o families as of 9/26/91 who are looking to purchase affordable homes. The Southold Villas Affordable Housing project of 17 potentially available units will only satisfy 20% of the present need. Mr. MacMahon indicated that he intends to advertise the affordable housing program so as to better inform the general public of its availability. [Once the advertising is completed, he feels that ,F � the demand for affordable housing in the Town of Southold will more than double.' Further, once the economic recession is over - -- �µ-� and the employment picture improves, the families not able to meet the minimum requirements will now be added to the list When this project comes on line in 1994/95, assuming no other affordable housing project is approved besides Jem and Southold Commons, and assuming the need for affordable housing does not increase (very unrealistic) , these two projects will only meet 40% of the present demand. COMMENT #16 Land Use and Zoning Page V-11 ' One-quarter acre residential lots are very small, one-acre lots would be preferable. " (T-4) -14- RESPONSE #16 The Master Plan and the subsequent amendment to the Town Zoning Resolution envisions the development of parcels within one half mile radius of the Hamlet Business Districts as Hamlet Density Zoning, which allows for one quarter acre residential lots as an acceptable size buildable lot. -15- MITIGATION MEASURES COMMENT #17 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Page VI-4 "The Draft EIS states, "Where natural areas are disturbed, bushes, trees and shrubs which fit the natural habitat and are suited to the conditions of the area will be planted to provide shade, define the grounds and soften the architectural elements. " How will these mitigation measures be implemented, and at what stage of the approval process can this be assured? The document also states that "A significant mitigation measure to the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the maintenance of the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and native type grasses. " In keeping with this proposed mitigation measure, can areas of the site be covenanted to ensure that existing groundcover is not disrupted?" RESPONSE #17 These mitigation measures will be implemented upon site plan approval and can be assured through permit conditions. See Addendum Page #7 in addition to reducing nitrogen loadings discharged to groundwater "mitigation offered would be to incorporate into each deed for each lot that limited lawn/landscape areas be created and that only low-fertilizer, low-maintenance dependent grasses and/or utilization of ,,, alternative groundcovers such as rock gardens wood chips� etc be utilized on this site,, . It is also stated on Page VI-4 "as part of the landscaping and planting plans, trees and shrubs will be planted around the homes and along the roadways. Areas with newly constructed homes will be replanted as soon as possible. The planting of grasses, shrubs and trees after construction will benefit this area by providing increased topographic (floral) structure. " -16- COMMENT #18 Transportation Page VI-6 "What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis?" (CVA-11) RESPONSE #18 See Response #10 . COMMENT #19 Land Use and Zoning Page VI-6 "The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, of . . .landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual impact. ,, What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals [i .e., street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement] (for 86-unit alternative) . 11 (CVA-12) RESPONSE #19 See Response #17. Any open areas created in the 86 unit alternative shall be allowed to develop with natural vegetation. -17- COMMENT #20 Public Water Supply Page VI-7 "With the update of the water supply status for the Final EIS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. " (CVA-13) RESPONSE #20 It is the intention of the project sponsor to comply with the Greenport Utility Company's requirements to utilize water saving and conservation devices into the plumbing fixtures of the units being constructed. In addition, (as previously stated in the DEIS and its Addendum) limiting water use on lawns by low-maintenance vegetation, i .e., fine fescues, wild flower sod, bluegrass and perennial rye grass, etc., which does not require intense watering. This would also decrease water use. -18- ADDENDUM TO DEIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMMENT #21 Public Need for Project Page 3 "The Addendum indicates that " . . .small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size. . . " . Please describe the type of operational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project . " (CVA-14) RESPONSE #21 As stated on Page 3 of the Addendum, this information was obtained from Mr. Gebert of the SCDH on 4/4/91 . He stated that "it has been their experience that small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size and cost to construct and maintain. " Smaller capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operational problems because they are generally maintained by outside maintenance contractors retained by homeowners associations or other homeowner entities . Larger sewage treatment plants require a full time on-site maintenance staff. Outside maintenance contractors are not considered as reliable as on-site maintenance personnel who devote all their time to keeping the system in proper operating condition. The proper maintenance of any sewage treatment plant will not allow for "environmental consequences" . `y.n^ _19- �t�a JUDITH T. TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK P O. Box 1 179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax (516) 765-1823 +, Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 1991 E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Jem Commons Southold commons Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Enclosed is the packet I faxed to you today, representing the comments on the Jem Commons and Southold Commons Draft EIS documents, as well as the attachments which I did not fax containing the codes referred to in Charles Voorhis' comments on the respective drafts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorneys Howard E. Pachman, Esq. C. Russell, Middleton Environ CRAMER, VOORHIISOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL`AND PLAT1Nf1 G CONSULTANTS September 12, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road RECEIVED P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SEP 131991 Re: Southold Commons Southold Town Clerk Comments on the Draft EIS Dear Judy: As per the directive of the Town Board, we have compiled and synthesized the comments on the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. At this time it is necessary to complete a Final EIS on this project. As you are aware, it is the responsibilityof the lead agency to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS regardless of who prepares it. Based on the Work Session of September 10, 1991, the Town Board feels it would be most expedient and beneficial to direct the applicant to prepare a response to the comments generated as a result of the public hearing and written comments received to date. Once complete, the responses submitted on behalf of the applicant would be submitted to the Board to determine the adequacy and accuracy for filing of the Final EIS. Enclosed, please find all of the comments received in connection with this project. In ordertop the lead agency with a satisfactory preliminary Final EIS submission for review, it is recommended that the applicant complete the following: 1) The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference. 2) All original comment letters and transcripts should be included as a portion of the Final EIS. 3) Comments should be separated to identify whether the comments were received in the context of the hearing or as part of the written record. 4 Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. 5 Comments may be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comment. 6) A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. 7) The most encompassing comment document should be addressed first in the responses - subsequent comments which are duplicative may refer to a previous response. Attached are the comments on the Draft EIS for Southold Commons for your use. The applicant should proceed to prepare the required documentation in order to complete the processing of this application. SEQR Regulations indicate that a Final EIS should be prepared within 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. Based upon this, it is not necessary to adhere to the 45 day time frame, if the applicant requires additional time to provide an adequate and accurate response. Upon receipt of the preliminary Final EIS,we will make every effort to review submitted documentation in a timely fashion in order to determine adequacy. Upon completion, the applicant should submit sufficient copies for the Board and consultant to review the Responses. The full number of documents needed for circulation should not be submitted until the document is determined to be acceptable by the lead agency. When determined to be complete, additional copies may be requested or prepared. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very t yours, harles J. orhis, AICP enc: Comments on the Draft EIS CRAMER, VO , RHI & SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL,. G CONSULTANTS r LCOMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS D - SOUTHOLD COMMONS 5' ,' 2 ,r 191 - Southold, New York INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft FIS), for the pro'ect known as Southold Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17, 191. A public hearing on the Draft EIS has been scheduled for August 13, 1991, and comments on the Draft document were accepted for a period of ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing. The document was been circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing comments on the document for use by the decision making agency in the preparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. At this time written comments and comments received as a result of testimony at the public hearing have been collected by the Town Board, and forwarded to Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. for review. This letter synthesizes and categorizes substantive comments on the Draft EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS and the Draft EIS Addendum are separated under subheadings as found below. In addition, the source for each of the comments is identified with the initials of the party that provided the comments, followed by consecutive numbers for each substantive comment made by that party. Comments were received from the following parties: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. (CVA) Village of Greenport (Superintendent of Utilities) (VG) Town of Southold Planning Board (PB) Jane Gohorel (JG) Public Hearing Transcripts, August 13, 1991 (T) The full text of comments is included as an attachment. The text is annotated in order to identify each substantive comment by number. The comments have been synthesized in the following section, and the source for each comment is provided. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Comment 1: Public Need fQ Project. Pig III-$: The Draft EIS notes that the project addresses a long term need in the Town of Southold; however, the project is currently under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. How has the downturn in the real estate market decreased the need for affordable housing considering the current availability of lower priced housing. What affect does this have on the current need for this project and what future trends are expected? (CVA-1) CRAMER, VRH\\\ / SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT' ��VG CONSULTANTS Page 1 Southold Commons Comments on the Draft EIS Comment 2: Public Need for Pr 'e Pace III-12. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. H the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County s program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Planning Board position is that the change of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of the Town. (PB-2,JG-1,T-3) Comment 3: Design and Laui _Total Site Area. Paee III-13• The Draft EIS states 'The roads are proposed to be 24±'wide constructed in accordance with the town of Southold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swales on either side as well as leaching pools in each low section of the road...': Please explore the feasibility of this drainage design as compared to recharge basins. If both methods are feasible, please include a brief assessment of the environmental considerations for each Pe of design in either this section or a latter section of the Draft EIS. (CVA-2) Comment 4: Desien and Layout - Land to be Cleared, Pan 1II-13. Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing,what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession? (CVA-3) Comment 5: Construction and ODeration. Page III-14. Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plan and utilities, specifically identifying intent regarding haling, number of units, road access, mitigation and improvements. CVA-4) Comment 6: Construction and Operation, Page III-14. The sewage treatment plant may cause odor impacts which should be considered. (T-2) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Comment 7: Water Resources:: Water Supply. Page IV-10. The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussions in the Draft EIS. What is the current and predicted water supply availability for the proposed project? (CVA-5) Comment 8: Water Resources - Water Sun�1v. Page IV_10• The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any,will be at such time as it may be required for this project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements CRAMER, VCq R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL WIX IVG CONSULTANTS Page 2 Southold Commons Comments on the Draft EIS of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity. (VG-1,JG-3) Comment 9: Cultural Resources., P"ge IV_31. What open space value does the parcel provide to the surrotmndtng portions of the hamlet? Will these values be lost as a result of the project? (CVA-6) Comment 10: Traffic, Fne IV-18. With the addition of high density land use, additional Eactivity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedestrian environment and what mitigation measures can be used to minimize these impacts? (CVA-7) SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Comment 11: Public Water Supply, Page V-2. The Draft EIS acknowledges that the Greenport Water District is an over-taxed resource. What is the current availability of water supply? What water district and/or Health Department policies (if any) apply to increase in water demand resulting from proposed rezomng and what mitigation measures can be employed to minimize impacts? (CVA-8, T-3) Comment 12: Public Water Supply, Pace V-2. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usa e. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. VG-2) Comment 13: Open Space,, Page y-9. What affect will the loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values? Comment 14: Open Space, Page V-9. This parcel constitutes one of the last open space areas in the vicinity. The Master Plan called for at least two open space areas, and this parcel represents the only open space opportunity remaining. This affect should be considered. (T'-1) Comment 15: Land Use and Zoning. Pa V-11. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additionalir fordable housing units within the Greenport hamlet should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. (PB-1, JG-2) Comment 16: Lauden; Zoning, Page V-11. One-quarter acre residential lots are very small, one-acre lots would be preferable. (T-4) CRAMER, V , -RHI: SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA� G CONSULTANTS Page r Southold Commons Comments on the Draft EIS MITIGATION MEASURES Comment 17: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology. Page VI-4. The Draft EIS states, "Where natural areas are disturbed, bushes, trees and shrubs which fit the natural habitat and are suited to the conditions of the area will be planted to provide shade, define the grounds and soften the architectural elements." How will these mitiiation measures be implemented, and at what stage of the approval process can this be assured? The document also states that 'A significant mitigation measure to the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the maintenance of the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for anima4 bird life, and native type grasses"In keeping with this proposed mitigation measure, can areas of the site be covenanted to ensure that existing groundcover is not disrupted? Comment 18: Transportation, Page VI-6. What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis? (CVA-11) Comment 19: Land Use and Zoning, Page VIS The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, ':..landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual impact.' What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement (for 86-unit alternative). (CVA-12) Comment 20: Public Water Supply. Page VI-7. With the update of the water supply status for the Final EIS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. (CVA-13) ADDENDUM TO DE IS FOR SOUTHOLD COMMONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comment 21: Public Need Q Pr 'e Pa=3, The Addendum indicates that "..small capacity sewage treatmentplants tend to have operating problems due to their size...': Please describe the type of operational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project. (CVA-14) CRAMER, Veo P ATES ENVIRONMENONSULTANTS Page 4 JUDITH T. TERRY Town Hall. 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK \ ; P.O. Box 1 179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS t Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 t OFFICE, OF f IIE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 29, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis, A1CP Cramer, Voorhis 6 Associates 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Chick: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this date, scheduling 9 :30 a.m. , Tuesday, September 10, 1991, Southold Town Hall, to meet with the Town Board in their work session to discuss the next steps, and certain questions the Board has with respect to the environmental process of Jem Commons and Southold Commons. am enclosing herewith a copy of your August 13, 1991 review of each DEIS, the Planning Board's comments of August 13, 1991, letters received during the comment period from Jane Gohorel and the Village of Greenport, and the minutes of the public hearings on each DEIS. By copy of this letter I am also sending those enclosures and notifying Mr. Kontokosta, Middleton Environmental, and Howard Pachman, Esq. of the scheduled September 10th meeting, and inviting them to be present to listen to and observe the Town Board's discussion with you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. C. Russell, Middleton Envir.`' Howard Pachman, Esq. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS August 13, 1991 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the 'Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southold Commons Review of the Draft EIS Dear Scott: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement the referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting ur comments onr he eb ort. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement le rep above to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in herd Final EIS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Dr• Please do not hesitate to contact this office, aft EIS, Very trulyyours,' � r Charles J. Voorhis, A ep enc: Review of Draft EIS - 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACe, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS To: Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the Town of Southold From: Cramer, Voorhis and Assop"ates, Inc. Date: August 13, 1991 Re: Southold Commons Review of the Draft EIS The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Southold Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17 191 A public hearing on the Draft EIS has been scheduled for Au2� ' est 1", 1991, and comments on the Draft will be accepted for a period of ten 10 Jays afte ft document document has been circulated to involved .genet stand parties of interest,ihfor hearing The providing comments on the document for use by the decision making agecy in thpurpose of preparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. A copy of the Draft EIS has been submitted to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, as consultants to the Town Board, for review of the SEAR documentatiohis.letttter cInconstitutes the review of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons by CVA, The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are provided: RAFT' h"VIRn`';�iF1TAL Tl ( TATE;1T1r;�'T DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1. i is Mud fQ-r-F-r-Q'ecg IIS The Draft EIS notes that the project addr-sses a long term need in the Town of Southold; however, the project is curre,i,t1►under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. How has the downturn in the real estate market dgcreas, CYi4 considering the current availability of lo�vzr priced housing? '��hat affeable ct does thi' situation have on the current need for this project and what futures are s expected? 2' si"n n AL3 _ Total a� TT-i? The Draft EIS states 'The row , ..ds are pre~csea 10 5e 2�,�- 1vide constnlcted in accordance 1t�irh the town of Southold t,��h•ra•, S recharge swnles on either side as ii, ' Pe,.r ,ca�rolrs and to ,•',iciruie ccntilutor�s Please explore the feasibility of this drain; leach Pools in each 1o;v section of the road...'; If both methods are feasible, please include a bri-tiassessm nt of thpared toe environmental basins. considerations for each type of design in :itlier t+tis section or a latter section Draft EIS. CVA -Z Page ] or 3 uCaTLq COUN7PY CZ - - \ l Southold Commons Revim of Draft'EIS 3. Design md L, • u : Land to U, On Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn C.YA-3 areas and promote natural succession? 4. Construction Ln& Qperitin op 1Y__ I-14 Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant and utilities, specifically identifying intent regarding phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and improvements. GyA- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING S. Water Resnurces : Water SupZlMCA, TV-1 The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussions in the Draft EIS. What is the current and predicted water supply CVA-S availability for the proposed project? 6. Cultural Resources '(.1C IV-31 What open space value does the parcel provide to the surrounding portions of the hamlet? Will these values be lost as a result of the project? GV4-4 7. Traffi Ea."g V With the addition of high density land use, additional pedestrian activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedestrian environment and what mitigation measures can be used to minimize these impacts? yA-_7 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8. Ptthtic 'Nater Su>,plyg V-2 The Draft EIS acknowledges that the Greenport Water District is an over-taxed resource. What is the current availability of water supply? What water district C V4 -8 and/or Health Department policies (if any) apply to Increase in water demand resulting from pro�osed rezoning and what mitigation measures car, be employed to minimize impacts. 9. Q= om What affect will the loss of oaen space have on the character of the surrounding community in tcrms of visual and aesthetic open space values? CVA -� CRAMER, V SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT r y'V}h'G CONSULTANTS Pare 2 of 3 r Southold Commons Review of Draft ETS MITIGATION NTEA,SURES 10. Terrestrialnn Aquatic Ecol _ , ;inti VIS The Draft EIS states, "T Vhere natural areas are disturbed, bushes, trees and shrubs which fit the natural habitat and are suited;,to the conditions of tate area will be planted to provide shade, define the grounds acid soften the architectural elements."How will these mtti ation measures be implemented, and at what stage of the approval process can this be assured? The document also states that 'A significant mitigation measure to the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the maintenance of original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for anima4 bird life, and nativetyrype grasses."In keeping with this proposed mitigation measure, can areas of the site be covenanted to ensure that ' existing groundcover is not disrupted? GV4 -/O 11. ]'ransportation aoY What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis? 12. I 2A�g an Z n i nes; ;Re �6 The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, "landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related Apes of lardscaning shut would transform lice developed site into a pleasing visual incpact."What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement (for Sb-unit GV�4�IZ alternative). 13. Eublic Water 5upILly P °& VT.6 With the update of the water supply status for the Final ETS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. CVA —J3 ADDENDtTN. l TO DET FOR S0JJTU!2LD M'\1N1QNYS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. LVIN Ltd -fQr L,OiCCt The Addendum indicates that "..small capacity sewage trcatment plants tend to haveoperating problems due to their size...". Please describe the type of overational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the CVA—I� environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project. CRAMER, Vt�� �� SOCIAT ES ENVIRONMENT AND, Atm tuG CONSULTANTS Page of 3 V.; \v 0 Biters MAYOR Iliz CZE e o� C /reelror� FAX WILLIAM R PF.LL III / INCORPORATED 1838 NEI INCORPORATION•►aIl T 1868 15161477-1877 TRUSTEES RE ANCORPORATION UNDER GENERAL LAW MAY 28,1894 vILLAGE CLERK WILLIAM D ALLEN �0f STEPHEN L.CLARKE yah LORNA M CATUS JOHN A.COSTELLO i//__„y _ (516)477-2385 GAIL F NORTON _..0 j ,r• TREASURER J�" N G i S;'L A N „_. MARY E.THORNHILL (516)477.0248 236 THIRD STREET • PO BOX 2095August 21, 1991 GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk 53005 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: E. M. Kontokosta (Southbld Commons) Boisseau Avenue, Southold SCTM: 1000/55/5/17 Dear Mrs. Terry: This will acknowledge receipt of the July 17, 1991 SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with respect to the referenced proposed action. The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required. Numerous factors effect capacity, including the life Styles of the users, the weather, standards of water Ili - 1 quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Just to name a few. Presently, the district's contracts to provide water exceed the excess capacity. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at VU— Z peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. ry truly r, /you ) James Monsell Superintendent of Utilities PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS o f ;'"r SCOTT L. HARRIS lennett Orlowski, Jr., ChairmanSupervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward +! ��JJ Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1 179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 • Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Members of the Town Board FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman zp-( �✓s RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements for Southold •Commons;; -Southold SCTM # 1000-055-5-17 and for JEM Realty, Greenport SCTM # 1000-035-1-24 DATE: August 13 , 1991 With regard to each of the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: I. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received pe conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town' s own Affordable Housing program. If the Town' s program sets comparable limits to the County' s program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not _ seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board' s position on this proposed change of zone remains as it w 6 in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zon 11 not meet the affordable housing needs of this Town. 21 August 1991 East Marion, N. Y. The Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall , Southold Main Road, 11971 Dear Sirs: The proposal by developer Kontakosta to build some 316 "homes" in Greenport and Southold, dependent upon not one, but two, zone changes in both sections, in each case downgrading the area, is outrageous. The Master Plan, painstakingly wrought over a long period--and considered by many residents to be flawed in some respects--was designed to guard against this kind of blatant misuse of our open space and fragile ecology. Such zoning restrictions as we have are there to be enforced and to protect Southold Town from unwarranted and chaotic development. It appears, at least to this writer, that the developer, with pure profit motives, is out to exploit to the maximum these two properties in the guise of providing "affordable housing". We have read recently--and it seems documented--that perhaps this kind of new housing is not really affordable for local young people, or elderly PeoPle; and therefore that alternatives such as rehabilitating existing housing and empty structures should be considered. In fact, recent newspaper surveys bring into question the purported need for new "affordable" housing. The Cedar Fields project in Greenport is an example. Few prospecive buyers have been able to qualify. It is rumored that the developers, unable to unload properties, have bought in for their own families. In the case of the 20 acres along the Sound in Greenport, what can be possibly the justification for down-zoning from 2 to 1 acre for "luxury housing"? And then, how can the Town sanction all those other houses, more than 100, on 1/4-acre lots when the zoning calls for 2-acre lots? jr6 —z This would be a betrayal of all that we have worked and hoped for. There are very serious reasons for 2-acre zoning--for heavens sake, we've been through all this for years now! Can the law be overturned with not even an extensive SEQRA study, just an affirmative nodfrom the Town Board? It was reported that the protesting residents at the hearing did not address the main issue, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so concerned were they with the encroachment on their open space, the danger to groundwater, the down-grading of their area, traffic, noise, pollution, and the violation of the Master Man. If this is not environmental impact, what is' These citizens of Southold Town deserve to be listened to. It is they who will pay-' higher taxes each time a development of this type is allowed; their euality r 2 - of life will diminish, as will the special aura and attraction of the North Fork. Mr. Kontakosta has blithely announced that water and sewer hook-ups will be provided by Greenport Village, yet that Village, with all it can handle and more at the moment, has proclaimed a morator4am on any new requests outside its borders. , . . Please heed the Planning Board 's negative recommendation and deny the two requested zone changes. Sincerely, ane Gohorel r' PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD .1 it August 13, 1991 4:35 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY E. M. KONTOKOSTA WITH RESPECT TO HIS PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE. Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Latson Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This public hearing is in relation to Southold Commons in respect to a DEIS. At this time, Councilman Judge Edwards will read verifica- tion and publication. JUSTICE EDWARDS: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 4:35 P.M. , Tuesday, August 13, 1991 , at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by E.M. Kontokosta with respect to his petition for a Change of Zone from "R-80" Residential Low-Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, on certain property located on the west side of Boisseau Avenue, south of Middle Road, Southold, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hous. Dated: July 17, 1991 . Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have proof of publication in The Suffolk Times on 25th of July, 1991 . 1 have proof that it was posted on the Bulletin Board at Town Hall on the 22nd of July, 1991 . 1 have proof of publica- tion of The Long Island Traveler-Watchman on the 25th day of July, 1991 . 1 have a letter from Cramer, Voorhis E Associates to Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor, in regard to Southold Commons Review of the Draft EIS. Dear Scott: We have com- pleted our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting out comments on the report. Please review this information with the Board, a if you are in agree- ment, please forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments for inclusion in the Final EIS for this project. If you have any questions r J 1 vEIS E.M. hontokosta regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Charles J. Voorhis. I have a letter from the Southold Town Planning Board to Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk and members of the Town Board, from Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman, in regard to the review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements for Southold Commons, Southold, dated August 13, 1991 . With regard to each of the above-noted Draft Environmental Impace Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town should assume responsibility for having its Own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statment for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1 . The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected numer that have received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's position on this proposed change of zone remains as it was in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of this Town. There's nothing further. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. At this time we'll go out to the audience. Come up to the microphone, please, and state your name. This will be public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that is before us at this time. Yes, sir? EUGENE DUFFY: My name is Eugene Duffy. I'm a member of the New York Bar. I'm here this afternoon representing my wife, Alice Grattan Duffy, who is a life long resident, was born on Youngs Avenue, still resides there, is the co-owner of eight acres. Along with me this afternoon is cousins, Charles Gratten, who owns a home on Youngs Avenue, her cousin, Rita Delaney, who owns a home on Boisseau Avenue, other friends and neighbors from the area, who are seated here in this row, this lady here who's name escapes me at the moment. The Long Island Traveler, our fine local paper, a week ago last Thursday carried a feature story about open spaces. If you will bear with me I'd like to say something about open spaces for a few minutes of your time. A few years back north of the railroad tracks on Hommel Avenue to Route 48, sometimes called the North Road, between Hortons Lane, and just east of Hommel Avenue, we had three open spaces. A few years back we filled up one open space on the west side of Youngs Avenue with condominiums. One of the three open space last year Mr. Mandel got a variance for his project, which included some affordable housing. Two open spaces of that area are gone. This is the third open space between Youngs Avenue, and Boisseau Avenue. In the Traveler there was team from the United Kingdom, a team of four, were here looking over our open spaces. They were joined by a team from the United States. They gave a lengthy report. They did a lengthy T_. inspection, and they made it very clear to us, do not fill up your open spaces. Once you fill up an open space, it's gone for ever. It's .irretreivable. The Wall Street Journal this past week ran a book review telling why Kent, Connecticut, and Tyro, Illinois had failed as cities, so these are subjects that are in the public arena, and people are worried about them, thinking about them, and the people on Youngs Avenue are concerned. We lost our two open spaces. We do not want to lose our third. The Master Plan called for at least two open spaces. I don't know whether Ng 3 - PH DEIS E.M. i\ontokosta it was in effect when that condominium variance came open, but at any rate we lost the one, and on the Master Plan we only have one left in that area, and I'm pleading with the Board on behalf of these people, don't do it. Don't give this variance to these people, and don't subject us up there in Youngs Avenue to another four years of construction. When the condominiums went up, they put their service road opposite Alice's home. You couldn't sit . on the porch. You had four years of dust. They didn't. even water the service road. I read some of the material that's in the Office tliere, the statement, which is nothing if not complete, but it's so complete that we can't tell whether the original, or the alter- native, or another alternative, or a hundred and thirty-two, one hundred twenty- eight, or one hundred and sixteen, whether we're going to have a sewage treatment plant. God help us, if we ever have that, a sewage treatment plant. If you have any New York papers out here going back some five or ten years, you know the horrible stories of the treatment plants, that they had in the South Bronx, and 7=Z- South Queens. They peeled the paint off the local buildings, and when the wind was in the right direction, the terrible odors. The sewage treatment plant would be up at the North Road, or near Route 48, but it's also subject to the wind, and when the north wind comes, we get it down at the south, you get it at the east and you get it at the west. Don't subject us to that either, and I think we've had enough in this area of all the building, and the housing, and whatever there is. We're going to have a traffic problem, pollution, noise, sewage, construction, and above the lose of our beautiful open spaces and God's fine fresh air. Thank you for your patience. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience, that would like to come forward? Please state your name for the record. DAN KUJAWSKI : Dan Kujawski. I'm also a Youngs Avenue property owner, and I'd like to pretty much echo Mr. Duffy's words, except I'm not against the property being developed. I would like to see the property developed. I'd like to see it developed responsible, and according to the current zoning, not a change of zone. I don't see any reason for a change of zone, except for putting money into Mr. Kontokosta's pocket, who I feel, in my opinion, doesn't put up very good buildings anyway. I'm not sure that I'd like to live next to anything that he developed. On top of the fact, that I'm already pretty much surrounded by condominiums. 1 don't think another condominium complex around my house is going to do anything for my neighborhood. 1 think that if you'd like to give him a change of zone, because he owns sixty acres, or forty acres, or how many acres it is, then you should allow me to put up two more houses on my property, subdivide it, and I'll sell and move out of the neightborhood. That's ridiculous. The property, the T-3 area around Youngs Avenue has enough condominiums. You can't possible get rid of all that sewerage. Where is the wa e� r g_10 come from? What's that going to do to mine? No. I'm sorry, there's no way that you can do that. You think about it, if it's next to your house. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Yes? STEPHEN CLARK : Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Clark, representing the Village of Greenport, as with the other hearing, within ten days we_will respond in detail,_ in writing to you on one issue only, the water supply. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there any other members of the audience, that would like to address this issue? If not, we have also received, which Judge Edwards inadvertently left out, we have also received review from Cramer, Voorhis, and Associates of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons, which again you will be provided copies of, Mr. Packman, and Mr. Kontokosta. Whenever you have neccessary to look at the documents the Town Clerk will have this. Yes, sir? Pg 4 - PH DEIS E. M. Kontokosta HOWARD PACKMAN : Just for the record, because there's two separate hearings. I just want to indicate that I appear on behalf of Emanuel Kontokosta with the project Southold Commons. I repeat my address, and 1 repeat the fact that . .Excuse me, I'm just repeating what I said before. I will state again, members of the Board, members of audience, that my name is as it was before, Howard Packman. I'm the attorney for the applicant, and I repeat what I said before, and I thank you for your attention. 1 SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there any further comments? Yes, sir? DAN CHARNEWS: I'm Dan Charnews, and I live on Youngs Avenue. I have a tract of land back there, too, and I have no qualms about the condos next to me. I think they're very good people. I think two acres is too much, because I have to handle it because I happen to be in a depression, and my health, and two acres is quite hard for anyone to handle. One acre I think is very good. I think on that you build a garage. You can have a family. You can have your septic system, and you can have your water, but when you get down to a quarter of an acre, you're getting too close to each other, and this business about open space, it depends on who has to pay for it. I was under the impression that the Town Board at one time said that hamlets should be somewhere within the range of a thousand feet of the post office, so that would be in the village area. We already have small parcels being taken up. Of course, the Town Hall, which we can't help, and I still think if one acre is a nice piece of property, and it would be the right type 7' of people, and I think a quarter of an acre will finally turn into a ghetto. As far as I know property is not moving too good. In Southampton they tried the condo. There's so many condos built there, that the bank had to sell them out, and I don't think we have the—enough yards to satisfy anybody, and I think we should come in a position like Riverhead, when you start building these quarter of acre things, I don't know if HUD or somebody else will come in here, and push the welfare people, eventually, and I think if you stick to one figure at least, two you have to have, if you have to, but I don't think we'll have any problem with a lot of welfare, or maybe you'll start getting these here small places you might have—have to get rid of, I hate to say this, the invalids or something like that, they try to push that in so many in each town, and I think you just stick to two acres, but if you have to one acre, but not below one acre on account of I think you have your own water, and your own sewage plant, own sewage, and it wouldn't effect your water, especially this here on Youngs Avenue, it's quite a high area, even mine, but in between Hortons Lane and Youngs Avenue, it's about the highest spot in town, and I don't think you'd have any trouble with water. But a quarter of an acre should not be allowed I don't think. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Charnews. Any other members of the audience, that would like to address the DEIS. Mr. Packman? HOWARD PACKMAN: I want everyone to understand on the Board, and the audience, that this is not a change of zone application, nor a hearing, and I'm not addressing anything with regard to that. The Board is familar with that. The sole purpose of this hearing is the SEQRA Statement, which is here, and those comments which are addressed to it. But I would like to disagree with some of the remarks that were made, that there are condominiums being proposed here. There are no_ condominiums being proposed on this site. So, I think with that misimpression we get that cleared away today, I would be pleased to do that. Thank you very much. Pg 5 - PH DEIS E. M. Kontokosta ALICE DUFFY: 1 am Alice Duffy, who lives on Youngs Avenue, and I would like to know just exactly what they plan to build there? It's very confusing and what have read. Would someone comment on that? SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Packman, would you like to address that? HOWARD PACKMAN : The only thing;lfhat I could say is that they are going to be single family dwellings on this particular site. That is all we are proposing, is a regular subdivision application, if and when the application for our change of zone is granted. Mr. Supervisor and members of the Board, again, I restate my position. At the zone application I'll be pleased to outline all the information and answer all the questions,that these particular people have at that time. I think it would be wrong for me to make that application. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Quite rightly so, Mr. Packman, this is a draft and only a draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for hearings on that statement. Copies for those who haven't seen it are available at the Town Clerk's Office. If you'd like to read it, I know it is a lengthy document, as was stated before but it is there for your inspection. If there are no other comments on this, I'll declare this public hearing closed. (No response. ) Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk e MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Environmental Consultants DONALD J MIDDLETON,JR. November 8, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall 5309 So. Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: November 1, 1991 letter from Cramer, Voorhis and Associates to Southold Town Clerk re: Southold Commons and Review of Final EIS Dear Ms. Terry: We are in receipt of a copy of the above referenced letter and would like to submit the following response to the comment in the letter regarding the Final EIS for the Southold Commons proposed project . Our analysis of "Response #12" leads us to conclude that the final EIS should also include the following "Alternative: Warier Demand Analysis" which is predicated upon our past experience with the requirements of the Greenport Utilities Company of the Village of Greenport: WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS As calculated by Generally Accepted Design Criteria) Average Daily Flow Rate (SCDHS Design Flow) 116 (3 Bedroom) units @ 300 gpd = 34, 800 GPD Maximum Daily Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982)= (4 x average daily flow rate) 34, 800 GPD = 139,200 GPD Maximum 1-hour Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982; SCDHS) (9 1/2 x average daily flow rate) 34, 800 = 330, 600 GPD = 13, 775 GPH = 230 GPM. Fire Flow Demand (ISO Requirements, AWWA, Manual M-31) 1000 GPM (Requirements for buildings 11-30 feet apart) 754 DEER PARK AVE, NORTH BABYLON, NEW YORK 11703 • 516321-4348 • FAX 516321-4349 i t REFERENCES AWWA, Manual M-31, Manual of Water Supply Practice, Distribution Requirements for Fire Protection, M-31 (Insurance Services Office Method) . Salvato, Joseph A. , 1982, Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, John Wiley & Sons, NY. SCDS, 1991, Personal Communication by C. Voohris, Robert Farmer, Asst Public Health Engineer, 10-28-91 . ALTERNATE WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS - (Based on criteria previously submitted and accepted to Mr. H. B. Sherman, Supt. of Utilities, Village of Greenport on 11-26-88) . Daily Water Consumption= 116 (3 Bedroom) units @ 300 gpd = 34,800 GPD. Peak Water Demand = (2 x daily demand) 34, 800 = 69, 600 GPD Annual Demand = Daily Anticipated Demand x 360 days = 360 x 34, 800 = 12,528,000 Gals. Fire Flow Demand = 500 GPM/Hydrant (MIN) personal communication per Mr. James Monsell Greenport Utilities. We have provided, herein, twenty copies of this letter and hereby request that this letter be considered as an Addendum to the Final EIS for the proposed Southold Commons project. Inclusion of this Addendum would serve to expedite final review by all concerned agencies. I thank you for your consideration and hope that this Addendum is sufficient to initiate final review of the Southold Commons EIS. Sincerely, �D nal J. Middleton Vice iesident DJM:sm