Maritime Planned Development District (Mpdd) Change of Zone Application

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)

MARITIME PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MPDD) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION

CANOE PLACE INN (CPI), CANAL & EASTERN PROPERTIES

Hamlet of Hampton Bays, Town of Southampton Suffolk County, New York

Prepared for: R Squared Development LLC 85 South Service Road Plainview, New York 11803 Contact: Gregg Rechler, President Kristen McCabe, Director of Planning & Land Use (631) 414-8400

Lead Agency: Town of Southampton Town Board 116 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 Contact: Kyle Collins, Planning Director (631) 287-5700

Prepared by: (Environmental Analysis and Planning) Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (Attorney) 572 Walt Whitman Road Germano & Cahill, P.C. Melville, New York 11747 4250 Veterans Memorial Highway Contact: Charles J. Voorhis; CEP, AICP Holbrook, New York 11741 Phil Malicki, CEP; AICP, LEED® AP Contact: Guy W. Germano, Esq. (631) 427-5665 (631) 588-8778 (Architect) (Engineer) Arrowstreet Sidney B. Bowne & Son LLC 212 Elm Street 235 East Jericho Turnpike Somerville, Massachusetts 02144 Mineola, New York 11501 Contact: Scott Pollack, Principal Contact: Charles J. Bartha, PE (617) 666-7017 (516) 746-2350

Date of Acceptance by Lead Agency:

Date of SEQRA Public Hearing:

Comments to the Lead Agency are to be submitted by: ______

Page i CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I OF II

Page COVERSHEET i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

SUMMARY S-1 Introduction S-1 Description of the Proposed Project S-3 Anticipated Impacts S-5 Proposed Mitigation S-6 Alternatives Considered S-9 Permits and Approvals Required S-10

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-1 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits 1-4 1.1.1 Project Background and History 1-4 1.1.1.1 CPI Property 1-4 1.1.1.2 Canal & Eastern Properties 1-9 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives 1-10 1.1.2.1 Project Need 1-11 1.1.2.2 Public Need 1-14 1.1.2.3 Municipality Objectives 1-14 1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor 1-16 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project 1-16 1.1.4.1 Beneficial Re-Use and Improved Aesthetic Conditions 1-16 1.1.4.2 Conformance to the Goals of the Town’s PDD and MPDD Ordinances 1-17 1.1.4.3 Conformance to the Goals of the Pertinent Land Use Plans 1-20 1.1.4.4 Economic Benefits 1-20 1.2 Location and Existing Site Conditions 1-24 1.2.1 CPI Property 1-24 1.2.2 Canal Property 1-25 1.2.3 Eastern Property 1-26 1.2.4 General Discussion of Existing Area Conditions 1-26 1.3 Project Design and Layout 1-27 1.3.1 Proposed Density Exchange 1-27 1.3.2 Overall Site Layout 1-29 1.3.3 Grading and Drainage 1-33 1.3.3.1 CPI Property 1-33 1.3.3.2 Canal Property 1-36

Psage Page ii CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1.3.3.3 Eastern Property 1-38 1.3.4 Access, Road System and Parking 1-38 1.3.4.1 CPI Property 1-38 1.3.4.2 Canal Property 1-39 1.3.4.3 Eastern Property 1-39 1.3.5 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply 1-39 1.3.5.1 Sanitary Wastewater Disposal 1-39 1.3.5.2 Water Supply 1-41 1.3.6 Site Lighting and Landscaping 1-41 1.3.6.1 Site Lighting 1-41 1.3.6.2 Landscaping 1-42 1.3.7 Open Space and Noise Attenuation 1-43 1.4 Construction and Operations 1-43 1.4.1 Construction 1-43 1.4.1.1 CPI Property 1-44 1.4.1.2 Canal Property 1-44 1.4.1.3 Eastern Property 1-45 1.4.1.4 Erosion Control Measures 1-46 1.4.2 Operations 1-47 1.4.2.1 CPI Property 1-47 1.4.2.2 Canal & Eastern Properties 1-48 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required 1-48

2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2-1 2.1 Soils and Topography 2-1 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2-1 2.1.1.1 Soils 2-1 2.1.1.2 Topography 2-11 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 2-13 2.1.2.1 Soils 2-13 2.1.2.2 Topography 2-16 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation 2-19 2.2 Water Resources 2-20 2.2.1 Existing Conditions 2-20 2.2.1.1 General Information 2-20 2.2.1.2 CPI Property 2-25 2.2.1.3 Canal Property 2-28 2.2.1.4 Eastern Property 2-29 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 2-29 2.2.2.1 CPI Property 2-29 2.2.2.2 Canal Property 2-31 2.2.2.3 Eastern Property 2-34 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation 2-37 2.3 Ecology 2-38

Psage Page iii CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2.3.1 Existing Conditions 2-38 2.3.1.1 CPI Property 2-38 2.3.1.2 Canal Property 2-46 2.3.1.3 Eastern Property 2-54 2.3.1.4 Regulatory Conditions 2-60 2.3.1.5 Rare and Endangered Species Potential 2-62 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts 2-63 2.3.2.1 CPI Property 2-63 2.3.2.2 Canal Property 2-65 2.3.2.3 Eastern Property 2-66 2.3.2.4 Regulatory Conditions 2-67 2.3.2.5 Rare and Endangered Species Potential 2-68 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation 2-68

3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 3-1 3.1 Transportation 3-1 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3-1 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 3-5 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation 3-9 3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 3-9 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3-9 3.2.1.1 Land Use 3-9 3.2.1.2 Zoning 3-11 3.2.1.3 Land Use Plans 3-14 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 3-19 3.2.2.1 Land Use 3-19 3.2.2.2 Zoning 3-21 3.2.2.3 Land Use Plans 3-29 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation 3-37 3.3 Community Facilities and Services 3-37 3.3.1 Existing Conditions 3-37 3.3.1.1 Fiscal Considerations and Tax Revenue 3-37 3.3.1.2 Educational Services and Facilities 3-41 3.3.1.3 Police Protection 3-42 3.3.1.4 Fire Protection 3-43 3.3.1.5 Public Water Supply 3-43 3.3.1.6 Solid Waste Removal and Disposal 3-44 3.3.1.7 Energy Services 3-44 3.3.1.8 Recreation Facilities 3-45 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts 3-45 3.3.2.1 Fiscal Considerations and Tax Revenue 3-45 3.3.2.2 Educational Services and Facilities 3-51 3.3.2.3 Police Protection 3-54 3.3.2.4 Fire Protection 3-54

Psage Page iv CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.3.2.5 Public Water Supply 3-55 3.3.2.6 Solid Waste Removal and Disposal 3-55 3.3.2.7 Energy Services 3-56 3.3.2.8 Recreation Facilities 3-56 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation 3-56 3.4 Community Character 3-57 3.4.1 Existing Conditions 3-57 3.4.1.1 Aesthetic Resources 3-57 3.4.1.2 Noise 3-59 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts 3-64 3.4.2.1 Aesthetic Resources 3-64 3.4.2.2 Noise 3-68 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation 3-71 3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 3-71 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3-71 3.5.1.1 Archaeological Resources 3-72 3.5.1.2 Historic Resources 3-78 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts 3-80 3.5.2.1 Archaeological Resources 3-80 3.5.2.2 Historic Resources 3-80 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation 3-81

4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS 4-1 4.1 Construction-Related Impacts 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Impacts 4-3 4.2.1 Other Pending Projects 4-3 4.2.2 Land Use Plans and Regulations 4-5 4.2.3 Resource Impact Assessment 4-7 4.2.3.1 Soils and Topography 4-7 4.2.3.2 Water Resources 4-7 4.2.3.3 Ecology 4-8 4.2.3.4 Transportation 4-8 4.2.3.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 4-8 4.2.3.6 Community Facilities and Services 4-8 4.2.3.7 Community Character 4-9 4.2.3.8 Historic and Archaeological Resources 4-9 4.2.3.9 Construction-Related Impacts 4-9 4.2.3.10Economic Impacts 4-10 4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 4-10 4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-11 4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects 4-11 4.6 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources 4-12

5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 5-1

Psage Page v CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

5.1 Alternative 1: No Action 5-1 5.1.1 CPI Property 5-1 5.1.2 Canal Property 5-3 5.1.3 Eastern Property 5-3 5.1.4 Assessment of Alternative 1 Impacts 5-3 5.2 Alternative 2:Full As-of-Right Build-Out 5-4 5.2.1 CPI Property 5-4 5.2.2 Canal Property 5-5 5.2.3 Eastern Property 5-6 5.2.4 Assessment of Alternative 2 Impacts 5-6 5.3 Impact Comparison 5-7

6.0 REFERENCES 6-1

TABLES 1-1 Tax Lots 1-1 1-2 Summary of Key Fiscal Findings 1-21 1-3 Summary of Key Economic Findings 1-22 1-4 Comparison of Values, Public Benefits vs. Increase in Yield 1-29 1-5 Site and Project Characteristics, Existing Conditions and Proposed Project 1-35 1-6a Design & Sanitary Wastewater Generation, CPI Property 1-40 1-6b Design & Sanitary Wastewater Generation, Canal Property 1-41 1-7 Permits and Approvals Required 1-49 2-1a Soil Limitations, CPI Property 2-2 2-1b Soil Limitations, Canal Property 2-6 2-2a Slope Intervals and Acreages, CPI Property 2-11 2-2b Slope Intervals and Acreages, Canal Property 2-12 2-2c Slope Intervals and Acreages, Eastern Property 2-13 2-3 Groundwater Quality Data, 2005 & 2006 2-21 2-4 Groundwater Impacts of Land Use, Medium-Density Residential Use 2-26 2-5 Comparison of Recharge Impacts, Impact of Use of NitrexTM WWTF 2-36 2-6a Habitat Quantities, CPI Property, Existing Conditions 2-38 2-7a Vegetation Species, CPI Property 2-40 2-8a Bird Species, CPI Property 2-43 2-9a Mammal Species, CPI Property 2-45 2-10a Reptile and Amphibian Species, CPI Property 2-46 2-6b Habitat Quantities, Canal Property, Existing Conditions 2-46 2-7b Vegetation Species, Canal Property 2-47 2-8b Bird Species, Canal Property 2-51 2-9b Mammal Species, Canal Property 2-53 2-10b Reptile and Amphibian Species, Canal Property 2-54 2-6c Habitat Quantities, Eastern Property, Existing Conditions 2-55 2-7c Vegetation Species, Eastern Property 2-55

Psage Page vi CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2-8c Bird Species, Eastern Property 2-57 2-9c Mammal Species, Eastern Property 2-59 2-10c Reptile and Amphibian Species, Eastern Property 2-60 2-11a Changes in Habitat Quantities, CPI Property 2-64 2-11b Changes in Habitat Quantities, Canal Property 2-65 2-11c Changes in Habitat Quantities, Eastern Property 2-66 3-1 Comparison of Traffic Volumes 3-2 3-2a Trip Generation, Existing CPI Property 3-2 3-2b Trip Generation, Existing Canal Property 3-3 3-3 Sight Distance Requirement 3-5 3-4 Trip Generation 3-6 3-5 Total New Trips Generated, Proposed Project 3-7 3-6a Zoning Requirements, RWB Zone, CPI & Canal Properties 3-12 3-6b Zoning Requirements, MTL Zone, Eastern Property 3-13 3-7 Conformance to Miscellaneous Requirements, Proposed Project 3-29 3-8a Existing Tax Revenues, CPI Property 3-38 3-8b Existing Tax Revenues, Canal Property 3-40 3-8c Existing Tax Revenues, Eastern Property 3-41 3-9 Enrollment Trends, Hampton Bays UFSD 3-42 3-10a Estimated Assessed Valuation CPI Property 3-46 3-11a Anticipated Tax Revenue Generation, CPI Property 3-47 3-10b Estimated Assessed Valuation, Canal Property 3-48 3-11b Anticipated Tax Revenue Generation, Canal Property 3-49 3-10c Estimated Assessed Valuation, Eastern Property 3-50 3-11c Anticipated Tax Revenue Generation, Eastern Property 3-51 3-12 Projected Impact on Population 3-52 3-13 Fiscal Impact on School District 3-54 3-14 Average Ability to Perceive Change in Noise Levels 3-60 3-15 Common Noise Levels and Reactions 3-61 3-16a Prehistoric Potential, CPI Property 3-72 3-16b Prehistoric Potential, Canal and Eastern Properties 3-77 3-17 Historic Potential, Canal and Eastern Properties 3-77 5-1 Comparison of Alternatives 5-2

FIGURES (following Section 6.0) 1-1 Location Map 1-2 Tax Lot Map 1-3 Existing Conditions of Properties and Vicinity 1-4 FEMA Flood Hazard Zone Map 1-5a Site Plan Aerial Overlay, CPI Property 1-5b Site Plan Aerial Overlay, Canal & Eastern Properties 1-6 Town Trail System

Psage Page vii CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1-7a Noise Wall Location Map 1-7b Noise Wall Cross Section 1 1-7c Noise Wall Cross Section 2 1-7d Noise Wall Cross Section 3 2-1 Soil Map 2-2a Slope Interval Map, CPI Property 2-2b Slope Interval Map, Canal & Eastern Properties 2-3 Geologic Cross-Section 2-4 Water Table Contour Map 2-5a Habitat Map - CPI Property 2-5b Habitat Map - Canal Property 2-5c Habitat Map - Eastern Property 2-6 Town Wetlands Jurisdiction 2-7 Areas at Risk to Static Sea Level Rise 3-1 Land Use Map 3-2 Zoning Map 3-3 Shinnecock Canal Study Recommended Plan 3-4 Educational Resources 3-5 Emergency Services 3-6 Cultural/Historic Resources 4-1 Location of Other Planned Projects

In pouches at rear: Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Topographical Survey of Property Situated in Hampton Bays, (CPI Property), JM Land Surveying, 11.18.04 Topographic Survey of Property Situate at Shinnecock Hills, (Canal & Eastern Properties), JM Land Surveying, February 2013 PDD Density Swap Yield Map, Canal West Parcel, R Squared, revised 4/10/2013 Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Cut and Fill Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Cut and Fill Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Concept Site Lighting Plan, CPI Property, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 Concept Site Lighting Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 6/18/13 As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canoe Place, R Squared, revised 4/10/13 As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal West Parcel, R Squared, revised 4/10/13 As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal East Parcel, R Squared, revised 4/10/13

Psage Page viii CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SUMMARY

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SUMMARY

Introduction

The CPI and Canal Properties are both zoned Resort and Waterfront Business and the Eastern Property is zoned Motel Business. A change of zone to Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) is proposed for all three properties, so that the flexibility inherent in the PDD concept would be available to facilitate the project and simultaneously enable provision of the numerous public benefits of the project, including Community Benefits.

Flexibility in zoning is essential to achieve the design and combination of uses associated with this project, as well as to facilitate provision of the specific benefits. This flexibility is reflected in the proposed project, and is consistent with the Town Board’s legislative intent for the PDD, the long-term goals of which are presented in Town Zoning Code Section 330-240 E. The project conforms to these goals, as well as to the standards of the MPDD.

The proposed project will provide a number of significant public benefits, of which the following three represent the Community Benefits required by Town Zoning Code Section 33-245I (and as defined by New York State (NYS) Town Law Section 261-b:

1) rehabilitation of the CPI facility, which is an important part of the character of the community. This includes the difference in value of the site if developed to its “highest and best use” compared to the lower value of the site as developed per the proposed project; 2) a $250,000 contribution by the applicant to the Town for open space preservation, and 3) provision of land on the Canal Property for, and construction of, a public boardwalk on a portion of this property’s frontage on the Shinnecock Canal.

There is another important economic factor that results in value and benefits to the community, at the expense of the applicant:

1) the difference in property taxes generated by the site under the proposed project as compared to the property taxes that would be generated under its existing zonings, amortized over a 10-year period.

Page S-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As noted, the structures on the CPI Property are presently in a dilapidated and vacant state; this site is presently unused. However, the applicant could rehabilitate these structures and reopen and recommence the prior activities on this site without the need to obtain approvals from the Town (other than building permits). The applicant had operated a night club use on the site; however, at the request of the Town, the applicant has suspended site operations while the pending application is pursued. Therefore, for analysis purposes of this document, it is assumed that the existing structures on the CPI Property could be occupied and operational.

The subject properties are located within or served by the following service districts:

 Hampton Bays Union Free School District (UFSD)  Hampton Bays Fire District  Southampton Town Police Department  Hampton Bays Water District  Long Island Power Authority/National Grid  Groundwater Management Zone IV (600 gallons per day [gpd]/acre)

The CPI Property was the subject of a prior land use application. An application for a change of zone to MPDD for the CPI Property was submitted to the Town of Southampton in March 2006 and an amended version was submitted in August 2006. The previous application requested a change of zone and subsequent development of a 75-unit private residence club consisting of two and three bedroom “residences” that would be available to a limited number of owners, who would be fractional owners of a Private Residence Club for their use as a shared vacation home during pre-defined, extended periods of time. The application was eventually withdrawn and the applicant now intends to rehabilitate the CPI building in a similar use and configuration as its present condition permits including an inn, catering facility, restaurant and cottages.

The contents of this Draft EIS addresses the items specified in the Positive Declaration and Final Scope, and has been prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC on behalf of the applicant to fully disclose potential impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed development project and requested change of zone. Future stages of this review include: determination of completeness by the Lead Agency; circulation of the document to involved agencies, parties of interest and the public during the review period; a public hearing on the Draft EIS and proposed MPDD zoning; preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), which responds to agency and public comments received during the Draft EIS review period; preparation and acceptance of the Findings Statement by the Lead Agency (including issues addressed by involved agencies), and the Town Board decision on the change of zone to MPDD.

Page S-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS agency under SEQRA, the Town Board issued a Positive Declaration on the proposed project on May 8, 2012. The Town Board also conducted formal scoping in conformance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, providing forums for oral and written comments on the Draft Scope, which was issued as the Final Scope on June 29, 2012.

Description of the Proposed Project

The project involves a proposed exchange of density between the CPI Property and the Canal Property/Eastern Property. This exchange would transfer the existing potential development yields of each of the three subject properties between the three sites, in order to place development on the two properties than are proposed for development. It is acknowledged that the proposed project requests more residences than the existing potential yield of the three properties. However, the Town’s PDD ordinance is designed to address such a situation, and sets procedures and standards to justify an increase in density through the provision of Community Benefits having a value that matches or exceeds the value of the increase in density. In order to quantify the change in density, the number of existing inn units and cottages on the CPI Property were inventoried and compared to the number of townhouse units before being subject to transfer to the Canal Property. The analysis indicates that the proposed project will provide Community Benefits (within a larger set of Public Benefits) that are well in excess of the required compensatory benefits (based on dollar value).

The applicant for this project is R Squared Development LLC, of Plainview, New York. The proposed project includes the three non-contiguous properties and the proposed improvements, such that they will be integrated into a unified development plan where the properties relate to one another in terms of density exchange and public benefits. A change of zone to MPDD is proposed to provide flexible zoning and public benefits to facilitate the proposed project. Proposed rehabilitation of the CPI Property includes retaining all existing buildings such that it will be open for public use. The project more specifically calls for rehabilitation of the CPI building for use as an inn (20 units), catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, 70-seat (minimum) restaurant with 20-seat bar area and 120-seat (maximum) seasonal outdoor seating, as well as the rehabilitation of the five existing cottages on the property. The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 40 high-quality townhouses including a clubhouse/amenity building, pool and private marina. An additional Town-sought amenity included on this property is the provision of a public boardwalk, in the site’s southwestern corner, along the Shinnecock Canal. The Eastern Property will contain a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to handle wastewater flow from the proposed townhouse development. This will result in the removal of the existing untreated sanitary waste discharged on the site from the two restaurants, commercial and residential use on the Canal Property.

It is the applicant’s intent to rehabilitate those portions of the existing CPI structure (both structural and architectural) that can be rehabilitated, and remove, repair, replace or alter (as appropriate) those portions that have deteriorated beyond rehabilitation, so that the building’s prior history and character can be incorporated into the proposed project, as well as to maintain the character the site displayed to the community over its long history. The applicant does not

Page S-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

propose to restore the building to the condition, appearance or set of features it may have had during any one particular time or era in its past.

Sanitary wastewater generated on the CPI Property will be treated in an on-site septic system, while sanitary wastewater generated on the Canal Property will be treated in a NitrexTM WWTF to be built on the southern portion of the Eastern Property.

In total, the proposed Public Benefits package is estimated at $14.631 million (which includes 10-year tax amortization). The project does not propose the use of transfer of development rights or Pine Barrens Credits as the value of the proposed public benefits greatly exceeds the value of the increased density.

The following public benefits are anticipated to result from the project:

 Community Benefit: Rehabilitation of the CPI Property as a public use (inn, catering facility, and restaurant), resulting in improved aesthetics on the site and retention of a structure that is important to community character.  Community Benefit: The new public boardwalk along the Shinnecock Canal on the Canal Property.  Community Benefit: A $250,000 contribution towards open space purchases.  The increase in taxes generated on the subject properties amortized over 10 years ($8.1 million) for a total Public Benefit associated with the proposed project of $17.631 million.  The significant investment for the land value and related expenses associated with the CPI rehabilitation.  The substantial investment in the subject property will substantially upgrade the site and immediate vicinity and enhance surrounding property values.  Rehabilitation of the CPI building will create an aesthetically and architecturally appealing structure and use on the site, reminiscent of its history.  Conformance to several Land Use Plans including the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.  The creation of an attractive gateway into Hampton Bays.  Generation of substantial annual tax revenue (estimated at $883,699) compared to $180,249 under existing conditions.  The proposed project will provide substantial construction-related jobs and operation employment including; building, amenities and grounds (systems, pool, landscaping, etc.) maintenance-related jobs, management jobs, housekeeping jobs and other hospitality-related jobs and services.  The proposed project will bring vacation residents with high spending dollars to the Hampton Bays area resulting in direct sales, sales tax and related “ripple effect” economic benefits to the community, Town and County.  Redevelopment of the Canal Property will include an upgrade of the sanitary system resulting in environmental benefits, including a reduction in the nitrogen levels discharged into the Shinnecock Canal from existing uses.

Page S-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Anticipated Impacts

Soils and Topography  Steep slopes on the three project properties may be necessary.  Erosion may occur on during the construction period.  Dust may be raised during clearing and grading operations.  Excess soil material generated during grading operations would necessitate removal. This proves may impact the vicinity from trucking operations, noise, dust, etc.  Existing facilities that have experienced environmental impacts to soils (e.g., underground storage tanks [USTs] and leaching pools) will need to be remediated.

Water Resources  Impacts to groundwater and/or surface water resources may occur, due to wastewater recharge, stormwater runoff recharge and/or flow, and recharge of landscape chemicals.

Ecology  Disturbance or removal of the existing vegetated areas of the three project properties may impact the habitat value of these areas.  Use of non-native or inappropriate plant species in landscaping installation would adversely impact the habitat value of the project’s vegetated areas.

Transportation  The vehicle trips generated by the proposed project may adversely impact the operations of the adjacent and nearby intersections and roadways.

Land Use, Zoning and Plans  The proposed project may adversely impact the existing pattern of land uses and zoning in the vicinity.  The proposed project must demonstrate conformance to the applicable standards of the pertinent Town Code ordinances.  The proposed project must demonstrate conformance to the applicable general and site-specific (if any) goals and recommendations of the applicable land use plans.

Community Facilities and Services  The proposed project will increase the workload and fiscal burden on all applicable community services.  The residential component of the proposed project will increase the number of school-age children on-site, which would increase the enrollment of the Hampton Bays UFSD. This would necessitate increased school district expenditures.

Community Character  The clearing, grading and new structures associated with the proposed project may combine to adversely affect the existing visual character of the site, as well as the site’s aesthetic relationship with the adjacent and nearby area.  Noise levels during the construction period are expected to be audible on adjacent and nearby properties. These noise levels would represent an adverse impact that must be analyzed and, where appropriate, mitigated.  Noises associated with the proposed project may adversely impact the neighborhood.

Page S-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Historic and Archaeological Resources  Archeological Investigations were performed on the three project properties, and a Historic Property Study was conducted on the CPI Property. These studies recommended that no further archaeological or historic resources investigations be performed, and the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) concurred with the results of the reports. Therefore, no impacts to such resources will occur.

Proposed Mitigation

Soils and Topography  The majority of each of the project sites (approximately 80% of the total site area) have slopes less than 15% so that disturbance to steep slopes (defined as slopes of 15% or more) would represent only a minor portion of the project site (~20% of the total project site).  Grading, site elevations and overall site design will be subject to detailed engineering and site plan review. Concept Grading and Drainage Plan have been prepared, and provide detail for overall site grading. When finalized for the Site Plan application, these plans will require Town Planning Board approval prior to initiation of grading activities.  The Concept Grading Plans have been designed to minimize the area and volume of disturbance, and the grading envisioned is the minimum necessary to achieve the goals for the proposed development. Resultant development areas will be permanently stabilized and slopes are not anticipated to exceed 1:3. Additionally, graded areas will be either developed with buildings and pavement or will be revegetated with groundcover and landscape species; no bare soil surfaces will remain.  Grading, proposed topographic elevations and overall site design will be subject to detailed engineering and site plan review. The project will conform to applicable engineering standards and all created slopes will be 1:3 or less and will be stabilized using groundcovers as well as other engineering measures as necessary.  Dust raised during grading operations will be minimized and controlled by the use of water sprays, truck cleaning stations at the construction exit, and implementation of any dust suppression systems specified by the appropriate Town agencies.  Erosion control measures such as staked hay bales, silt fences, groundcovers (vegetative or artificial), drainage diversions, minimizing the area of soil exposed to erosive elements at one time, and minimizing the time span that soil is exposed to erosive elements, will be utilized to minimize loss of soil during construction, particularly in locations where erosion and sedimentation could adversely impact adjoining properties and streets. Applicable Town of Southampton standards and construction practices specified by the appropriate Town agencies will be followed. As long as erosion is controlled during grading and construction, the potential for sediment transport will be minimal, and no significant loss of soils is expected.  Conformance with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requirements to obtain the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, including preparation of an Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), will ensure that the potential for erosion impacts during construction will be minimized.  Topsoil will be stockpiled and reused on-site for landscaping purposes.  As part of the proposed project, existing facilities that have resulted in environmental impacts to soils will be removed (e.g., USTs and leaching pools). During these procedures, remedial actions will be undertaken to address any environmental issues under the direction of the NYSDEC and/or the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Contamination to subsurface soils (if present), will be addressed to the satisfaction of these agencies and appropriate documentation will be

Page S-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

obtained confirming that no further action will be required. Based on these actions it is anticipated that development of the proposed project will address any existing environmental quality issues with regard to soils and as a result, soil quality at the subject property is not expected to impact development and will provide an environmental benefit.  All grading and construction will take place during daytime hours, up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise), and construction will be sequenced to minimize the length of time that activity will occur near the site perimeter. It is expected that construction accesses will be provided from Newtown Road, Montauk Highway and North Shore Road, which will minimize the level of impact to adjacent residences. Due to the close proximity of the properties to major roadways for construction access and the proposed measures to manage construction activities, off-site impacts due to construction are expected to be of relatively short duration and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The overall design of the construction process and schedule will be formulated to minimize potential impacts to the neighborhood by minimizing the time span that construction occurs, as well as by mitigating potential impacts from noise and dust during this process.  Retaining walls will be installed around roadway and parking areas in the western portion of the CPI Property. Installation of these retaining walls will further stabilize soils within the topographical high and low areas of this property and will reduce required grading.  Any development that will occur as part of the proposed project on the Canal Property will comply with the recommendations issued in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by J.R. Holzmacher, P.E.

Water Resources  Adherence to the applicable recommendations of the plans discussed in this Draft EIS would ensure that groundwater resources will be protected to the greatest practicable extent, as the studies seek to protect and preserve the quality and quantity of groundwater beneath Long Island.  All stormwater runoff generated on-site will be retained on-site, to be recharged to groundwater via a proposed on-site drainage system designed in conformance with Town and State SWPPP and SPDES requirements.  Landscape maintenance will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the site owner, and will include a community-wide landscape maintenance contract. Fertilizer use will thus be controlled through initial turf and landscape plantings design as well as through the landscape grounds maintenance.  The CPI Property will utilize a conventional on-site sanitary system in compliance with the allowable discharge limits established under the historic flow condition. A nitrogen concentration of 6.66 milligrams per liter (mg/l) for the site is expected on this property, which is a decrease from the existing concentration of 13.50 mg/l. The anticipated reduction in concentration will result in a nitrogen in recharge concentration that complies with the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, as well as the SCDHS Best Management Practice (BMP) for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l and therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality and will mitigate an existing non-compliant condition.  The residential portion of the project (located on the Canal Property) will be served by a WWTF on the Eastern Property. The WWTF will be designed in accordance with all appropriate regulations and design requirements. A nitrogen concentration of 2.96 mg/l for these two properties is expected, which is a decrease from their existing concentration of 4.51 mg/l. The anticipated reduction in concentration will result in a nitrogen concentration in recharge that complies with the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, as well as the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water

Page S-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

supply well of 7 mg/l and therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality and will mitigate an existing non-compliant condition.  The concentration of nitrogen in overall recharge will decrease for the proposed project; the existing value is 9.47 mg/l, and the proposed project will reduce this value to 4.64 mg/l. The volume of water recharged by the project will decrease in the proposed project, by 13.2% from its existing value of 20.69 million gallons per year (MGY) to 17.95 MGY following construction.

Ecology  Disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, including delineating tree-clearing limits, prior to construction in order to avoid inadvertent clearing.  Native plant species that provide food and shelter to wildlife will be utilized in some of the landscaped areas.  No known invasive plant species will be utilized, including those species listed in Resolution 614- 2007 enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature.  Native plant species that provide food and shelter to wildlife will be utilized in some of the landscaped areas.  No known invasive plant species will be utilized, including those species listed in Resolution 614- 2007 enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature.  The retention of 1.87 acres of Pitch Pine-Oak forest will continue to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area.

Transportation  The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project concludes that the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of the study intersections. As a result, no mitigation measures are necessary or proposed.

Land Use, Zoning and Plans  The proposed project incorporates traditional architectural design, extensive site improvements and landscaping features on the CPI and Canal Properties.  The proposed project meets the Town Comprehensive Plan Update goals of retaining and rehabilitating the historic CPI use and structure as well as enhancing the diversity of the economy and promotion of tourism to the Town during the shoulder seasons in addition to the summer months.  The Canal Property will include on-site recreational amenities for residents of the townhomes.

Community Facilities and Services  The proposed project will generate significant increases in tax revenues and allocations to each of the pertinent community services, which would more than offset any change in cost to the pertinent community services to provide services.  The Hampton Bays UFSD will receive nearly $677,000 in taxes - covering the associated expenses incurred by the three students projected to be generated by the proposed project.  The proposed project will generate a significant increase in tax revenue, which would more than offset any change in cost to the pertinent community services to provide services.  Conformance to the NYS Building and Fire Safety Codes will partially mitigate potential health and safety impacts from fire response providers.  Energy-efficient design and current construction methods will be utilized and buildings will be constructed consistent with NYS Building Code requirements.

Page S-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Community Character  Landscaping will be planted within the CPI and Canal Properties, including between and along the rehabilitated and new buildings and internal access driveway and walkways, to provide a vegetative accent to the developments respective architectural themes.  In consideration of the site layout and building design features pertinent to the character of the properties and community (i.e., the land use of the properties and in the vicinity, the prevailing land use pattern, and the visual appearances of the properties and properties in the area), mitigation is primarily related to the design of the project and future, more detailed landscape and architectural design and review.  Potential noise impacts will be mitigated by ensuring that construction and operation comply with the Town of Southampton noise code that specifies maximum permissible sound pressure levels.  It is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise), to minimize the impacts of construction noise.  Noise dampening practices will be utilized during construction to minimize the impact on surrounding areas including keeping all mechanical construction equipment maintained in good working order to minimize noise levels.  Long-term impacts related to noise will predominantly result from the seasonal outdoor activities on the CPI Property as well as the residential activities on the Canal Property that occur periodically and are a factor of any development, such as garbage removal.  A noise attenuation wall is proposed at the Canal Property to mitigate potential noise impacts associated with automobile and truck traffic on the adjacent roadways for future residents.

Historic and Archaeological Resources  As the Archeological Investigations on the three Properties and the Historic Property Study conducted on the CPI Property recommended that no further work be performed, and OPRHP concurred with the results of the reports, no impacts to such resources will occur, and no mitigation is necessary or proposed.  The rehabilitation of the CPI Property for re-use of the facility consistent with its historic site use (i.e., an inn, with guest rooms, a restaurant, bar and catering facility) provides mitigation of any potential adverse impacts associated with the alteration of this site.

Alternatives Considered

SEQRA requires the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. Alternatives should represent reasonable and feasible land use, technology and other options to the proposed project that would achieve the applicant’s objectives and remain within the applicant’s capabilities. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the merits of the proposed project as compared to those of other possible uses, sites and technologies that would also achieve the applicant’s objectives and potentially reduce environmental impacts. The discussions and analyses of the alternatives should be conducted at a level of detail sufficient to allow for this informed comparison, to be conducted by the decision-making agencies. Alternative 1 is the “No Action” alternative, which is required by SEQRA and is intended to represent site conditions if the proposed project is not implemented. For the subject application, the following alternatives have been analyzed:

Page S-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Alternative 1: No Action - assumes that the subject properties remain in their current zonings, but that the buildings and facilities are fully utilized.  Alternative 2: Full As-of-Right Build-Out - assumes development of the project properties under their existing zonings, as follows: o CPI Property: new 49,187 SF (338 seat) restaurant. o Canal Property: new 17,176 (238 seat) restaurant. o Eastern Property: new 21,032 SF (160 seat) restaurant.

Permits and Approvals Required

Prior to the issuance of any permits or approvals, the SEQRA-designated Lead Agency must fulfill the requirements of SEQRA. This Draft EIS is intended to provide the Southampton Town Board (as lead agency under SEQRA) and all involved agencies with the information necessary to render an informed decision on the CPI Property, the Canal Property and the Eastern Property MPDD application. This document is intended to comply with SEQRA requirements as administered by the lead agency. Once accepted, the document will be the subject of public review, followed by the preparation of a Final EIS for any substantive comments on the Draft EIS. Upon completion of the Final EIS, the Town Board will be responsible for the adoption of a Statement of Findings. Following this and, in consideration of the Findings Statement, the Town Board shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed MPDD change of zone application. If the proposed project is approved or conditionally approved, the applicant may proceed to a Site Plan Application to the Planning Board. The following table presents a list of permits and approvals required for this project.

PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Issuing/Permitting Entity Type of Permit/Approval Town Board Change of Zone Approval Site Plan approvals Town Planning Board Tidal Wetlands Permit Town Building Department Demolition permits, Building Permit Hampton Bays Water District Water Supply Connection Permit/approval SCSC Article 4 (water supply system design) review/approval, SCDHS SCSC Article 6 (sanitary system) review/approval Subdivision approval (Canal Property) Suffolk County Sewer Agency Conceptual Approval SCPC* NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 review/approval NYS Highway Law 136 & Road Access Permit SCDPW** Sewer Agreement Application for Road Usage for Debris (Demolition Permit) NYSDEC General Permit, Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity NYSDOT*** Roadwork Permit * Suffolk County Planning Commission. ** Suffolk County Department of Public Works. *** New York State Department of Transportation.

Page S-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 1.0

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for a proposed change of zone from the Southampton Town Board on three separate parcels of land, including the Canoe Place Inn (hereafter, the “CPI Property”, 5.65 acres), a marina/restaurant/residential parcel along the east of the Shinnecock Canal and north of Montauk Highway (County Route [CR] 80; hereafter, the “Canal Property”, 4.50 acres), and a vacant wooded parcel located east of North Shore Road (CR 39) north of Montauk Highway (hereafter, the “Eastern Property”, 2.68 acres). This Draft EIS describes the proposed project, characterizes site and area resources, analyzes potential environmental impacts of the project, presents measures to mitigate adverse impacts, and examines alternatives to the proposed project. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 provide a Location Map and Tax Map, respectively, of the subject properties in relation to adjacent and local roadways. [All figures are included together in a separate section at the end of the text portion of this document.] The Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn and Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties (in pouches at the end of this document) present conceptual site plans for the respective project sites. It should be noted that both the Canal and Eastern Properties are included on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties. Sanitary wastewater generated on the CPI Property will be treated in an on-site septic system, while sanitary wastewater generated on the Canal Property will be treated in a NitrexTM wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to be built on the southern portion of the Eastern Property.

Table 1-1 identifies the three properties based on their Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) designations.

Table 1-1 TAX LOTS*

Property Section Block Lot(s) CPI 207 5 3 & 4 Canal 207 4 22.1, 23, 24 & 25** Eastern 208 2 18.1 * All tax lots within District 0900. ** This tax lot is entirely underwater.

Page 1-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS existing cottages on the property. The square footages of the CPI structure and cottages would not change from their existing values of approximately 34,000 square feet (SF) and 6,670 SF, respectively. The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 40 high-quality, three- bedroom, 2,200 SF townhouses (88,000 SF of residential dwelling space) including a 6,000 SF clubhouse/amenity area in Building #5, pool (27’ x 77’) and private marina. The townhomes will have crawl spaces beneath them, except for Building #5, which will have the clubhouse in a walkout basement. An additional Town-sought amenity included on this property is the provision of a public boardwalk, in the site’s southwestern corner, along the Shinnecock Canal. The Eastern Property will contain a state-of-the-art WWTF to handle wastewater flow from the proposed townhouse development. This will result in the removal of the existing untreated sanitary waste discharged on the site from the two restaurants, commercial and residential use on the Canal Property.

1) rehabilitation of the CPI facility, which is an important part of the character of the community. This includes the difference in value of the site if developed to its “highest and best use” compared to the lower value of the site as developed per the proposed project; ; 2) a $250,000 contribution by the applicant to the Town for open space preservation, and 3) provision of land on the Canal Property for, and construction of, a public boardwalk on a portion of this property’s frontage on the Shinnecock Canal.

In addition to the above, there is another important economic factor that results in value and benefit to the community, at the expense of the applicant. This includes:

The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the dilapidated CPI structure, as defined by the Town Zoning Code Section 330-5, as opposed to restoration, which is not practical or feasible given the condition of the structure and modifications which have taken place over the years. Specifically, the Code defines the term “rehabilitation” as follows:

The act or process of making possible a compatible use through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

In contrast, the Code defines the term “restoration” as follows:

The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods of its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.

Page 1-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As noted, the structures on the CPI Property are presently in a dilapidated and vacant state; this site is presently unused. However, the applicant could rehabilitate these structures and reopen and recommence the prior activities on this site without the need to obtain approvals from the Town (other than building permits). The applicant had operated a night club use on the site, however, at the request of the Town, the applicant has suspended site operations while the pending application is pursued. Therefore, for analysis purposes of this document, it is assumed that the existing structures on the CPI Property could be occupied and operational.

The CPI and Canal Properties are both zoned Resort and Waterfront Business (RWB) and the Eastern Property is zoned Motel Business (MTL). A change of zone to MPDD is proposed for all three properties, so that the flexibility inherent in the PDD concept would be available to facilitate the project and simultaneously enable provision of the numerous public benefits of the project, including the Community Benefits noted above.

Flexibility in zoning is essential to achieve the design and combination of uses associated with this project, as well as to facilitate provision of the specific benefits. This flexibility is reflected in the proposed project, and is consistent with the Town Board’s legislative intent for the PDD, the long-term goals of which are presented in Town Zoning Code Section 330-240 E. The project’s conformance to these goals, as well as conformance to the standards of the MPDD, are detailed in Section 1.1.4.2.

The project involves a proposed exchange of density between the CPI Property and the Canal Property/Eastern Property. This exchange would transfer the existing potential development yields of each of the three subject properties between the three sites, in order to place development on the two properties than are proposed for development. It is acknowledged that the proposed project requests more residences than the existing potential yield of the three properties. However, the Town’s PDD ordinance is designed to address such a situation, and sets procedures and standards to justify an increase in density through the provision of Community Benefits having a value that matches or exceeds the value of the increase in density. In order to quantify the change in density, the number of existing inn units and cottages on the CPI Property were inventoried and compared to the number of townhouse units before being subject to transfer to the Canal Property. The analysis described in Section 1.3.1 indicates that the proposed project will provide Community Benefits (within a larger set of Public Benefits) that are well in excess of the required compensatory benefits (based on dollar value).

Page 1-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The sanitary flow for the inn, catering, restaurant and cottages can be accommodated on the CPI Property using conventional sanitary systems, and a WWTF will be built on the Eastern Property to handle the wastewater flow from the proposed townhouse units on the Canal Property.

This document is part of the official record under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process outlined in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617, with statutory authority and enabling legislation under Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). The Southampton Town Board is the Lead Agency for the project, as the application that triggered the SEQRA process is under the jurisdiction of that Board. The Town Board determined that the proposed project is a Type I Action pursuant to SEQRA, and the regulating provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617. As lead agency under SEQRA, the Town Board issued a Positive Declaration on the proposed project on May 8, 2012 (see Appendix A-1). The Town Board also conducted formal scoping in conformance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8, providing forums for oral and written comments on the Draft Scope, which was issued as the Final Scope on June 29, 2012 (see Appendix A-2).

This Draft EIS addresses the items specified in the Positive Declaration and Final Scope, and has been prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) on behalf of the applicant to fully disclose potential impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed development project and requested change of zone. Future stages of this review include: determination of completeness by the Lead Agency; circulation of the document to involved agencies, parties of interest and the public during the review period; a public hearing on the Draft EIS and proposed MPDD zoning; preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), which responds to agency and public comments received during the Draft EIS review period; preparation and acceptance of the Findings Statement by the Lead Agency (including issues addressed by involved agencies), and the Town Board decision on the change of zone to MPDD.

1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits

1.1.1 Project Background and History

Historic aerial photographs illustrating site conditions and areas of development are provided as Appendix B-1. Aerials from 1954, 1961, 1969, 1980 and 2004 are provided. As shown, all three sites have been developed in various states since 1954. Structures depicted on the subject properties remain; those on the CPI Property are currently vacant as requested by the Town, and those on the Canal Property are occupied and in active use.

1.1.1.1 CPI Property

A brief summary of the history of the CPI Property is provided as follows1:

1 Taken from the Historic Property Study, dated April 2007, prepared by Historic Documentation Company, Inc, see Appendix B-2.

Page 1-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 18th Century: Land sold by Town trustees to Jeremiah Culver in 1739; in 1750, he builds house on property which by the Revolutionary War is operating as an inn housing British soldiers. The inn is depicted on a 1780 map along with the British fort on the hilltop immediately northwest of the inn site.  19th Century: Old CPI widely known as Long Island landmark and destination for visiting dignitaries, politicians and persons of note.  1884-1892: Shinnecock Canal built relieving stagnation in Shinnecock Bay eventually creating thriving shell and fin fishery.  1914: Construction of locks for the Shinnecock Canal begins, taking four years to complete.  1917: Old CPI bought by Julius Keller, prominent New York City restaurateur. Keller makes $40,000 in improvements including the addition of a dance hall. CPI becomes de facto summer headquarters for New York’s Tammany Hall leaders and State Democratic party officials.  July 5, 1921: Old CPI burns to ground, killing two workers. Brick chimneys were all that was left standing after the fire. [The chimneys were subsequently demolished as well].  December 10, 1922: New CPI opens for business, attended by Governor Alfred E. Smith and a long roster of elected and appointed party members. The new Inn was designed by William L. Bottomley and constructed by F.W. Jackson & Sons of Hampton Bays. Bottomley was a highly regarded architect in his day, and has gained further recognition in recent years with the publishing of scholarly books and papers on his work.  1922-1923: Keller builds house for himself and five summer rental cottages on land to the west of the Inn. Total investment in reconstruction of the Inn, house and cottages exceeds $250,000.  Prohibition: CPI operates as a roadhouse, under the eyes of local and state lawmen, but is finally busted by Federal agents dispatched from Washington in the disguise of wealthy patrons. Al Smith takes up summer residences in one of the cottages.  Circa 1930’s: CPI Dancing Pavilion expanded with addition of circular front. Other 1-story additions to rear of buildings possibly made during this period and later. See Appendix B Historic Photos of this report [Appendix B-2] for views of the original and modified pavilion façade.  1945: Julius Keller dies and CPI ownership passes to his son Henry.  1949: Henry Keller sells Canoe Place Inn to Armand Villa, manager of the Stanhope Hotel in NYC for $55,000.  1950’s or 1960’s: CPI is completely remodeled into modern banquet facility. Significant original architectural features of the interior and exterior are removed or permanently altered. See images of 1950’s brochure in Appendix B Historic Photos of [Appendix B-2].  1970’s to present: Extensive alterations to the interior and exterior of the building in its evolution as a nightclub and low-rent apartments, and a lack of basic maintenance, further compromise the building’s architectural integrity.  In more recent years the inn has operated as a nightclub called the Canoe Place Inn. The site is currently owned by R Squared Development LLC.

Page 1-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Canoe Place Inn pre-1921

Canoe Place Inn, circa 1950

Page 1-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Canoe Place Inn, circa 1925 (Eric Woodward Collection)

Canoe Place Inn, early 1970’s

Historic photographs illustrating conditions of the CPI building, including interior and exterior views are provided in the Historic Property Study contained in Appendix B-2 and an architectural analysis containing historic photographs, historic floor plans and site layouts as well as a comparison of historic and proposed footprints is provided as Appendix B-3. Old illustrations depicting the CPI structure are shown below, prior to the NYS grading operation for the bridge on Montauk Highway spanning the Shinnecock Canal, in the late 1970s.

Page 1-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS applicant now intends to rehabilitate the CPI building in a similar use and configuration as its present condition permits including an inn, catering facility, restaurant and cottages.

The following lists the various meetings, presentations and other public contact sessions between the applicant and Town that have occurred in relation to the MPDD application and proposed project.

Meetings Held with Town & Community

Date Attendees Comments Gregg Rechler, Mitchell Rechler, Anna April 8, 2010 Throne Holst & Zach Studenroth (Town Tour of CPI Historian) Chris Nuzzi, Jim Malone, Gregg Rechler & May 14, 2010 Mitchell Rechler Meet with Hampton Bays July 7, 2010 Jim Morgo Community Advisory Committee

Meet with Hampton Bays Historical July 13, 2010 Jim Morgo Society Anna Throne-Holst, Jim Malone, Gregg July 23, 2010 Rechler, Mitchell Rechler, Guy Germano September 13, Meeting of Hampton Bays Civic Jim Morgo 2010 Association at high school Gregg Rechler, Mitchell Rechler, Jim Morgo, members of Hampton Bays Beautification First meeting with “diner group” at November 10, Association, Hampton Bays Civic Hampton Bays Diner, as 2010 Association, Hampton Bays Historical Society recommended by Town Supervisor and Town Board Liaison January 18, Southampton Town Board Work session 2011 April 8, 2011 Southampton Town Board MPDD Pre-submission hearing Hampton Bays Civic, Historical Society, Informational meeting at the high June 28, 2011 Beautification Society sponsor school (>100 attendees) Gregg Rechler, Mitchell Rechler, Jim Morgo, members of Hampton Bays Beautification Second “diner group” meeting at February 15, Association, Hampton Bays Civic Hampton Bays Diner, as 2012 Association, Hampton Bays Historical Society recommended by Town Supervisor and Town Board Liaison Gregg Rechler, Mitchell Rechler, Jim Morgo, Scott Pollack, members of Hampton Bays Third “diner group” meeting at May 7, 2012 Beautification Association, Hampton Bays Hampton Bays Diner, as Civic Association, Hampton Bays Historical recommended by Town Supervisor Society and Town Board Liaison Meet with Bob Finer in NYC. Mr. Finer represents Hampton Bays Civic July 2012 Gregg Rechler – Concerned Citizens of Hampton Bays

Page 1-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Dave Wilcox, Freda Eisenberg, Gregg Rechler June 6, 2012 Meet in Westhampton office & Zach Studenroth June 12, 2012 Town Board Public Draft EIS scoping meeting September 10, Presentation to Hampton Bays Gregg Rechler & Mitchell Rechler 2012 Beautification Association October 12, Hampton Bays UFSD Superintendant Jim Morgo 2012 and Business Manager

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the CPI Property by RJS Environmental in May 2012 (see Appendix C-1). The report is discussed in detail in Section 2.1.1; however, the report revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the site. In addition, RJS offered an opinion that based on the information obtained and reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA, environmental impacts at this site do not appear to pose a significant risk. RJS did not recommend further work.

1.1.1.2 Canal & Eastern Properties

A review of historic aerial photographs reveals that the sites have historically been developed in a similar configuration to existing conditions. Although difficult to discern exactly what development exists on the site in the 1939 aerial, it is clear that the marina was constructed at that point in time. The 1954 aerial shows four structures in a similar footprint as currently configured on the Canal Property. It is assumed that the structure just south of the marina was historically used as marina support and changed (and possibly expanded) to a restaurant use in the 1970’s. The single-family residence on the parcel with frontage along North Shore Road was constructed prior to 1954 and is assumed to have always been used residentially. The two structures on the southern portion of the site include a residence which was the home of Charlie Altenkirch who lived on the property and operated a fishing equipment shop building and a bait and tackle shop. Altenkirch's bait shop dates back to 1930. The second structure on the southern portion of the site has changed uses over time; however, is situated in the same location since prior to 1954 and is currently used as a restaurant.

View of Canal Property, circa 1945

Page 1-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The Eastern Property has been in a vacant, natural condition since 1947 as observed in review of historic aerial photographs.

A Phase I ESA was undertaken by P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) to identify potential environmental impacts from historic uses of the Canal and Eastern Properties. A report of this investigation was prepared in July 2006 (see Appendix C-2). PWGC identified recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) at the bait and tackle shop (a former gasoline dispensing station), and on-site sanitary systems, on the Canal Property. PWGC recommended that further investigations be performed to ascertain whether contamination was present in the soil and groundwater around the tanks and in the sanitary leaching pools. Soil and groundwater associated with the USTs were subsequently investigated by PWGC and their findings and recommendations issued in a report dated November 2, 2012 (see Appendix C-3). The sanitary systems on the Canal Property were sampled by Cashin Technical Services, Inc. (CTS), and their findings issued in a report dated November 5, 2012 (see Appendix C-4). CTS sampled leaching pools in the existing four sanitary systems that serve the structures at the site. All except one pool connected to the restaurant at 5 North Highway were compliant with the Suffolk County’s Sanitary Code (SCSC) with respect to chemical concentrations in the sediments. CTS has been retained to clean out the leaching pools under the oversight of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The leaching pools were remediated on February 22, 2013 (see Appendix C-5), and the SCDHS confirmed that the remediation was satisfactorily completed and approved (see Appendix C-6).

In general, three USTs were located on the Canal Property, all associated with the bait and tackle shop at 243 East Montauk Highway. It is likely that tanks which may have once served the other structures were removed during the site’s conversion to gas heat. The bait and tackle shop is presently heated with a 550-gallon fuel-oil tank. A 1,000-gallon fuel-oil tank was apparently properly abandoned in-place (no oil, tank filled with water). The tank rests against the building’s foundation and, as such, could potentially compromise the structure if removed. A third UST of about 2,000-gallon capacity once used to store gasoline was found which is no longer in service and was not properly abandoned. Soil borings around this tank and downgradient indicate residual contamination by gasoline constituents. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Spill Line was called and a spill number assigned. PWGC was retained to prepare a remediation action plan (RAP) for NYSDEC’s review and approval preliminary to removal of the former gasoline UST and remediation of the spill (see Appendix C-7). All remediation will be performed under the supervision of NYSDEC. The 2,000-gallon former gasoline tank will be removed, and the soil and groundwater remediated with the oversight of the NYSDEC. The two other tanks will be removed in accordance with SCDHS requirements prior to re-development of the site. The actions to be taken under the RAP are described more fully in Section 2.1.1.1.

1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives

The proposed project involves rezoning the three non-contiguous properties (designated CPI, Canal and Eastern) from their existing RWB and MTL zonings to a MPDD zone, so they can be

Page 1-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS integrated into a unified development plan where the properties relate to one another in terms of density exchange and public benefits (including Community Benefits). MPDD zoning is proposed to provide flexibility and public benefits to facilitate the proposed project. Proposed redevelopment of the CPI Property includes retaining all existing buildings such that public access will be provided. The project more specifically calls for rehabilitation of the CPI building for use as an inn (20 units), catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, 70-seat (minimum) restaurant with 20-seat bar area and 120-seat (maximum) seasonal outdoor seating, as well as the renovation of the five existing cottages on the property. The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 40 high-quality townhouses with a clubhouse/amenity area in Building 5, pool and private marina, and a public boardwalk in the southern portion along the Shinnecock Canal. The Eastern Property will contain a WWTF to handle wastewater from the proposed townhouse development on the Canal Property.

1.1.2.1 Project Need

The applicant is confident in the need for the project based on the unique attraction that the rehabilitated CPI Property will provide, and the expected demand for quality townhomes with boating facilities in an attractive and desirable location. The applicant seeks to make an investment in the community to rehabilitate the former Canoe Place Inn and cottages, and construct high-quality townhouse units on an improved waterfront site. The applicant is well- versed in evaluating risk on investment and bringing successful projects of all types to fruition. As a result, perhaps one of the more important indicators of project need is the applicant’s interest in taking on this creative and beneficial project. Appendix D-1 provides information in support of the demand for the proposed use of the CPI Property as will be described herein. Appendix D-2 includes a residential market analysis for 40 townhouse units as a measure of need for this component of the project as will be described later in this subsection.

A primary use of the CPI Property will be for catering of events of up to 350 persons. The proposed project will operate similar to a traditional catering facility; however, it is proposed that CPI will provide accommodations for pre-selected caterers to bring food and services to this facility. An inventory of catering halls within a 30-mile radius was conducted in order to determine the available facilities within a 45-60 minute drive from Hampton Bays, and thereby establish the need for such a facility. The inventory was specifically directed toward catering facilities with similar capacity and market focus as that proposed in connection with the CPI Property. As a result, vineyards were not included in the inventory as these are a niche market in the overall industry of event accommodations, with a key difference being that the event planners typically have to make arrangements for food and services to be brought to the vineyard and events are typically held all or partly outdoors in tents. As a result, only catering halls/facilities which provide on-site food preparation with indoor facilities were inventoried. Interestingly, only a very limited number of facilities were identified within 30-miles of the CPI property, and these are primarily at the outer limits of the study radius. The map contained in Appendix D-1 illustrates the twelve (12) comparable facilities within 30 miles, as well as the locations of other facilities across Long Island. The south shore of Long Island between Bellport and Montauk is grossly underserved in terms of available catering facilities, based on the spatial

Page 1-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS relationship as compared with other parts of Long Island. With the nearest facilities to the north in Jamesport, Baiting Hollow and Wading River, residents of Hampton Bays must travel greater distances for fewer choices to meet their catering needs. As a result, it is evident that there is a geographic need for the catering options that will be offered at the rehabilitated Canoe Place Inn.

In addition to catering and banquet facilities, the CPI property will offer accommodations at the “inn,”, thus providing an additional market component for overnight guests. The facility will have a bar and both indoor and outdoor dining in a high-quality restaurant setting. The combination of these factors provides a synergy of compatible and complementary uses that will further ensure the success of the business. The catering/banquet use, restaurant/dining, bar seats, and hotel units at the inn will be offered year-round as demand warrants, thus increasing the utilization potential.

There are a number of types of functions that would have the potential to be held at the CPI banquet/catering facilities. Typical events include: weddings and proms, as well as local and regional club and organization meetings. Residents of Hampton Bays have expressed interest in having local facilities for such events, and many have reminisced about the use of the former CPI for proms and weddings. The offering of overnight accommodations provides an opportunity for destination weddings, business retreats and conference center use. In addition, restaurant and bar patronage and the tourism potential for overnight visits add to the types of uses that can be accommodated at the site.

The CPI Property enjoys many attributes that provide a high potential for success in the target markets of the overall facility. The site is ideally situated to ensure its success in the existing catering, restaurant and overnight stay market. The CPI Property enjoys a prominent location on a main thoroughfare with visibility from the east and to a lesser extent the west, as well as the Shinnecock Canal. The maritime setting and summer uses in the area are an attraction providing beaches, fishing, boating and sightseeing opportunities. The area offers inland activities including golf, shopping in Hampton Bays and nearby Southampton Village, hiking, biking and other park and recreation locations.

The historic setting of the site is also a positive feature, allowing this project to re-establish the existence of an historic inn on the site where the same use existed in the past. The architectural character of the rehabilitated structure will provide a significant attraction and a link to the past. The site will have convenient access and parking, and the landscape setting will add to the aesthetics that the site will present; all factors that lead to a successful facility. The site will be operated as a business and as a result, signs will be used to draw patrons, and advertising of the services offered by the facility will be handled in a manner that takes full advantage of the many attributes noted above, thus ensuring its market success.

As a result, the following summary of key points supports a finding that the rehabilitated CPI Property meets an existing need and will therefore be a positive economic generator of taxes, jobs and convenient services to Hampton Bays:

 There is a lack of catering facilities within a 45-60 minute drive time of Hampton Bays;

Page 1-12 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 The array of functions at the facility (catering, overnight accommodations, restaurant and bar) provides a synergy between uses on a year-round basis;  There are a number of local and regional events that can be accommodated at the site including, weddings (local and destination weddings), business retreats, conference center use, proms, club and organization meetings and events.  The site has an attraction for tourism given the convenient availability of maritime and inland recreational opportunities;  The site is well-situated, is highly visible and will be enhanced by architecture, landscaping, convenient access and parking, and signage;  The site will be operated as a business, and advertised in a manner that promotes the unique attributes and opportunities that the site and area offer.

The residential use of the Shinnecock Canal parcel also enjoys a high probability of success based on market need. A Residential Market Analysis has been conducted to further examine the target market and potential for the 40 townhomes to be occupied (see Appendix D-2). The results of this market analysis are summarized herein.

Statement of Need Since the early 1970s, the Hamptons have become a major attraction for those wanting to purchase or build a second home. Despite the nationwide slump in the housing market over the past few years, the demand for luxury housing in the Hamptons is on the rise. Home sales in the Hamptons jumped to a five-year high during the summer of 2012, with 539 real estate transactions. Such sales are up 9.6% from a year earlier, and the most since the first three (3) months of 2007. The luxury home market is quite active, with a strong demand and supply of such homes.2 This increase demand is due in large part to the stabilization of the economy, job growth, loosening in lending, lowered sales prices, and increased interest from foreign buyers.3

The proposed development is responsive to this need, contributing to the long-term economic health of the community through the provision of such newly constructed luxury housing opportunities. The Canal Property is proposed to be developed with 40 high-quality townhouses with a clubhouse/amenity area, pool and private marina for use by residents of the proposed residential development. Public access to the Shinnecock Canal will be retained and improved, with the proposed project establishing an attractive gateway into Hampton Bays.

In regard to the number of school-age children that may occupy the townhomes which are expected to be primarily occupied by seasonal residents, and therefore may have a minimal number of children enrolled in the local school district, the Residential Market Analysis indicates that, based on a study prepared by the Long Island Housing Partnership (LIHP; Appendix D-3), three school-age children are anticipated to reside on the Canal Property, a rate of 0.08 school- age children/unit. This value is based on a survey of children resident in five multi-family, non- senior condominium projects in the Town of Southampton that found a total of 11 school-age children in the 138 units surveyed (see Table C-8 of Appendix D-3). While the sample for the

2 Carmiel, Oshrat and Noah Rayman, “Hamptons Home Sales Jump to 5-Year High as Luxury Demand Climbs,” July 26, 2012. Accessed via http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/hamptons-home-sales-jump-to-5- year-high-as-luxury-demand-climbs.html 3 “ Hamptons real estate heating up again,” April 4, 2012. Accessed via http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46949766/ns/business-us_business/t/hamptons-real-estate-heating-again/

Page 1-13 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

LIHP study seems small, it is more relevant to the types of housing present in the Town of Southampton and the expected seasonal nature of the proposed townhomes. For comparison purposes, reference to values derived by the Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR; Rutgers University) indicates an average of 0.26 school-age children/single-family, attached unit, which would yield 11 school-age children for the Canal Property. The Rutgers multiplier considers all multi-family housing unit types, not luxury units exclusively (values for the housing units include all units greater than $225,000 which are significantly less than the anticipated selling price of the proposed townhomes), and do not consider the proposed projects location within a resort community. However, assuming the same methodology (i.e., the ratio of public to private school enrollment, the ratio of general to special education enrollment and the per pupil expenditures for each), 11 school-aged children would result in a net revenue of $542,191 to the school district. Regardless of which of these two differing rates is assumed, it is clear that the proposed project would result in minimal potential enrollment impact to the local school district and would be tax-positive with respect to the local school district. This is partly due to the fact that although Section 330-155 of the Town Code permits inn units to be transferred to condominiums units, townhouse units are proposed which generate higher taxes on a per-unit basis than condominium units.

1.1.2.2 Public Need

The need for the project is established in the previous sub-section. Demonstrating project need establishes some basis for public need since the analyses demonstrate a high probability of success for the CPI Property and unique housing offered at the Canal Property. Therefore, the proposed development will complement the surrounding land uses while providing an economic return to local taxing jurisdictions through increased tax revenues. Moreover, the proposed project will generate immediate construction jobs for the Town of Southampton and area residents, as well as long-term employment opportunities during project operations. Such economic benefits are most crucial during the current economic state throughout Long Island, New York State and the nation as a whole. Section 1.1.4 outlines “benefits” of the project and includes reference to a fiscal and economic analysis that further defines job creation and tax revenue benefits.

1.1.2.3 Municipality Objectives

It is expected that the Town’s objective for the subject properties is to provide for desirable and high-quality redevelopment that is appropriate in consideration of the Town’s and community’s plans for the properties, and the pattern of land uses along the Montauk Highway corridor. Such a project would provide a substantial positive economic return to the Town and other taxing jurisdictions, as well as increased job opportunities.

The proposed project is in keeping with the intent of the MPDD. Review of the intent of this zone, and the context of the properties in relation to Shinnecock Canal and the various goals for this area, leads the applicant to conclude that the proposed development projects are an ideal

Page 1-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS complement to the revitalization of the Shinnecock Canal area and is an ideal application for the creation of a MPDD.

The project’s setting and design is intended to further the goals of the Town Comprehensive Plan, provide compatibility with adjacent properties in the context of their surroundings, retain historic uses which the Town and community have identified as important and substantially enhance each respective sites architecture and appearance, while beneficially utilizing the spectacular location offered by the water views and water access of the Shinnecock Canal area on the Canal Property. Specifically, municipality objectives are identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the Town, which includes the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update and related planning studies for the area including the site. A detailed review of the Comprehensive Plan Update is included in Section 3.2.1.3.

The subject properties lie within the area identified in the Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and MPDD Final Recommended Plan. The study was partially funded through a NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program grant. The major objective of the Plan is to make use of the prime canal area to its optimum practical potential. The Plan identifies the CPI Property as underutilized. The proposed project does not directly comply with the individual site recommendations identified in the Plan (however achieves partial if not substantial compliance with many of the key elements of these recommendations), which includes an estate conference center on CPI, theme development on the Canal Property and rezoning to housing on the Eastern Property. The project complies with a central tenet of the plan by enhancing an underutilized area near the Shinnecock Canal waterfront. Rehabilitation of CPI will include a catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, and a 20-room inn with five cottages that will be available for conferences. Therefore, the proposed project advances many of the plans goals.

The proposed project will retain the historic CPI use and will greatly approve the aesthetics of the CPI Property that have significantly deteriorated over the years thus providing an attractive nuisance, an aesthetic detraction and a fire hazard. The visual quality of the proposed rehabilitation will substantially improve the site by improving landscaping, architectural design and lighting and replacing the existing deteriorated site conditions on the property.

In summary, the objectives of both the public and Town are to provide for private development that:  would address one or more needs in the area, particularly those needs that have been recognized by members of the community,  is considered desirable and appropriate for the community (from the perspectives of both the Town and the community),  is at a density and layout appropriate for the site and the surrounding community,  would rehabilitate the existing deteriorated conditions on the CPI Property in a manner sensitive to the historic importance of the use,  would minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts while ameliorating adverse environmental impacts associated with existing development, and  would address other needs and/or concerns of the community through the provision of public benefits.

Page 1-15 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor

The applicant’s objective is motivated in part by the desire to produce a profitable economic return on the land investment, which would result from a high-quality development. The applicant seeks to provide uses and public benefits (including Community Benefits) that will enable the properties to be rehabilitated and redeveloped in a manner that achieves Town goals, and complements the surrounding land uses while providing an economic return to local taxing jurisdictions through increased tax revenues and job creation.

Furthermore, an important aspect of the proposed project is to retain the CPI Property as a public use (inn, catering facility and restaurant). A letter from the applicant to the Town Board which was included in the MPDD Application (February 2012) that provides an overview of the project as well as an understanding of the objectives and benefits being offered by the applicant is provided in Appendix E. As outlined in Section 1.1.1.1, a previous application was submitted for the CPI Property that proposed razing the CPI structure and the subsequent construction of a 75-unit private residence club. However, when it was discovered that loss of the use and structure was of concern to the community the application was withdrawn and the project was modified to include rehabilitation of the CPI building as well as the construction of 40 townhomes on the Canal Property as a means to finance the rehabilitation. The objectives of the project sponsor therefore match the municipality objectives and goals of the community as regards the rehabilitation of the CPI Property and creation of a successful overall development that benefits the community and provides economic and fiscal benefits as outlined in the next section.

1.1.4 Benefits of the Project

In addition to the Community Benefits noted above (rehabilitation of the CPI facility, a substantial monetary contribution for open space preservation, land for and funding of, a public boardwalk along a portion of the Canal Property’s frontage on the Shinnecock Canal), the anticipated benefits of this proposal to the community include: beneficial re-use of the properties, improved aesthetic conditions, retention and re-use of a structure that is an important part of the character of the community, conformance to the goals of the Town’s PDD and MPDD ordinances, conformance to recommendations of the pertinent land use plans,substantial economic benefits, and increased tax revenues benefits.

1.1.4.1 Beneficial Re-Use and Improved Aesthetic Conditions

The current vacant and deteriorated use of the CPI Property provides no benefit to the community. The site is not well-kept and the structure is in an advanced state of disrepair making it an attractive nuisance requiring private security (even though not in operation) and is no longer an asset to the community. Given the prominent location, rehabilitation of the historic use is sought for the property, which would then provide a positive asset to the community and

Page 1-16 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS again incorporate its attractive architectural and historic character into the fabric of the community. (See Section 3.4.2.1 for further description and discussion.)

Additionally, the proposal would satisfy a well-established community objective to restore the CPI, as seen in the petition drive of the Hampton Bays Historical Society, newspaper articles and op-ed pieces, and well-attended public meetings.

1.1.4.2 Conformance to the Goals of the Town’s PDD and MPDD Ordinances

As detailed in the analyses contained in Section 3.2.2.2, the proposed project conforms to the Town’s long-term goals for use under the PDD ordinance (Section 330-240E), as well as to the requirements of the MPDD District (Section 330-246E) and the standards for Community Benefits associated with a PDD contained in Section 330-245I and NYS Town Law Section 261- b. The followed briefly summarizes these analyses.

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), Long-Term Goals (Section 330-240E)

 The proposed project conforms to the Town’s long-term goal to the maximum extent practicable; not all of the resources noted in this ordinance are present on the project site or found in the vicinity. However, for those resources that are present, the project will conform to the Town’s goal regarding preservation and/or inclusion in project design.

 The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded. The applicant is agreeable to pursuing additional public benefits in the form of easements or other mechanisms for public access to this part of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the trail linkage (i.e., Paumanock Path), if desired by the Town.

 The proposed project will require use of the various community services that are available in the area, which include schools, water supply, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas, as well as governmental services of the Town and County. These resources will participate in the review and approval of the PDD application through the SEQRA process.

 The rehabilitation of the CPI facility and its re-incorporation into the fabric of the Hampton Bays community, are primary goals of the project.

 The overall project would add to utilization of local businesses, utilities and amenities, by attracting business patrons and visitation by tourists and shoppers.

 The proposed project minimizes the costs of governmental and other public services by providing and maintaining its own sanitary wastewater treatment, roadway and drainage systems.

 The proposed project will remove the two existing septic systems on the CPI and Canal Properties, and replace them with new septic (CPI Property) and NitrexTM (Canal Property) treatment systems; new drainage systems will be installed on these two properties as well. Maintenance activities and associated costs for these systems will be borne by the applicant.

Page 1-17 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Finally, any and all transportation improvements associated with the project will be provided by the applicant.

 Site constraints vary across the three parcels and are documented in appropriate sections of this DEIS; these limitations can and will be addressed, to the satisfaction of all applicable development standards, as determined by the appropriate Town and County reviewers during the SEQRA and site plan review process.

 The rehabilitation of the now-dilapidated CPI facility, supported by the high-quality residential and recreational uses proposed on the Canal Property, is expected to help reinvigorate Hampton Bays by reestablishing a significant locus of community pride and identity.

 The proposed project is the result of Town and community participation in discussions with the applicant that determined the overall concept of the project (as well as the incentive represented by the rehabilitation of the CPI facility).

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), MPDD District (Section 330-246E)

 The proposed project is beneficial, compatible and harmonious with the surrounding land uses. The historic CPI site structures and uses will be retained and rehabilitated to continue to contribute to community character and be used by the public. The proposed project conforms to the applicable recommendations of the Southampton Comprehensive Plan Update and the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.

 The proposed density exchange transfers the existing development yield between the three sites; the inn and cottage units would be transferred from the CPI Property to the Canal Property, and the 25 motel units would be transferred to the CPI Property to allow 20 inn units and 5 cottages. (See Section 1.3.1 for a description of the proposed density exchange.)

 It is acknowledged that the impacts of the proposed project would exceed those of the properties if developed at their existing allowed yields. As a result of this density increase, and as provided for under this ordinance, the proposed action will provide compensating Community Benefits. These Community Benefits are identified in Table 1-4.

 The proposed project’s yield does not include density transferred to the site from any external source, nor does it include any Pine Barrens Credits (PBCs). Rather, that portion of the project’s yield that is in excess of the site’s inherent yield will be more than fully compensated for by the dollar value of the Community Benefits to be provided (see Table 1-4).

 The proposed MPDD results in a net increase in density on the Canal Property, as expressed in terms of condominium units, over the allowable yield. (This surplus in yield over as-of-right conditions will be offset by three specific Community Benefits, as defined by NYS Town Law Section 261-b and required in Town Zoning Code Section 330-245 I. The project does not propose to incorporate the use of transfer of PBCs, as the value of the proposed Community Benefits greatly exceeds the value of the excess units. The main Community Benefit being proposed for the MPDD is the investment in rehabilitating the historic CPI structure and the benefits associated with that investment. Overall, a total of $14.631 million in net Public Benefits is anticipated as a result of the proposed MPDD.

Page 1-18 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 The project will be served by public water (Hampton Bays Water District) and a WWTF would be constructed on the Eastern Property to handle the proposed townhouse units.

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), Community Benefits (Section 330-245I)

 The Town Board will fully consider the benefit that the applicant would realize by the requested zone change in comparison to that of re-development under the existing zonings of the three project properties.

 The proposed project conforms to the Town Comprehensive Plan Update in its retention and rehabilitation of the CPI facility.

 The proposed project conforms to established community needs and desires, by rehabilitating the dilapidated CPI facility and providing for residential use conforming to that of the vicinity, by enhancing public open space purchases, and with its valuable public recreational amenities (the boardwalk and potential trail linkages).

 The project involves significant rehabilitation efforts for the CPI structure, as well as some soil remediation work for the Canal Property.

 It is not expected that the proposed project would set a precedent for further local development, as the project is unique in terms of public need and benefits offered and few if any other sites in the vicinity or along or near the Shinnecock Canal are available for such efforts.

 The proposed rehabilitation of the CPI structure is expected to contribute to increased patronage of local businesses, by enhancing the area’s image as a desirable commercial, recreational and tourism destination.

 Analyses indicate that the proposed project would not result in any significant or unmitigated adverse impacts to the community associated with its design, its traffic characteristics or its effect on community services.

 Analysis indicates that the cost to the applicant of rehabilitating the CPI structure alone far exceeds the cost to purchase the number of PBCs necessary to offset the minor increase in residential yield requested.

 Review of the Central Pine Barrens Joint Policy & Planning Commission website indicates that there are no unredeemed PBCs in the Hampton Bays Union Free School District (UFSD).

 There are no features of the project that would otherwise be required of the applicant for development; the CPI structure has been established as not eligible for designation or inclusion on the National Register.

 The project does not include an affordable housing component. The increase in density for the proposed townhouses is necessary to support the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn which is the primary public benefit of this proposed project.

Page 1-19 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 The small density increase associated with this project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impact on the Hampton Bays UFSD or any other district associated with the project. The small number of schoolchildren that may reside in the proposed townhome units would not require a significant additional expenditure of funds. Additionally, the project is expected to generate school taxes well in excess of any expenditure incurred by the Hampton Bays UFSD.

 Based on the results of discussions between the community, the Town and the applicant, and in consideration of the conditions and characteristics of the three project properties, the proposed CPI rehabilitation, open space preservation contribution, and boardwalk were deemed to be the most realistic and desirable Community Benefits that could be provided.

1.1.4.3 Conformance to the Goals of the Pertinent Land Use Plans

This document contains analyses of the project’s conformance to the recommendations of the land use plans and studies that pertain to the subject site and/or proposed project. These plans include:

 Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District (1997)  Town Comprehensive Plan Update (1999)  Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Program, Comprehensive Management Plan (2001)  Town of Southampton Community Preservation Project Plan (April 2005)  Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (Revised July 2010) and Draft GEIS

Descriptions of each plan are presented in Section 3.2.1.3, and the conformance analyses can be found in Section 3.2.2.3. Briefly, the project has been designed to conform to the recommendations that pertain to the site, by retaining and rehabilitating the CPI facility, by providing an attractive residential development on the Canal Property that is oriented toward water-related use, and by including public amenities on-site that would support and enhance the traditional use of the site and area.

1.1.4.4 Economic Benefits

The proposed project will result in a substantial investment in each the CPI and Canal Properties that will substantially upgrade each of the properties as well as immediate vicinity and enhance surrounding property values. Furthermore, each of the individual projects will be well-planned for the respective specific uses to provide adequate parking, recreation area, setbacks, sanitary waste and water supply systems, and will employ the highest quality of architecture and design, landscaping, and the highest levels of services and amenities.

A Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis has been prepared and is included as Appendix F-1. Economic benefits for the proposed project are significant and are summarized below. (See also Section 3.3.2 for further description and discussion.) The proposed development will boost the

Page 1-20 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS local economy by adding and/or retaining jobs and salaries and by increasing the tax revenues to the State of New York, County of Suffolk and the Town of Southampton.

Statement of Need The proposed project meets the goals for land use and development identified by the Town and community, specifically in that the historic CPI building and use will be retained and rehabilitated for use by the public through significant investment by the property owner. The investment will substantially upgrade the site and immediate vicinity and will enhance surrounding property values. Several structures on the subject property are vacant, including the CPI structure and five (5) cottages. The rehabilitation of these sites will improve the community character in the area and eliminate the deteriorated and underutilized condition that now exists on the vacant CPI property. Rehabilitation will create an aesthetically and architecturally magnificent structure and use on the site reminiscent of its history, and retention of the CPI site as a public use will once again open the site to public use. The proposed project will contribute to an attractive gateway into Hampton Bays.

The proposed community will increase the distribution of tax ratables throughout the Hampton Bays UFSD, the Town of Southampton and Suffolk County. Moreover, the development of the CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties will generate immediate construction jobs as well as permanent employment opportunities for Town and area residents. Such fiscal and economic benefits are most crucial during the current economic state throughout Long Island, New York State and the nation as a whole.

A summary of key fiscal findings is provided in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 SUMMARY OF KEY FISCAL FINDINGS

CPI Canal Eastern Fiscal Parameter Totals Property Property Property Existing Tax Revenue Generation $79,732 $95,599 $4,917 $180,249 Total Residents 0 100 0 100 School-Aged Children 0 3 0 3 Total Estimated Assessed Valuation $10,687,216 $46,735,160 $1,377,200 $58,799,576 Projected Total Tax Revenue $160,618 $702,383 $20,698 $883,699 Hampton Bays UFSD $123,010 $537,922 $15,852 $676,783 Library District $5,290 $23,134 $682 $29,106 Suffolk County $2,148 $9,394 $277 $11,819 Town of Southampton $14,941 $65,336 $1,925 $82,202 Hampton Bays Fire District $8,005 $35,005 $1,032 $44,041 Other Local & Special Taxing Jurisdictions $7,225 $31,593 $931 $39,749 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Analysis by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC.

A summary of key economic findings is provided in Table 1-3.

The estimated real property taxes for the proposed project are expected to be approximately $883,699 annually. Further discussion of tax generation will be discussed in Section 3.3.2.

Page 1-21 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 1-3 SUMMARY OF KEY ECONOMIC FINDINGS

Output Employment Labor Income Economic Impact Parameter (Revenue) (Number of Jobs) (Wages) Economic Impact of Construction: CPI Property Direct Impact $3,000,000 19.0 $1,800,000 Indirect Impact $791,991 5.1 $309,806 Induced Impact $1,672,553 11.8 $576,273 Total Impact: Canoe Place Inn $5,464,544 35.9 $2,686,079 Economic Impact of Construction: Canal Property Direct Impact $15,732,531 81.0 $7,866,266 Indirect Impact $4,796,536 33.3 $1,891,020 Induced Impact $7,735,521 54.6 $2,665,249 Total Impact: Canal Property $28,264,589 168.8 $12,422,535 Economic Impact of Construction: Eastern Property Direct Impact $1,050,000 39.0 $420,000 Indirect Impact $305,680 2.0 $121,529 Induced Impact $429,560 3.0 $148,001 Total Impact: Eastern Property $1,785,241 44.0 $689,530 Economic Impact of Construction: Total, All Properties Direct Impact $19,782,531 139.0 $10,086,266 Indirect Impact $5,894,207 40.4 $2,322,355 Induced Impact $9,837,634 69.4 $3,389,523 Total Impact: All Properties $35,514,374 248.7 $15,798,144 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: Canoe Place Inn Direct Impact $5,980,736 35.0 $862,106 Indirect Impact $1,959,512 11.2 $621,479 Induced Impact $1,169,981 8.0 $405,821 Total Impact: Canoe Place Inn $9,110,229 54.1 $1,889,406 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: Canal Property Direct Impact $217,500 16.0 $832,585 Indirect Impact $108,053 0.6 $33,883 Induced Impact $681,610 4.6 $236,438 Total Impact: Canal Property $1,007,164 21.3 $1,102,906 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: Eastern Property Direct Impact $0 1.0 $42,555 Indirect Impact $0 0.0 $0 Induced Impact $33,469 0.2 $11,610 Total Impact: Eastern Property $33,469 1.2 $54,165 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: All Properties Direct Impact $6,198,236 52.0 $1,737,246 Indirect Impact $2,067,565 11.8 $655,362 Induced Impact $1,885,060 12.8 $653,869 Total Impact: All Properties $10,150,862 76.6 $3,046,477 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Analysis by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, via IMPLAN software.

Page 1-22 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The concept behind a PDD is such that any increase in density is offset by Community Benefits. The requested MPDD proposes three specific Community Benefits plus numerous other tangible and quantifiable public benefits that will benefit the community as well as the region as required under Section 330-245I of the Town Zoning Code. As discussed in Section 1.3.1, the proposed project requests a yield that is greater than the yield that currently is available on the CPI Property. The value of the increased yield will be offset by the Community Benefits offered as a result of the project. The analysis contained in this document supports a finding that the value of the three Community Benefits offered by the project far outweigh the value of the increase in density. A number of analyses are offered to quantify the determination of yield. Therefore, the project is consistent with the density incentive opportunities offered by Town Code under the PDD concept. A summary of the quantitative public benefitss is provided herein, in support of this finding.

Based on the proposed benefits analysis, the public would receive approximately $14.631 million in benefits as a result of this MPDD, in the form of the rehabilitation of CPI, land for and construction of a boardwalk on the Canal Property, as well the increase in taxes generated on the three subject properties amortized over 10 years, plus a $250,000 contribution towards open space preservation. This would provide a substantial benefit to the community, and is a primary aspect of the MPDD concept for this project. The applicant will expend additional construction dollars and other costs in order to provide these public benefits. Therefore, when considering the existing potential use of the site, there is a quantitative basis to support the proposed change of zone and change in land use in combination with the public benefits associated with the proposed project.

The anticipated qualitative benefits of this proposal to the community also include conformance with land use plans, aesthetic and economic benefits. Most significantly, the proposed PDD project fulfills the community objective of maintaining and rehabilitating the CPI building. This objective has been expressed by the Town and community.

In summary, the following public benefits are anticipated to result from the project:

Page 1-23 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Conformance to several Land Use Plans including the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.  The creation of an attractive gateway into Hampton Bays.  Generation of substantial annual tax revenue (estimated at $883,699) compared to $180,249 under existing conditions.  The proposed project will provide substantial construction-related jobs and operation employment including; building, amenities and grounds (systems, pool, landscaping, etc.) maintenance-related jobs, management jobs, housekeeping jobs and other hospitality-related jobs and services.  The proposed project will bring vacation residents with high spending dollars to the Hampton Bays area resulting in direct sales, sales tax and related “ripple effect” economic benefits to the community, Town and County.  Redevelopment of the Canal Property will include an upgrade of the sanitary system resulting in environmental benefits, including a reduction in the nitrogen levels discharged into the Shinnecock Canal from existing uses.

The applicant respectfully submits that the requested change of zone and proposed redevelopment projects comply with the MPDD requirements. In total, the proposed Public Benefits package is estimated at $14.631 million (which includes 10-year tax amortization; see Table 1-4). As previously mentioned, the project does not propose the use of transfer of development rights or PBCs as the value of the proposed public benefits greatly exceeds the value of the increased density.

1.2 Location and Existing Site Conditions

1.2.1 CPI Property

The CPI Property is a 5.65-acre parcel comprised of two tax lots located on the corner of Montauk Highway (CR 80) and Newtown Road (CR 62) within the southwestern quadrant of the Shinnecock Canal area. The site is currently occupied by a large, old and deteriorated structure that has a fire-rated occupancy of 1,857 persons (note that, as shown in Appendix A-3, the sanitary-rated occupancy of the Canoe Place Inn is 1,500 persons). The building is not built to current building code standards and when previously operated as a nightclub, was an intense use that generated traffic, noise and disturbance in the neighborhood based on substantial activity. Appendix A-3 contains documentation from the SCDHS establishing the prior-approved, “grandfathered” sanitary flow of 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) for the Canoe Place Inn restaurant and bar which, with the 1,500 gpd flows for the five cottages and 3,500 gpd for the 35 inn rooms, yields a total grandfathered flow of the CPI Property of 20,000 gpd (see Section 1.3.2).

During periods when the building is not in operation (currently, as requested by the Town), it is an attractive nuisance. There are also five individual cottages currently on the west part of the site which are vacant and in extreme disrepair and have been subject to vandalism and unauthorized activity. The majority of the site (2.07 acres) is comprised of Successional Southern Hardwood forest, with an additional 1.14 acres of Successional Old Field. Figure 1-3 provides an aerial photograph depicting current conditions on the site. The Topographical Survey of Property Situated in Hampton Bays (i.e., the CPI Property) is provided in a pouch

Page 1-24 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS at the end of the document, and Appendix G-1 contains photographs of this property in its current condition.

The immediate surrounding land uses are as follows: a transportation corridor (Long Island Rail Road [LIRR] right-of-way [ROW]) to the north, public open space to the east (Southampton Town), residential land to the west (State of New York) and transportation (Montauk Highway) to the south. North of the LIRR lies a medium density residential community that is nearly completely developed under the R-15 single-family residential development zoning district (minimum 15,000 square foot [SF] lots). To the south of Montauk Highway is a mix of medium and high density residential uses along with general and marine commercial uses and a gas station. Uses fronting either side of Shinnecock Canal are zoned RWB. The boat dealership at the southeast corner of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road is zoned Highway Business (HB). This use lies southwest and diagonally opposite toward the southwest of the subject site, south of Montauk Highway. Lands to the west of Canoe Place Road are zoned R-20 (minimum 20,000 SF lots).

1.2.2 Canal Property

The Canal Property is a 4.50-acre parcel comprised of four tax lots (including one 0.52-acre underwater lot) located north of Montauk Highway, directly adjacent to the eastern shore of the Shinnecock Canal. The Canal Property contains two restaurants and a bait shop totaling 14,150 SF, a two-story house with two apartments (total of 2,600 SF) and a marina (estimated 17 slips). Appendix G-1 contains photographs of this property in its current condition. The majority of natural habitat on the site consists of Pitch Pine-Oak Forest (0.52 acres) with the remaining natural habitat comprised of Successional Southern Hardwood forest (0.44 acres). The immediate surrounding land uses are as follows:

 LIRR and single-family residences to the north,  Montauk Highway (CR 80), single-family residences and commercial/marina uses to the south,  North Shore Road (CR 39), Eastern Parcel, single-family residences and motel uses to the east, and  Shinnecock Canal to the west.

RWB zoning is located north, south and west of the property and MTL zoning is located to the east (including on the Eastern Parcel). Figure 1-4 depicts the Flood Hazard Zones of the project properties, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Canal Property is partially within the AE Zone, which indicates a one percent annual chance of flooding and a Base Flood Elevation of 9 feet, while the CPI and Eastern Properties are outside of this zone.

Page 1-25 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1.2.3 Eastern Property

The Eastern Property is a 2.68-acre property comprised of a single tax lot located north of Canoe Place Road and east of North Shore Road. The Eastern Property is currently vacant and undeveloped and is completely wooded (Pitch Pine-Oak forest; see Appendix G-1). The immediate surrounding land uses are as follows:

 Single-family residences to the north,  Canoe Place Road, Montauk Highway (CR 80), and vacant undeveloped land to the south,  Single-family residences and Wildwood Lane to the east, and  North Shore Road (CR 39), Canal Property and Shinnecock Canal to the west.

The site and area to the north and south is zoned MTL with R-60 zoning to the east and RWB zoning to the west. The Topographic Survey of Property Situate at Shinnecock Hills (i.e., the Canal and Eastern Properties) is provided in a pouch at the end of the document.

1.2.4 General Discussion of Existing Area Conditions

The existing aesthetic character of the subject properties is discussed in Section 3.4.1.1.

Hampton Bays has a vibrant business district along Montauk Highway which begins with some highway business uses about 0.75 miles west of the CPI Property and includes the Hampton Bays Town Center, community use building, a theatre, supermarket, restaurants, and a variety of businesses that serve a multitude of local needs. The Macy’s shopping center is located 1.75 miles to the west of the CPI Property at the northwest corner of Montauk Highway and NYS Route 24. The Hampton Bays train station of the LIRR is located in the heart of this business district south of the LIRR and Montauk Highway and west of Ponquogue Avenue. The Hampton Bays village center would benefit from an increased population that would seek dining, goods and services from businesses in the hamlet.

In addition to the LIRR station in Hampton Bays, additional public transportation resources such as the Suffolk County Transit bus network and a prolific taxi business that exists in the Hamptons to serve the nightclub industry, provide convenient alternatives to the use of private automobiles.

A multitude of recreational activities are available to the residents of Southampton Town and residents of Hampton Bays. Area beaches are located to the south by Ponquogue Road over the Ponquogue Bridge to Ponquogue Beach and other beaches that span the barrier beach from the Shinnecock Inlet on the east to the Cupsogue County Park and Beach to the west at Moriches Inlet. A number of golf courses are located in Southampton Town as well as an Indian Island county golf course to the north in Riverhead and other golf courses near Riverhead. In addition to golf and beaches, the Shinnecock Canal area offers marinas for boating activities and fishing charters and the private marina on the Canal Property will be an attraction for residents of the proposed townhomes.

Page 1-26 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Nearby parks include Suffolk County Parks at Meschutt Beach, less than a mile to the north, as well as Sears-Bellows Park and Red Creek open space parklands several miles to the west. These provide both passive and active recreation and are an asset within the community that provide convenient opportunities in the Hampton Bays area. The Town of Southampton has established a park immediately east of the CPI Property across Newtown Road on the west bank of Shinnecock Canal.

The subject properties are located within or served by the following service districts:

 Hampton Bays UFSD  Hampton Bays Fire District  Southampton Town Police Department  Hampton Bays Water District  Long Island Power Authority (LIPA)/National Grid  Groundwater Management Zone IV (600 gpd/acre)

1.3 Project Design and Layout

1.3.1 Proposed Density Exchange

The proposed density exchange would transfer the existing potential development yields of each of the three subject properties among the three sites, in order to place development on the two properties that are proposed for development. It is acknowledged that the proposed project requests more residences than the total existing potential yield of the three properties. However, the Town’s PDD ordinance is designed to address such a situation, and sets procedures and standards to support such an increase, by requiring an offsetting measure of Community Benefits. Determining the increase in density, when seeking to transfer yield from one site to another, and particularly when it is necessary to first convert the yield from one type of unit to another, is a multi-step process; one must first establish the site’s existing yield, then convert this yield to an equivalent-unit yield.

Section 330-155 of the Town Code permits inn units to be transferred as condominium units; however, townhouse units are proposed, which generate higher taxes on a per-unit basis. Therefore, at the request of the Town, the proposed project will transfer the inn units as townhouse units.

As presented in Appendix H-1, the Town’s Certificates of Occupancy (CO) for the CPI Property establish that this site had been developed with an inn and five (5) cottages. The number of inn units is not specified in the CO. As certified by the applicant’s architect, the CPI floor plans (Appendix H-2) show that a minimum of 35 inn units were present in the structure. Additionally, the historic documents in Appendix H-3 indicate that the number of inn units varied from 40 (The Architectural Record, 1921 and New York Times, 1999), to 50 (Variety, 1922), to 30 (New York Times, 1958), and to 34 (New York Times, 1962). Finally, the notarized affidavits in Appendix H-4 indicate that, based on the memories of several persons

Page 1-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS that lived on the property during this time frame, there were more than 30 inn units in the CPI structure. Thus, a definitive number of inn units in the Canoe Place Inn cannot be determined with confidence.

For the CPI Property, several combinations of potential inn and cottage yields may be established when considering CO’s and existing configurations of the cottages and CPI, respectively, as well as Town Code Section 330-155E which states that each dwelling unit to be converted to a residential condominium (or in this case a townhouse unit), shall contain a minimum living area of 600 SF. For analysis purposes, the total living area of the CPI and cottages totals approximately 17,600 SF (as 10,930 SF in the CPI structure and the 6,670 SF in the five cottages). Using this total square footage of 17,600 SF as the basis to compute transferred yield under Town Code Section 330-155E, the calculation yields a total of 29 units for the CPI property.

The combined as-of-right yield for the two properties east of Shinnecock Canal, which are zoned RWB (Canal Property) and MTL (Eastern Property), would provide for a total of approximately 25 motel units, based on the Town Code calculation of 1 motel unit/11,000 SF of lot area as shown in the PDD Density Swap Yield Map, Canal West Property (in pouch at the end of this document). The proposed project would transfer the yields calculated from the inn and cottage units from the CPI Property to the Canal Property, and the 25 motel units would be transferred from the Canal and Eastern Properties to the CPI Property, as the 20 inn units and five cottages to be developed at the CPI facility. As noted, the Eastern Property would be occupied only by the Nitrex TM WWTF, with no other development proposed on that parcel. The proposed number of townhomes exceed the number of units being transferred to the Canal Property by 11 units. As a result, the proposed project will require provision of Community Benefits to compensate for the increase. As shown in Table 1-4, the proposed project will provide Community Benefits (within a larger set of Public Benefits) that are well in excess of the required compensatory benefits (based on dollar value).

As shown in Table 1-4, these 11 units would have a value of $807,400, which is $13,554 million less than the value of the proposed projects’s Public Benefits. As a result, the benefits of the proposed project greatly exceed the requested increase in yield over existing and as-of-right conditions.

The project does not propose the use of transfer of development rights or PBCs, as the values of the proposed Community Benefits ($6.531 million) and the Public Benefits ($14.631 million) greatly exceed the value of the 11 excess units requested. A description of proposed Public Benefits was provided in Section 1.1.4.

The proposed project meets the goals for land use and development identified by the Town and community, specifically in that the historic CPI building and use will be retained and rehabilitated for use by the public through significant investment by the property owner. The redevelopment of these sites will improve the community character in the area and eliminate the deteriorated and underutilized condition that now exists on the CPI Property.

Page 1-28 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 1-4 COMPARISON OF VALUES Public Benefits vs. Increase in Yield

Public Benefits of Proposed Project (costs to be borne by applicant) Rehabilitation of CPI Facility (Total Cost) (1, 2) $4.12 million Contribution to Town for Open Space Preservation $250,000 Public Boardwalk (3) $2.161 million Total Value of Community Benefits $6.531 million Property Tax Revenue Over 10 Years $8.10 million Total Value of Proposed Public Benefits $14.631 million Potential Yields of Three Properties Used for Density Parameter CPI Canal Existing and Potential Yield (54 29 25 Total units) Proposed Yield (65 Total units) 25 40 Difference in Yield, Proposed 11 vs. Existing (units) Value of Yield Difference (4) $807,400 Excess Value of Public $13.554 million Benefits, Proposed vs. PBCs (1) Value to community of a fully rehabilitated and operating CPI INCALCULABLE. (2) Includes construction cost and loss to owners resulting from failure to use property for its highest and best as-of- right use. See comparison appraisals in Appendices A-6 (as-of-right use) and F-2 (proposed project).) (3) Includes construction cost and impact of impaired value of boardwalk on project value (see Appendix A-5). (4) Expressed in value of PBCs, estimated at $73,400/credit, as of 12/31/12. These values represent the costs of the Community Benefits that the proposed project would have to provide in order to compensate for the requested yield increase of the proposed project.

1.3.2 Overall Site Layout

The proposed application involves the rehabilitation of the former Canoe Place Inn, and development of 40 townhouses on the Canal Property. The Eastern Property, located north of Montauk Highway and east of North Shore Road, would be used for a NitrexTM WWTF to serve the townhome development on the Canal Property.

The project involves a change of zone from the subject properties’ existing RWB and MTL zoning to MPDD to provide flexible zoning and public benefits to facilitate the proposed project. The proposed project includes the three non-contiguous properties and projects so they can be integrated into a unified development plan where the properties relate to one another in terms of density exchange and Community Benefits. Proposed redevelopment of the CPI Property includes the rehabilitation of the CPI building in a similar use and configuration as its historic conditions, including an inn (20 units), catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, 70-seat (minimum) restaurant with 20-seat bar area and 120-seat (maximum) seasonal outdoor seating, as well as the renovation of the five existing cottages on the property. It is expected that the facility will be used year-round as demand warrants; however, it is anticipated that restaurant

Page 1-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS seats and outdoor seating would fluctuate on a seasonal basis, weather permitting. Based on SCDHS sewage flow rates, one restaurant seat is equivalent to two outside patio dining seats. The total sanitary flow of the CPI Property is not proposed to exceed 10,000 gpd.

Rehabilitation of the CPI building and cottages will be in a similar, if not exact, height and footprint as current conditions. The CPI building currently varies between 1 story (the catering area on the east side) and 3½ stories (the inn rooms on the west), with a maximum height of ±42 feet. It is noteworthy that the Town does not acknowledge ½-stories in its Building Code, so that the 3-1/2 stories of the CPI structure may be considered 4 stories on the western portion of the building. The proposed rehabilitated CPI structure will not change in terms of number of stories or height of the building. The site will be accessed via a single driveway from Montauk Highway and one from Newtown Road. Parking will be provided throughout the property (128 spaces), with areas of overflow event parking (108 spaces). Valet parking for the inn, catering facility and restaurant will be employed to ensure that adequate parking is available during peak usage. Rehabilitation and the continued public use of the CPI structure is a major benefit that has been identified as being important to the community. The existing character of the property will be retained through maintaining the existing buildings on the site, and the value to the community will be enhanced through rehabilitation of the buildings and public accessibility. There is a significant cost in the rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of the CPI Property, which is provided in exchange for the remaining density requested at the Canal Property, as described previously and summarized in Section 1.3.1. The design flow for the proposed inn, catering, restaurant and cottages can be accommodated on the CPI Property using conventional sanitary systems grandfathered based upon existing/most-previous use of the site. This flow will be substantially less than the historic flow from the site.

In order to rehabilitate the main CPI structure, and to rework some of the original design intent to deal with changes in the surrounding infrastructure and roadways since 1922, a number of changes are proposed. Most of these changes are intended to bring the inn’s essential visual characteristics back to the fore and return the site to a true gateway for Hampton Bays. These changes include regrading of land along Montauk Highway, in the Property’s front yard, to restore the historic and aesthetic character of the Property. Other changes are intended to allow the building to once again function as a place of public accommodation safely and in compliance with modern standards. This work will include the following key elements:

 The currently existing portions of the 1922 construction will remain and be rehabilitated, which will include the replacement of old materials with new, where existing materials are beyond their useful life, including both the inn building as well as the subsequent pavilion addition;  The connector, bar and kitchen additions built between the inn and pavilion after 1922, which are in very poor condition and are not part of the essential character of the building, will be replaced with new construction more in keeping with the 1922 design of the inn and visual character of the inn and pavilion;  The first floor of the inn and pavilion will be refurbished with casements and lattice work similar to that shown in the early photographs;  The roof shingles will be returned to a more traditional color as shown in the early photographs;

Page 1-30 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Portions of the interior that remain and can be re-used and repaired will be, especially in the dance pavilion; other areas will be renovated with finishes that match the visual character of the inn;  A new, formal drop-off will be located between the inn and Montauk Highway along with new landscaping throughout the site including new pathways, parking and lawns where the existing gravel parking lot is located;  The new lobby for the inn and pavilion will be located in the new “connector” and will re-create the formal entry sequence shown in old photographs.

The rehabilitation of the CPI Property will significantly improve the character of the community and has been identified by the community as a welcomed project. The current condition of the building is in extreme disrepair and the structure and the site have become an eyesore.

It is important to consider that the Canoe Place Inn is an existing structure that will be rehabilitated and returned to the use for which it was originally designed. New building codes, especially for a building intended to be used as a place of public congregation, if strictly interpreted, would likely require significant modifications to the structure which might only be achievable by reproduction rather than repair. Knowing that the goal of the community is to rehabilitate the existing inn, which is not a change of use, and that the structural requirements of the current code far exceed the standards under which this building was constructed, the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn will rely at least in part on the fact that this building has stood for almost 100 years and will necessitate further discussions on this and other subjects with Town building officials.

In order to further the community’s desire to rehabilitate the existing building rather than replace it, the applicant’s architect, Arrowstreet Architects, PC evaluated the structure to determine its present condition as well as the condition of those architectural and structural features that can be retained and incorporated into the rehabilitated structure. Appendix I contains the Historic Evaluation of the Canoe Place Inn, which includes the new Rehabilitation Plan. The following description of the Rehabilitation Plan has been taken from the report.

This document provides a brief history and analysis of the existing Canoe Place Inn, which was built in 1922. This history and analysis establishes the basis for the Rehabilitation Plan which will guide the proposed renovation and reconstruction of the inn and insure that those parts of the building’s fabric which are significant are respected and that the “look and feel” of the inn is returned to the inn’s most historically significant time period.

…very little of the building fabric from the historically significant period of 1922 through 1949 remains. Most of the windows, doors, decks and other historically significant fabric was removed or permanently altered during the 1950’s renovations and/or were covered over in ways that, based upon visual inspection, left those remaining elements exposed to weather and/or water and thus subject to deterioration.

Based upon this information as well as a structural review of the existing building, the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn is proposed to:

• retain and renovate the existing Inn building within its 1922 footprint and exterior envelope;

Page 1-31 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

• retain and renovate the existing Dance Hall with its late 1930’s footprint and exterior envelope; • demolish the numerous additions between them which are in poor to failing condition and which retain no building fabric from the historically significant period; • construct a new one‐story addition between the existing Inn and existing Dance Hall to provide a new lobby, new location for building mechanical systems and new kitchen to serve the proposed Inn Restaurant/Tap Room.

…the limited amount of existing significant fabric is often in unusable condition due to age, water damage, and heavy usage. In many cases, the requirements of new life‐safety codes, energy conservation goals as well as the requirements for a financially viable 21s t Century Inn will mean that many parts of the Inn’s fabric, such as stairs, fire protection systems, alarm systems, windows & doors, and hardware will need to be replaced in‐kind rather than restored or repaired. Within these constraints, however, many of the visual characteristics and certain, specific significant components of the building fabric will be saved and restored or, if necessary reproduced.

The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 40 townhouses, all of which would contain three bedrooms, with a clubhouse/amenity area, boardwalk, pool and private marina. Photosimulations of this property have been prepared and are presented in Appendix G-2. As can be seen, this development will fit well on this site in terms of color, massing and architectural design. For example, Views 1 and 2 (from the west and southwest, respectively) show that the buildings would not project over the treeline in the rear of (i.e., to the east of) this property. It is acknowledged that, as shown in View 3, observers from the southeast will see the buildings obscuring the tress to its rear (to the west and northwest), but this is due to the presence of the canal in this area, where a treeline is not possible. Because of the presence of the Shinnecock Canal, observers from the west will see the project across a wide, deep, open and vegetated foreground occupied by the Town park. This would tend to reduce potential aesthetic impacts from the difference between natural and developed surfaces experienced by these viewers. The three views show that the project’s architectural character and building material color minimize visual disharmony between the project and the surrounding natural vegetation and built environment, including the Shinnecock Canal, and the road and railroad bridges.

The recreation building is located in the lower basement level of Building # 5 (corresponding to units 17-20) and is approximately 6,000 SF in size. The townhomes will be three stories and 35 feet in height. The townhomes will be accessed via a two-way driveway and parking area in the northern portion of the site (serving Building #s 1 and 2) and a larger one-way in/out driveway in the central portion of the site serving the remaining buildings.

The townhomes will be unique and attractive and have a high probability of success in the market as described in Section 1.1.2. A large part of the attraction is the water enhanced location, access to maritime and other forms of recreation (beaches, boating, fishing golf and parks), and location in the Hamptons with access to tourism-based activities (recreation, shopping, dining, sightseeing). As a result, the townhomes are expected to provide a desirable product for second homebuyers. Even townhomes and condominiums in communities with less tourism and convenient summer recreational activities experience a high occupancy by “empty nesters” and “snowbirds” that would enjoy the northern climate during summer months, and reside in warmer climate areas during winter months. The townhomes on the Canal Property are

Page 1-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS expected to cater strongly to this market and as a result, it is expected that occupants will bring revenue to Hampton Bays and the surrounding area as a result of consumer spending (patronage of business, sales tax, economic ripple effect) and tax revenue, with little burden on community services during much of the year. This is especially true with respect to the school district, where it is expected that very few school-age children would reside in the development. As a result, the school district is expected to receive the majority of tax revenue, with little or no cost to educate students. Section 1.1.4 includes a summary of the fiscal and economic benefits of the project.

All existing buildings and uses on the Canal Property would be eliminated as a result of the redevelopment. Nine separate buildings, each housing four, five or six townhouse units will be located throughout the Canal Property and the pool will be located in the central portion of the site. The boat basin/marina will be privately used by residents of the proposed residential development; however, the applicant will provide land in the southwestern portion for, as well as fund construction of, a Town-sought public boardwalk along the canal. The private marina has space for approximately 17 slips, which will be available for sale to residents of the townhomes on a first-come, first-served basis. Annual maintenance fees will be collected for any residents who purchase a slip. Water and electric service will be provided for the marina; however, gasoline and pump-out facilities are not planned or necessary as marina support services are abundant in close proximity to the Canal Property. Off-street parking will be provided throughout this property (80 spaces including four accessible spaces). The Eastern Property will remain mostly natural and will house the Nitrex™ WWTF. Table 1-5 presents the coverages and characteristics for each property in their existing and proposed conditions. Site Plan Aerial Overlay figures for the CPI and Canal Properties are provided as Figures 1-5a and 1-5b, respectively.

Renderings for the CPI and Canal Properties are provided in Appendices J-1 and J-2, respectively. The full scale Concept Site Plans for the three properties are provided in pouches at the end of this document.

1.3.3 Grading and Drainage

1.3.3.1 CPI Property

Construction at the CPI Property will disturb approximately 100% of the site, with the existing buildings to remain and be rehabilitated (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canoe Place Inn, in a pouch at the rear). The existing grading generally slopes from the northwestern corner of the lot (approximately at elevation 50 feet above mean sea level [asl]), to the southeastern corner approximately at elevation 12 feet asl). This general grading will be present in the post development condition as well; however, the slopes will be reduced to allow for better-constructed parking, traffic movement and pedestrian access throughout the site. In addition, grading in the area between the CPI structure and Montauk Highway will restore the sight lines of the structure that had existed prior to the state’s grading of Montauk Highway in the late 1970’s. This will enable increased use of the CPI’s front porch by visitors, which

Page 1-33 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS contributed to its attractive nature and historic character. Rehabilitation of these factors to the CPI is a significant component of the overall project. It is estimated that approximately 3,000 cubic yards (CY) of net cut will be required for grading on the CPI Property (see Cut and Fill Plan, in a pouch at the rear). Low points will be situated throughout the site to collect stormwater and to direct it into the drainage system.

Four retaining walls will be constructed in the northwestern portion of the CPI Property, along the northern side of the access roadway and along the southwest side of the westernmost parking area. Installation of these walls will further stabilize soils within the topographical high areas of the site and reduce required grading. The retaining walls will range from 80 to 160 feet in length and range in height from 0.5 to 10.4 feet.

The proposed drainage system for both of the CPI and Canal Properties will consist of a stormwater management system which is designed to recharge stormwater runoff back into the surrounding soil. This method of recharging the stormwater runoff back into the groundwater is an acceptable best management practice in accordance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual. Erosion control measures and stormwater management practices during both construction and following completion of the project will be finalized as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the final design plans.

The drainage for the proposed project (including the Canal Property) will be designed to comply with State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requirements under NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP 0-10-001 or “General Permit”), New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (August 2010) and Chapter 285 of the Town Code. Under these requirements, a site-specific SWPPP must be prepared for each property and submitted to the Town for review and approval as a condition of final site plan approval.4 The SWPPP evaluates the proposed drainage system to ensure that it meets the NYSDEC and Town requirements for treatment and retention of stormwater runoff. The SWPPP must demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management system is sized adequately to ensure that there is no net increase in peak stormwater discharges from a property once developed.

4 The SWPPP must include: a description of the existing site conditions including topography, soils, potential receiving water bodies and stormwater runoff characteristics, a description of the proposed construction project, construction schedule, the erosion and sediment controls planned during construction activities and the details of the post construction stormwater management system design and consistency of said system with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, appropriate maintenance procedures for the erosion and sediment controls and each component of the post construction drainage system, pollution prevention measures during construction activities, a post-construction hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for all structural components of the post construction stormwater management system for a 1, 10 and 100 year storm event, and comparison of existing and post construction peak stormwater discharges.

Page 1-34 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 1-5 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Existing Conditions and Proposed Project

Parameter Existing Conditions* Proposed Project Eastern CPI Property Canal Property Eastern Property Totals CPI Property Canal Property Totals Property Vacant, 20 unit inn, 350-seat catering, 70-seat 40 townhomes, Inn, nightclub w/rated occupancy 2 restaurants, bait shop, NitrexTM Uses & Yields undeveloped --- restaurant w/20 bar seats, 120 outdoor private amenities & --- of 1,857 persons, 5 cottages 2 residences, marina WWTF woodland seats marina Zoning RWB RWB MTL --- MPDD MPDD MPDD --- Coverages (acres): ------Forested/Natural 3.21 0.96 2.68 6.85 0 0 1.87 1.87 Roads, Buildings, Paved 1.13 1.69 0 2.82 2.43 2.32 0.04 4.79 Unvegetated 1.01 0.50 0 1.51 00 00 Landscaping 0.29 0.77 0 1.06 3.22 1.60 0.77 5.59 Tidal Wetlands 0 0.58 0 0.58 00.58 00.58 Water Resources: ------Domestic Use (gpd) (1) 20,000 12,338 0 32,338 10,175 13,800 0 23,975 Sanitary Wastewater (gpd) (1) 20,000 4,928 0 24,928 6,600 13,800 0 20,400 Irrigation (gpd) (2) 119 0 0 119 1,317 655 0 1,972 Total Water Use (gpd) 20,119 12,338 0 32,457 11,492 14,455 0 25,947 Recharge Volume (MGY) (3) 11.41 7.95 1.33 20.69 8.04 3.52 6.39 17.95 Nitrogen Concentration. (mg/l) (3) 13.50 5.26 0.01 9.47 6.66 0.44 4.34 4.64 Nitrogen Recharged (lbs/day) (3) 1,2842 349 0.11 1,633 447 13 231 691 Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (vph): ------Weekday AM 21 (4) 39 0 60 33 25 0 58 Weekday PM 23 (4) 131 0 154 163 28 0 191 Saturday 332 (4) 155 0 487 205 54 0 259 Miscellaneous: ------Residents 0 5 (5) 05 0 100 (5) 0100 School-Age Children 0 1 (5) 01 03 (5) 03 Employees (FTE) 66 34 0 100 35 16 1 42 Solid Waste (lbs/day) (6) 447 2,828 0 3,275 1,375 349 0 1,724 Total Taxes ($/yr) $79,732 $95,599 $4,917 180,248 $160,618 $702,383 $20,698 883,699 School Taxes ($/yr) $60,384 $73,215 $3,766 137,365 $123,010 $537,922 $15,852 676,784 School Fiscal Impact (+/-$/yr) (7) $60,384 $62,077 $3,766 +126,227 $123,010 $504,508 $15,852 +643,370 Parking Required (spaces) N/D N/D 0 --- 236 100 0 336 Parking Provided (spaces) N/D N/D 0 --- 236 80 0 316 *Assumes full occupancy and previous operations. N/D- Not Determined; MGY-million gallons per year; mg/l-milligrams per liter; FTE-full time equivalents; vph-vehicles per hour. (1) Based on SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates (Hydraulic Load or Density Load), 12.01.09. (2) Assumes that landscape irrigation will be annualized assuming 5.5 inches of water are applied over the growing season, and the total landscaped area per site would be irrigated. (3) See Appendix K. (4) See Appendix N-1. (5) Based on 2.49 capita per unit, US Census, average household size, and 0.08 school age children per unit, Long Island Housing Partnership, Town of Southampton. (6) Based on 3 lbs/day/for the inn rooms and cottages, 13 lbs/day/1,000 SF for the nightclub and bait shop, 2 lbs/meal for the restaurants (assuming 300 meals/day), and 3.5 lbs/day capita for the residences. (7) Based on $11,138/student total expenditures.

Page 1-35 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Additionally, the SWPPP includes details of erosion controls required during construction to contain stormwater runoff on site during construction and ensure that there is no transport of sediment off site. The Erosion Control Plan will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sedimentation Control and the NYSDEC Technical Guidance Manual. Use will be made of measures including:

 silt fencing and temporary diversion swales installed along the perimeter of the limits of clearing within the site to minimize/prevent sediment from washing into the natural buffer areas, adjacent streets and properties.  inlet protection installed around all grated drainage inlets to trap sediments in stormwater runoff.  dust control and watering plan and a stabilized construction entrance to minimize the tracking of dirt and debris from construction vehicles onto adjacent roadways.  designation of material and topsoil stockpile areas as well as use of silt fencing and anchored tarps to prevent/reduce wind-blown dust and erosion from rainwater.  establishment of a stabilized stone vehicle washing station which drains into an approved sediment-trapping device.

The proposed locations, sizes, and lengths of each of the temporary erosion and sediment control practices planned during site construction activities, and the dimensions, material specifications, and installation details for all erosion and sediment control practices will also be provided on the Erosion Control Plan.

The drainage system and associated SWPPP will be more fully designed for the Site Plan application, and will require the review and approval of Town engineering and the Planning Board. Evaluation of the drainage system through preparation of the SWPPP analysis required pursuant to Chapter 285 of the Town Code and the NYSDEC General Permit ensures there will be no net increase in stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project. Based on existing developments in the area, local geologic conditions, and adequate depth to groundwater, subsoils are expected to be of suitable quality to allow efficient recharge of stormwater, subject to further evaluation during subsequent project review.

The stormwater management system is to be constructed to capture and recharge the water quality volume over the entire site. The CPI Property is exempt from having to provide channel protection storage volume (CPv), total overbank flood control (Qp), and extreme flood control (Qf) as its proximity to the canal allows the stormwater overflow to discharge to tidal waters. The Town will be responsible for the review and approval of the drainage design, to be conducted during site plan review.

1.3.3.2 Canal Property

The proposed grading for the Canal Property involves the disturbance of approximately 100 percent of the site, all of which has been previously disturbed and/or developed (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties, in a pouch at the rear). Along the eastern property line, the grade is to be relatively flat to allow for the construction of a parking lot along

Page 1-36 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

this frontage. This area will range in elevation from approximately 14 feet asl to approximately 17 feet asl with low points situated throughout to collect stormwater runoff. From here, the property will slope up to the entrances of the proposed buildings. Several units in Buildings 4 and 6 and all units in Buildings 7, 8 and 9 will have a rear terrace and private garden. No walkout basements for any buildings/units are proposed. The proposed community clubhouse is located on the basement level of Building # 5. The entrance to this clubhouse is approximately 12 feet below the first floor elevation. For the remaining units, grading at the rear of the unit will slope down away from the rear of the building.

It is expected that the public boardwalk will include features such as benches and appropriate signage, though lighting is not proposed. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.4, there are Town- regulated tidal wetlands in the area of the proposed boardwalk, so that Town Planning Board approval of a tidal wetlands permit for this feature may be required. This amenity represents the second of the project’s three proposed Community Benefits.

At the rear of Building #s 1, 2, and 3, the grading slopes down to the existing boat basin along the northwestern property line. This boat basin will remain a feature of the proposed development and the elevation of the grades surrounding the basin will remain the same (approximately elevation 4.0 feet). At the rear of Building #s 7, 8, 9, and at the front of Building # 6, the land is graded to form a depression that will act as a drainage reserve area. This area will capture and recharge stormwater runoff and will be landscaped. The elevation of this drainage reserve area is at approximately 8 feet asl at the bottom and 9 feet asl at the top. It is estimated that approximately 18,500 CY of net cut will be generated by grading and excavations for the drainage system, pool and building foundations on the Canal Property (see Cut and Fill Plan, in a pouch at the rear).

The Canal Property will utilize a recharge system that consists of drywell structures and a drainage reserve area. The structures are to be 12 feet (diameter) drainage rings located in the parking lot areas. The drainage reserve area is a large depression set in the grade that will capture and recharge a portion of the groundwater into the surrounding soil. Low points situated throughout the site will collect stormwater runoff and direct it into the recharge system. The system will then leach this water into the surrounding soil. Both the drywell system and the drainage reserve area have been sized to accommodate the volume of a two-inch rainfall over the tributary area of the respective stormwater management system in accordance with the Town of Southampton design standards. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2, this system will significantly improve drainage conditions on this property as compared to its existing condition. The recharge system will effectively collect and recharge stormwater for the “first flush” of pollutants in conformance with best management practice. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Study (see Section 2.2.1.1) found that containing the first flush of stormwater, and recharging it through sand was an effective means of attenuating contaminant concentrations typical of runoff.

With respect to potential drainage impacts on water and the marine environment of the Shinnecock Canal, Section 2.3.2.4 indicates that, at the current estimated rate of sea level rise, an increase of 5.16 centimeters may be experienced over the next 20 years. Given the site’s position with respect to surface water features, no impact is expected in this intermediate term.

Page 1-37 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Further, the majority of the subject site is above an elevation of 10 feet and is not considered to be at risk per the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force map. Test borings indicating that the depth to groundwater in the lower elevation areas where drainage would be installed is greater than 10 feet. Finally, site drainage will conform to best management practice for groundwater protection and will conform to with Town engineering requirements. Given the elevation of the site, the lack of designation of the site as an area at risk for flooding due to sea level rise, and the design of the drainage system in conformance with Town engineering requirements, no significant adverse impacts expected to groundwater, surface water or the Shinnecock Bay ecosystem.

The proposed drainage system will be constructed in accordance with the latest requirements of the NYSDEC Construction Stormwater General Permit (GP-0-10-001). This stormwater management system is to be constructed to capture and recharge the required water quality runoff volume for the site. In accordance with the NYSDEC guidelines, the site is exempt from having to provide CPv, Qp, and Qf volumes, as the overflow from the site discharges directly to a tidal water, the Shinnecock Canal.

1.3.3.3 Eastern Property

The proposed clearing and grading for the Eastern Property involves the disturbance of approximately 30 percent of the site (0.81 acres), to occur on land that has not previously been disturbed or developed (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties). All of the proposed grading will occur in the south-central portion of the property, and will establish a surface that slopes gently downward toward the southwest. It is expected that grading will result in a net excess of an estimated 1,200 CY of soil.

Two drywells will be installed on the Eastern Property. Drywells will be located to intercept stormwater from the driveway and existing stormwater runoff generated on natural surfaces that presently flows downslope toward lower areas on and along North Shore Road. Runoff generated on the proposed new vegetated and impervious surfaces will also flow downslope the short distances to either new landscaped areas or retained natural areas (these impervious surfaces are small in size), and recharge in these locales.

1.3.4 Access, Road System and Parking

1.3.4.1 CPI Property

The site’s vehicle entrances will be located off Newtown Road as well as Montauk Highway. The site will be served by a series of roads that connect the buildings and parking areas.

Parking calculations are provided on the Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn. If each individual use included in the CPI structure is totaled in terms of required parking as required by Town Code, a total of 236 parking spaces are needed, and a total of 236 spaces are provided including 122 standard stalls, six accessible stalls and 108 event parking spaces which will be

Page 1-38 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS provided in appropriate unused grass areas throughout the site. Valet parking for the inn, catering facility and restaurant will be employed to ensure that adequate parking is available during peak usage. Surface parking lots serving the CPI building will be provided in the front and rear of the property. The cottages will have a minimum of two spaces, each, located in the vicinity of the structures.

1.3.4.2 Canal Property

The townhomes will be accessed via a two-way driveway and parking area in the northern portion of the site (serving Building #s 1 and 2) and a larger one-way in/out driveway in the central portion of the site serving the remaining buildings. A series of sidewalks will connect the parking areas to the townhomes. No individual driveways or garages are proposed.

As shown on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, a total of 80 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed 40 townhouse units, which is a rate of 2 parking spaces per unit. Based on the Town of Southampton Parking Code, a rate of 2.5 spaces/unit (for a total of 100 spaces) is required.

In order to determine the peak parking demand of this type of use, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation data for Condominium/Townhouse land uses in the reference, Parking Generation 4th Edition was reviewed. According to this manual, the peak parking demand for Condominium/Townhouse use is 1.52 vehicles per dwelling unit. Based on this parking rate, the peak parking demand for the proposed 40 townhouse units will be 61 parking spaces. It is therefore expected that the 80 parking spaces provided will be adequate to meet the peak parking demand for these townhouses.

1.3.4.3 Eastern Property

No development is proposed on the Eastern Property with the exception of the Nitrex™ WWTF and associated pump station and laboratory structure. A service driveway will be provided to the proposed wastewater treatment facility from Wildwood Lane.

1.3.5 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply

1.3.5.1 Sanitary Wastewater Disposal

Article 6 of the SCSC addresses sewage facility requirements for realty subdivisions, and other construction projects, in order to limit the loading of nitrogen in various Groundwater Management Zones as established by the SCDHS. As promulgated under Article 6, a Population Density Equivalent must be determined for the subject site in order to determine the type of sewage disposal system required for a proposed project. This equivalent (or total allowable flow) is then compared to the design sewage flow for the project. If the project’s design sewage

Page 1-39 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

flow exceeds the Population Density Equivalent, a community sewerage system or on-lot sewage treatment plant is required. If the project’s design sewage flow is less than the site’s Population Density Equivalent, conventional subsurface sewage disposal systems (i.e., septic systems) may be used, provided individual systems comply with the current design standards and no community sewage system is available or accessible. The subject parcels are located within Groundwater Management Zone IV as defined by the SCDHS. Based on the requirements of Article 6, no more than 600 gallons may be discharged per acre on a daily basis within this zone. The acreage used for determining this Population Density Equivalent may not include wetlands, surface waters, or land in flood zones.

The Population Density Equivalent on the CPI Property is calculated as 3,390 gpd (based on 5.65 acres x 600 gpd/acre). However, the grandfathered density load for the property is 20,000 gpd based on the previous uses present on the site. Because the rehabilitation of the property is anticipated to generate a total of 10,175 gpd of hydraulic load that is significantly less than the grandfathered flow, a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system will be used.

The development of the townhouse units will exceed the sanitary flow allowed under SCSC Article 6 and therefore all wastewater generated will be pumped to the WWTF on the Eastern Property to provide wastewater treatment. Utilizing this method of wastewater treatment will result in considerable reductions in the nitrogen levels discharged into the Shinnecock Canal from existing uses on the Canal Property and their related sanitary flow. As a result, the proposed redevelopment of the Canal Property will significantly improve wastewater treatment compared to existing conditions.

Appendix L contains the Master Plan Report for the proposed project’s NitrexTM WWTF, which was prepared by the project’s sanitary engineering consultant. In addition, Appendix K presents manufacturer’s information on the performance of this treatment technology; refer to these documents for detailed engineering and performance information on this system. Breakdowns of design and sanitary wastewater generation for the CPI and Canal Properties are provided in Table 1-6a and Table 1-6b, respectively.

Table 1-6a DESIGN & SANITARY WASTEWATER GENERATION, CPI Property

Use Quantity County Design Flow Standard * Design Flow Cottages (<1,200SF) 2 225 gpd/unit 450 Cottages (>1,200 SF) 3 300 gpd/unit 900 Inn 20 100 gpd/unit 2,000 Catering Hall 350 7.5 gpd/seat 2,625 Restaurant 70 30 gpd/seat 2,100 Bar 20 15 gpd/seat 300 Outdoor Seats 120 15 gpd/seat 1,800 TOTAL ------10,175 * Per SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates, 12.01.09

Page 1-40 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 1-6b DESIGN & SANITARY WASTEWATER GENERATION, Canal Property

Use Quantity County Design Flow Standard * Design Flow Townhomes 40 300 gpd/unit 12,000 Amenities 6,000 0.30 gpd/SF 1,800 TOTAL ------13,800 * Per SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates, 12.01.09

Note that the 23,975 gpd flow of the proposed project is nearly equal to the grandfathered flow for CPI (20,000 gpd) plus the allowed flows under SCSC Article 6 for the Canal and Eastern Properties (2,388 gpd and 1,607 gpd, respectively). These latter three flows total 23,995 gpd.

1.3.5.2 Water Supply

Potable water is provided in the area by the Hampton Bays Water District using an existing distribution system that includes large transmission and supply mains to serve existing uses in the area. The CPI and Canal Properties will be served via these existing mains which currently serve the properties. The two closest well fields are located as follows:

 Well Field # 1: located off Ponquogue Avenue, has three wells (SCTM No. 900-224-2-36.11)  Well Field # 2: located off Old Riverhead Road East, has two wells (SCTM No. 900-227-1-7.39)

The CPI and Canal Property’s water supply system designs will be determined during the Site Plan review process; however, the previous and existing water use on the properties, coupled with the extensive water supply distribution system in the area, ensure that sufficient potable water supply is available. Any necessary connections, meters, easements and installations will be provided to ensure adequate water supply from the existing distribution system.

Assuming the wastewater generation rate values used by the SCDHS for design of wastewater systems (which yields a conservative estimate of water used), it is estimated that the CPI Property will generate approximately 6,600 gpd of sewage flow in 10,175 gpd of domestic water usage and the Canal Property will generate approximately 13,800 gpd of sewage flow and domestic water usage (see Tables 1-6a and 1-6b). The total volume of water anticipated to be used by the project is anticipated to be 11,492 gpd for the CPI Property (including 1,317 gpd for irrigation, using a rate of 5.5 inches over the growing season) and 14,455 gpd for the Canal Property (including 655 gpd for irrigation, using a rate of 5.5 inches over the growing season).

1.3.6 Site Lighting and Landscaping

1.3.6.1 Site Lighting

Both the CPI and Canal Properties will provide lighting that complies to Town Code requirements of Town Zoning Code Article XXIX (Outdoor Lighting). The proposed lighting

Page 1-41 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS will provide illumination for security and safety purposes, and to assist safe and efficient traffic flow at night. Lighting will be provided consistent with the locations, pole heights and specifications of the type and power of fixtures to be used, typically required by the Town and will be designed in conformance with the Town Code requirements provided in Sections 330- 345 and Section 330-346 for residential and nonresidential lighting standards, respectively.

All lighting will designed to be “dark sky” compliant and will be shielded to prevent fugitive light from extending onto adjacent properties and to ensure that no impacts on the suburban character of the area from sky glow will occur. By use of full cut-off, “dark sky” compliant fixtures, the potential for adverse impacts to the visibility of the night sky for site residents, as well as impacts to the neighboring residential properties, will be minimized.

As shown in the Concept Site Lighting Plans (in pouches at the end of this document), the parking areas and building exteriors will be illuminated, but the fixtures will be located so that the illuminance would not extend beyond the site’s borders in excess of 0.05 foot-candles (fc) at the property line to the west, or in excess of 0.10 fc to the north, east or south. In this way, a nuisance lighting condition for the neighbors would not occur. Pole-mounted fixtures will be set at heights of, at most, 14 feet on the CPI Property and 12 feet on the Canal and Eastern properties. For those pole-mounted fixtures along site boundaries, the full cut-off shields would cause minimal light trespass at these locations, to minimize potential fugitive lighting impacts (“nuisance lighting”, as defined in Article XXIX) on the adjoining roadways and/or properties.

A full and detailed Lighting Plan and photometric analysis will be contained in the Site Plans provided for each property, to be prepared and submitted at the time of Site Plan review. These plans will be subject to review by the Town Department of Planning and Development, along with Planning Board approval prior to implementation.

1.3.6.2 Landscaping

The proposed project will include a total of 3.22 acres of landscaping (57% of the site) on the CPI Property, of which approximately 1.72 acres (30% of the total site area) will consist of fertilizer dependent species. On the Canal Property, 1.60 acres of landscaping (36% of the site) will be provided, of which approximately 0.90 acres (20% of the total site area) will consist of fertilizer dependent species. Approximately 1.87 acres of natural area (70% of the site) will be retained on the Eastern Property.

Landscaped areas will be interspersed throughout the properties in order to provide an attractive landscape environment. Street trees will be present along all internal roads (on the CPI Property), landscaping will be provided in and around parking areas, foundation plantings will be installed, and other landscape clusters and groundcover areas will be established. Native and near-native species will be used to the extent practicable in the site landscaping, and no invasive species will be utilized. As previously described in Section 1.3.3.2, a drainage reserve area will be provided in the vicinity of Building #s 6-9 to capture and recharge stormwater runoff such that the landscaping will treat stormwater runoff prior to infiltration.

Page 1-42 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Full and detailed Landscape Plans will be contained in the Site Plans, to be prepared and submitted for the CPI and Canal Properties should the Town Board act favorably on the requested change of zone. These plans will be subject to review by the Town Department of Planning and Development, along with Town Planning Board approval prior to implementation.

1.3.7 Open Space and Noise Attenuation

Although some clearing will be necessary for installation of the Nitrex™ WWTF on the Eastern Property, approximately 1.87 acres of natural area (70% of the site) will be retained. No significant natural area will be retained on the CPI or Canal Properties.

As part of the change of zone to MPDD being requested for the subject properties, a $250,000 contribution for open space preservation will be provided by the applicant. The recipient of this funding will be the Town Board, acting on the Town’s behalf, which will direct the funding to specific recipients. This action represents the third of the project’s three proposed Community Benefits.

Figure 1-6 depicts the alignment of the existing Town Paumanok Path walking trail that traverses the area, a portion of which runs along the south side of the Canal Property (along the north side of Montauk Highway), and passes opposite the east side of the CPI Property (along the east side of Newtown Road).

Figures 1-7a through 1-7d depict the proposed noise attenuation wall, to be constructed on the Canal Property, along its eastern and southern borders. This feature will reduce the potential impact to site residents and visitors from noise generated by passing vehicle traffic.

1.4 Construction and Operations

1.4.1 Construction

Following the change of zone stage, the applicant will submit to the Town Planning Board Site Plans for each of the development properties with detailed site design. The applicant will proceed with construction upon final Town Planning Board and other agency approvals. Rehabilitation of the CPI building, construction of the townhomes on the Canal Property and construction of the WWTF on the Eastern Property will occur simultaneously. Although difficult to estimate the duration that rehabilitation of the CPI building would take at this time, total rehabilitation and construction of the three properties is expected to take approximately 18 months. Construction of the townhomes on the Canal Property will be broken down into two phases consisting on the following schedule:

 Phase I: Building #s 1-5, pool, clubhouse, marina  Phase II: Building #s 6-9

Page 1-43 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The WWTF will be constructed simultaneous to Phase I of the Canal Property construction. It is expected that rehabilitation of the CPI Property will be completed at the time of the completion of Phase II of the Canal Property.

1.4.1.1 CPI Property

The construction process for CPI Property will begin with securing and making the property safe for construction to proceed. Selective demolition of those portions of the existing structure not being reused along with the removal of interior finishes and exterior materials requiring replacement or necessary to access concealed areas will be performed. All rehabilitation will be performed under the Rehabilitation Plan as outlined in the Historic Evaluation of Canoe Place Inn (see Appendix I). All materials will be trucked off site to an approved construction and demolition debris landfill for disposal. Access to the site for demolition and construction activities will be via the Newtown Road access. After evaluation of the existing structural elements, any remedial work required to repair or reinforce the existing structure and construction of new structural elements will occur. Roofing, windows and façade repair will follow in order to achieve a weather tight envelope.

Site work will be performed during non-winter months and will begin with a plan for erosion and sediment control. Existing drainage structures will be evaluated for re-use or abandonment. New drainage structures will be installed, rough grading necessary to achieve required grades, and any retaining walls required will be constructed. The site will be developed in accordance with the approved plans including any curbs required, paving and landscaping.

A preliminary estimate of 3,000 CY of net cut of soil are anticipated on the CPI site during grading activities; the project will retain as much of this material on-site as practicable, as fill. The distribution of this material will be determined when the final Grading Plan is prepared, as part of the Site Plan review process.

With a weather-tight envelope, new plumbing, electrical and HVAC [heating, ventilation and air conditioning] will be installed. Once the rough mechanicals are installed, interior finishes will begin. The final design will determine the interior finish materials to be used, but the applicant expects materials to include, but not be limited to, gypsum wallboard, wood, tile, wall covering, and fabric. Once walls are closed and finishes installed, plumbing and lighting fixtures will be installed as well as equipment and cabinets. Carpets, furniture and furnishings will be the final elements of the rehabilitation.

1.4.1.2 Canal Property

Construction of the Canal Property will occur over two phases including Building #s 1-5, the pool, clubhouse and necessary marina improvements in Phase 1 and construction of Building #s 6-9 in Phase 2. The construction process for the Canal Property will begin with establishment of flagged clearing limits, followed by installation of staked hay bales and silt fencing in critical

Page 1-44 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

areas for erosion control purposes, including the downslope limit of all cleared/graded area, to minimize the potential for eroded soils to impact the tidal wetlands. For trucks exiting the site, “rumble strips” (which cause truck tires to shed any mud trapped within the treads) will be placed at the construction vehicle entrance/exit, to prevent soil from being tracked onto adjacent roadways. Construction equipment and materials and all vehicles will be parked and loaded/unloaded within the site.

A preliminary estimate of 18,500 CY of net cut of soil are anticipated on the Canal Property during grading activities and excavations for the drainage system, pool and building foundations; the project will retain as much of this material on-site as practicable, as fill. The distribution of this material will be determined when the final Grading Plan is prepared, as part of the Site Plan review process.

The existing buildings and parking areas on the site will require demolition. The owner will comply with all applicable requirements for site preparation for demolition. Demolition permits will be obtained prior to removal of the buildings. All necessary remediation associated with the Canal Property will be under the supervision of NYSDEC. Upon approval of the redevelopment of the site, all sanitary pools will be closed out in accordance with SCDHS requirements. All construction and demolition materials will be disposed of at a properly licensed facility. Demolition wastes will be recycled where possible, to increase re-use of materials and reduce the volume of demolition wastes to be disposed of; this may include the existing parking areas asphalt pavement.

In order to minimize the time span that denuded soil in the developed area is exposed to erosive elements, excavations will take place immediately after grading operations have been completed. Excavations for building foundations and parking areas, the drainage system and utility connections will occur next, followed by pouring of concrete for the foundations for Phase I of construction. Building construction can then begin concurrent with the utility connections, final grading and paving of the internal roadways, driveways and parking areas. Because these steps will take the most time, installation of the site lighting system and landscaping can be performed while the buildings constructed during Phase I are completed and Phase II is underway.

1.4.1.3 Eastern Property

Construction of the NitrexTM WWTF will occur over one phase and is anticipated to last for 2 months; this process will take place at the same time as development of the Canal Property, as the WWTF will serve the townhouses.

The construction process on the Eastern Property will begin with establishment of flagged clearing limits, followed by installation of staked hay bales and silt fencing in critical areas for erosion control purposes, including the downslope limit of all cleared/graded area, to minimize the potential for eroded soils to impact adjacent areas. For trucks exiting the site, “rumble strips” (which cause truck tires to shed any mud trapped within the treads) will be placed at the construction vehicle entrance/exit, to prevent soil from being tracked onto adjacent roadways.

Page 1-45 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Construction equipment and materials and all vehicles will be parked and loaded/unloaded within the site. The vehicle access to this property will be on Wildwood Lane; it is expected that all construction vehicles will utilize Canoe Place Road to approach this property.

As no structures exist on this property, no demolition will be necessary. In order to minimize the time span that denuded soil in the cleared and graded area is exposed to erosive elements, excavations will take place immediately after clearing operations have been completed. As shown in Table 1-5, it is expected that 0.81 acres in the south-central portion of this property will be subject to clearing and grading for the WWTF. Excavations for leaching pools, process tanks, sewer pipe trench, the pump station and laboratory building foundations, and utility connections will occur next, followed by pouring of concrete for the foundations. Building construction can then begin concurrent with the equipment installations, utility connections, final grading and paving of the driveway and parking spaces. Following construction of the 225 SF laboratory building, the 100 SF pump station and 1,450 SF driveway/parking area, 0.77 acres of landscaping will cover the leaching pool field. Finally, the developed portion will be fenced for security purposes.

A preliminary estimate of 1,200 CY of net cut of soil are anticipated on the Eastern Property during grading activities; the project will retain as much of this material on-site as practicable, as fill. The distribution of this material will be determined when the final Grading Plan is prepared, as part of the Site Plan review process.

1.4.1.4 Erosion Control Measures

The construction manager, in combination with the various specialized contractors, will be responsible for all construction activities, site grading, and installation and maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. The construction manager will also be responsible for ensuring proper storage and stockpiling of construction materials and that building supplies will be stored in designated areas, and that measures are implemented to prevent/reduce wind-blown dust. The construction manager will be responsible for securing an approved carter to empty the site dumpster and haul waste from the site to an approved location for disposal.

The potential for erosion during the construction period will be mitigated by conforming to the requirements of Chapter 285 of the Town Code, and with the NYSDEC’s review of the project’s runoff control methods under the SPDES program. Under this program, a site-specific SWPPP must be prepared and submitted to the Town for review and approval. Once the Town approves the SWPPP, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent with the NYSDEC to obtain coverage under the SPDES General Permit, designated GP 0-10-001.

Sediment will not be transported off-site by stormwater runoff and, as a result of the erosion and sedimentation control measures and permit compliance that will be implemented during construction, no impact on local water quality is expected. However, should any sediment escape from the respective sites, it will be swept back onto the site by manual or mechanical means (depending upon the amount of fugitive sediments) under the direction of the construction

Page 1-46 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS manager. It is expected that the erosion control plan will incorporate recommended measures of the NYSDEC Technical Guidance Manual, and use of measures such as:

 Silt fence, storm drain inlet protection, hay bales & good housekeeping procedures;  Construction equipment and vehicles will be parked and loaded/unloaded within the site;  “Rumble strips” will be placed at the site entrances to prevent soil on truck tires from being tracked onto the public road system;  The construction process will begin with establishment of flagged clearing limits, followed by installation of the erosion control measures;  Construction of the structures (on the Canal Property) can then begin concurrent with the utility connections. Once heavy construction is complete, finish grading will occur followed by soil preparation using topsoil mix, turf and installation of the landscaping, which will be performed while the structures are being completed; and  The drainage system will further provide permanent stormwater controls once construction is completed.

Covenants and restrictions will be adopted for post construction stormwater management in accordance with the SWPPP. Maintenance of all permanent stormwater management controls and drainage structures will be the responsibility of the site owner upon the completion of construction activities. Routine maintenance responsibilities for permanent stormwater structures and practices include:

1. Monitoring of the drainage inlets should be completed routinely, particularly following rainfall events with significant rainfall (defined as 0.5 inches of rainfall over a 24 hour period, or greater is recommended as a minimum). 2. Drainage grates should be kept free from obstruction of leaves, trash, and other debris. 3. Drainage structures are to be initially inspected annually to determine if sediment removal is necessary to ensure drainage structures are properly functioning and permitting adequate conveyance throughout the system and establish the frequency of future maintenance. 4. All seeded and landscaped areas are to be maintained, reseeded, and mulched as necessary to maintain a dense vegetative cover.

Newton Road at the CPI Property and North Shore Road at the Canal and Eastern Properties will be used for all construction vehicle access. It is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise).

1.4.2 Operations

1.4.2.1 CPI Property

The applicant will own and maintain the development site, which will be operated by a management company and/or partner specializing in such use. Rehabilitation and subsequent operation of the CPI building will be funded by revenue generated from use of the townhome development. Thirty-five FTE operational jobs at the CPI building are anticipated, based on the

Page 1-47 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS breakdown of hotel rooms, cottages and catering and restaurant area. Staff will consist of facility managers, administrative staff, wait staff, groundskeepers, housekeeping, kitchen staff, concierge staff, and valet staff.

It is anticipated that the facility will be used year-round as demand warrants; however, outdoor uses such as restaurant seating and tents associated with catering activity would be used weather permitting. Consistent with the seasonal nature of the Hamptons area, it is expected that there would be a greater demand for inn units during the summer months (between Memorial Day and Labor Day). The proposed restaurant (including bar area) will be open to the public year-round as dictated by the market. The catering facility would be available via reservation/lease for private events year-round. Space for pre-cooked catering will be available, separate from the kitchen area used by the restaurant, and hookups for warming trays, etc. will be available. No catering kitchen will be provided on-site. The restaurant, catering facility and inn units will all utilize the same lobby area.

1.4.2.2 Canal and Eastern Properties

A Homeowners Association (HOA) will be formed pursuant to Article 5 of the NYS Private Housing Finance Law for the townhouse development on the Canal Property. It is anticipated that approximately 15 full time employees will be required to maintain the various uses on the site, including the private marina and WWTF. The planned recreational amenities will be available for use by all residents of the development. The property owner will bear the cost of construction and will give the Town an easement for the boardwalk, with the right to maintain it pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Town and owner, upon approval of the requested change of zone.

The property owner for the CPI Property and the HOA for the townhouse development will be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, roadways, driveways, landscaping and open space maintenance and drainage features. Solid waste for both development areas will be picked up by private haulers. Operation and maintenance of the WWTF will be funded through HOA fees. An annual fee for marina use will be charged to any resident who purchases a slip at the private marina on the Canal Property.

1.5 Permits and Approvals Required

Page 1-48 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

responsible for the adoption of a Statement of Findings. Following this and, in consideration of the Findings Statement, the Town Board shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed MPDD change of zone application. If the proposed project is approved or conditionally approved, the applicant may proceed to a Site Plan Application to the Planning Board. Table 1-7 presents a list of permits and approvals required for this project.

Table 1-7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Issuing/Permitting Entity Type of Permit/Approval Town Board Change of Zone Approval (MPDD) Site Plan approvals Town Planning Board Tidal Wetland Permit Demolition permits Town Building Department Building Permit Hampton Bays Water District Water Supply Connection Permit/approval SCSC Article 4 (water supply system design) review/approval SCDHS SCSC Article 6 (sanitary system) review/approval Subdivision approval (Canal Property) Suffolk County Sewer Agency Conceptual Approval SCPC* NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 review/approval NYS Highway Law 136 & Road Access Permit SCDPW** Sewer Agreement Application for Road Usage for Debris (Demolition Permit) NYSDEC General Permit, Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity NYSDOT*** Roadwork Permit * Suffolk County Planning Commission. ** Suffolk County Department of Public Works. *** New York State Department of Transportation.

Page 1-49 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 2.0

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

2.1 Soils and Topography

2.1.1 Existing Conditions

2.1.1.1 Soils

The Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (Warner et al., 1975) provides a complete categorization, mapping and description of soil types found in the County. Soils are classified by similar characteristics and depositional history into soil series, which are in turn grouped into associations. These classifications are based on profiles of the surface soils down to the parent material, which is slightly changed by leaching and/or the action of plant roots. An understanding of soil character is important in environmental planning as it aids in determining vegetation type, slope, engineering properties and land use limitations. These descriptions are general, however, and soils can vary greatly within an area, particularly soils of glacial origin. The slope identifiers named in this subsection are generalized based upon regional soil types; the more detailed subsection on topography should be consulted for analysis of slope constraints.

CPI Property The Soil Survey identifies the CPI Property as lying within an area characterized by Plymouth- Carver association soils. The soils of this association are rolling and hilly: Deep excessively drained, coarse textures soils on moraines. A total of two soil types have been identified on-site; their locations are depicted in Figure 2-1. The soil types consist of Cut and fill land, gently sloping, which comprises a majority of the site as well as Carver and Plymouth sands, 15-35% slopes which are found in a small area located in the northwestern corner of the property. Specific descriptions of these soils are as follows:

Carver and Plymouth sands, 15-35% slopes (CpE) - The Carver series consists of deep, excessively drained coarse-textured soils. This soil type is found almost exclusively on moraines except for a few steep areas on side slopes along some of the more deeply cut drainage channels on outwash plains. The hazard for erosion is moderate to severe. These soils are also droughty and natural fertility is low. The primary limitations to use are moderately steep to steep slopes

Cut and fill land, gently sloping (CuB) - This unit is made of level to gently sloping areas that have been cut and filled for non-farm uses. Slopes range from 1 to 8%; and because of final grading around houses and other buildings, slopes generally are complex. This land type has few, if any, limitations to use as building sites.

The Soil Survey was also consulted for information on the potential limitations to development that the soils may present. Such constraints for these soils are summarized in Table 2-1a. As noted in the table, both of the soils have characteristics that would pose, if not addressed in project design, “severe” limitations on development (due to slopes and/or a sandy surface layer). Specifically, CpE soils pose severe limitations with regard to sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots, paths and trails as well as picnic and play areas. However, it should be recognized that these soils are only found on a small percentage of the CPI Property located in

Page 2-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

the northwest corner of the property. With regard to the CuB soils that comprise a majority of the property, these “cut and fill” soils are characterized by prior disturbance and the only severe limitation to development is related to lawns and landscaping due to a sandy surface layer. The presence of these soils will be considered in site design.

Table 2-1a SOIL LIMITATIONS, CPI Property

Carver Plymouth sands, Cut and fill land, gently Use 15-35% slopes (CpE) sloping (CuB) Suitability as a source of: Topsoil Poor: Coarse Texture * Fill material Good: Needs binder in places. * Soil features affecting: Poor trafficability; extensive cuts and fills Highway location * likely. Embankment Strength generally adequate for high * foundation embankments; slight settlement. Foundations for Low compressibility; large settlement * low buildings possible under vibratory load. Very low available moisture capacity; rapid Irrigation * water intake. Limitations of the soil for: Sewage disposal fields Slight Homesites Severe: slopes Streets and Moderate, slopes parking lots Lawns and Severe: sandy surface layer landscaping Paths & trails Severe: slopes; sandy surface layer Picnic & play Moderate: sandy surface layer. areas * Characteristics are variable to estimate.

Three (3) soil borings were completed on the CPI Property: two (2) in the central portion north and south of the middle cottage, and one (1) in the southeastern corner. Review of the boring logs (see Appendix C-8) indicates that the soils in the two central borings extend from ground surface to a depth of twenty-six (26) feet, and consist of well-sorted fine to coarse sand, with intermittent traces of gravel. Groundwater was not encountered in either of these borings. The third soil boring, in the southeast part of the site, was installed to document soil conditions and depth to groundwater in this area. Results of this boring also indicated the presence of well- sorted fine to coarse sand with intermittent traces of gravel. Groundwater was encountered at 10.5 feet below ground surface. The topographic elevation at this location was 12.44 feet; therefore groundwater is at elevation 1.94 feet asl in this part of the site. Additional information regarding hydrogeology is provided in Section 2.2.1.2.

Page 2-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As noted in Section 1.1.1.1, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the CPI Property by RJS Environmental in May 2012 (see Appendix C-1). The report findings and conclusions are as follows:

Report Findings Site Description The Site, addressed at 235 and 239 East Montauk Highway, Hampton Bays (Town of Southampton), Suffolk County, New York, measures approximately 5.66 acres and includes one vacant commercial structure and five vacant residences. Exterior portions of the Site were noted to include asphalt paved areas, green areas and trees.

For the purpose of this report, as the Site includes multiple buildings located on two parcels, Buildings 1 through 5 refer to the vacant residential structures and Building 6 refers to the former Canoe Place Inn. The Site refers to all buildings/parcels.

Site Reconnaissance The following potential environmental concerns were identified at the Site.

 Three No. 2 fuel oil USTs were recently removed from the Site.  Four 275-gallon No. 2 fuel oil ASTs [aboveground storage tanks] were noted on the exterior portions of the Site; staining was noted proximate to all four tanks.  Peeling/chipping paint was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance; such paint may contain lead.  Suspect mold, a musty odor and water damage was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance.  Damaged suspect ACMs [asbestos-containing materials] were noted throughout the buildings.  Adjacent properties of potential concern include a south adjacent marina and north adjacent railroad tracks.

Site History Buildings 1 through 5 were constructed between 1750 and 1935 and have primarily been utilized as residence since construction. Building 6 was constructed in 1890 and has primarily been used as an inn and nightclub. [note: Historic documentation reveals that construction of the existing CPI structure began in 1914.] Prior to construction of the existing buildings, the Site was likely undeveloped land.

Regulatory Information An adjacent property was identified as a UST facility with two removed tanks identified.

Other Findings The following other findings were identified during the course of this study:

 Peeling/chipping paint was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance; such paint may contain lead.  Suspect mold, a musty odor and water damage was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance.  Damaged suspect ACMs were noted throughout the buildings.

Page 2-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Conclusions Findings The following is a list of known or suspected RECs, historic RECs and de minimis conditions.

Known or Suspected RECs  Adjacent properties include a marina to the South (former USTs) and railroad tracks to the north. Historic RECs  Three USTs were removed from the Site between May 16 - 18, 2012 and overseen by the county; analytical results did not identify contamination in samples taken from the three separate tanks beds. De Minimis Conditions  Four 275-gallon No. 2 fuel oil ASTs were noted on the exterior portions of the Site; staining was noted on the ground (grass/soil) proximate to all four tanks.  Peeling/chipping paint was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance; such paint may contain lead.  Suspect mold, a musty odor and water damage was noted throughout the buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance.  Damaged suspect ACMs were noted throughout the buildings.

Definition of REC: An REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.

Definition of Historic REC: A historical REC is an environmental condition that in the past would have been considered a recognized environmental condition, but that may or may not be considered a recognized environmental condition currently. For example, a spill that has been remediated to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulators would be considered a historical recognized environmental condition.

Definition of de minimis: As per ASTM [American Society for Testing and Materials] 1527-05, conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions.

ASTM RECs We have performed an ESA I in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 of 235 and 239 East Montauk Highway, Hampton Bays (Town of Southampton), Suffolk County, New York, the Site. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site.

Opinion Based on the information obtained and reviewed as part of this assessment, environmental impacts at the Site do not appear to pose a significant risk and RJS does not recommend further work at this time

Regarding the damaged suspect ACMs and lead based paint and suspect mold should be tested and addressed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Lastly, the ASTs should be properly removed

Page 2-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

and the staining noted should be properly cleaned and disposed of off-site along with any impacted materials.

While the adjacent marina and railroad tracks will impact the Site, there is no visual or regulatory information suggesting this. In addition, in RJS' experience, the property owner would not be liable for an off-site release. Should impacted soil or materials be encountered during future site work, such should be segregated and properly disposed of off-site.

As stated in the Phase I ESA, RJS Environmental stated that they had performed the Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 and that the assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. In addition, they offered an opinion that based on the information obtained and reviewed as part of this assessment, environmental impacts at the site do not appear to pose a significant risk and RJS did not recommend further work.

Canal Property The Soil Survey identifies the Canal Property as lying within an area characterized by Plymouth- Carver association soils. The soils of this association are rolling and hilly, featuring deep excessively drained, coarse textures soils on moraines. A total of two soil types have been identified on-site; their locations are depicted in Figure 2-1. The soil types consist of Fill Land, Sandy and Carver and Plymouth sands, 15-35% slopes which comprise a majority of the site as well as Carver and Plymouth sands, 3-15% slopes which are found in a small area located in the northern corner of the parcel. Specific descriptions of these soils are as follows:

Fill Land, Sandy (Fs) - this unit is comprised of areas where sandy material has been placed on somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained or very poorly drained soils to provide building sites. In places thin layers of loam or silt loam soil material are in the sandy fill. The thickness of the fill ranges from 1.5 to 20 feet; however, thickness generally is about 4 to 10 feet. Slopes are mostly nearly level, but range to 8% where areas are graded around buildings. Fill material is variable and consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand and gravel with varying amounts of finer material. Non- soil materials have also been used. This soil type is typically found along waterfront areas used as building sites and is not suited to most other uses. Limitations related to this soil apply to lawns and landscaping as well as sanitary discharge.

Carver and Plymouth sands, 3-15% slopes (CpC) - The Carver series consists of deep, excessively drained coarse-textured soils. This soil type is found mainly on rolling moraines; however, they are also found on the side slopes of many drainage channels on the outwash plains. The hazard for erosion is slight to moderate. These soils are droughty and natural fertility is low. In some places, slopes are a limitation to use. Almost all of these soils are found in woodland areas.

The Soil Survey was also consulted for information on the potential limitations to development that the soils may present. Such constraints for these soils are summarized in Table 2-1b. As

Page 2-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

noted in the table, all of the soils found on site have characteristics that would pose, if not addressed in project design, “severe” limitations on development (due to high water table, slopes and/or a sandy surface layer). Specifically, Fs soils pose severe limitations with regard to sewage disposal fields, homesites, lawns and landscaping. The CpC soils were found to pose severe limitations with regard to paths and trails as well as picnic and play areas. Finally, CpE soils were found to pose severe limitations with regard to sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots lawns and landscaping, paths and trails as well as picnic and play areas. However, it should be noted that the CpE soils only comprise a small area of the Canal Property and are not anticipated to be subject to any significant disturbance or development. The presence of each of these soils will be considered in site design.

Table 2-1b SOIL LIMITATIONS, Canal Property

Carver Plymouth Carver Plymouth Use Fill Land, Sandy (Fs) sands, 3-15% slopes sands, (CpC) 15-35% slopes (CpE) Suitability as a source of: Topsoil Poor: Coarse Texture * Fill material Good: Needs binder in places. Soil features affecting: Highway location Poor trafficability; extensive cuts and fills likely. Strength generally adequate for high embankments; Embankment slight settlement; moderately steep to steep slopes foundation on unit CpE. Low compressibility; large settlement possible Foundations for low * under vibratory load; moderately steep to steep buildings slopes on unit CpE. Very low available moisture capacity; rapid water Irrigation intake; moderately steep to steep slopes on units CpC and CpE. Limitations of the soil for: Sewage disposal fields Slight to moderate: Severe: high water table. Homesites slopes in places. Severe: slopes Streets and parking Moderate: high water Moderate to severe: lots table. slopes. Lawns and Severe: high water table. landscaping Severe: sandy surface Severe: slopes; sandy Paths & trails Moderate: high water layer. surface layer Picnic & play areas table. * Characteristics are variable to estimate.

J.R. Holzmacher, P.E., LLC prepared a Geotechnical Evaluation Report dated March 30, 2012 for the Canal Property to evaluate the subsoil suitability in connection with the construction of the proposed project. As part of the evaluation, five soil borings (designated BT #1 through BT #5; see Figure, Appendix C-9) were completed on the parcel during March 16 and 23, 2012 to assess the condition of subsurface soils. All soil borings were completed to varying depths

Page 2-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

ranging from 14 to 25 feet below grade. Review of the boring logs revealed that a layer of fill comprised of fine to medium sand, silt, blacktop, recycled concrete aggregate and organic material extends across a majority of the property and ranges in thickness from three to 16 feet below ground surface. The only exception was at the location of boring B-4, which was located in the southern end of the property immediately west of the vacant restaurant. At this boring location surficial soils were observed to consist of sandy topsoil down to a depth of two inches. Beneath the surficial layers of fill and topsoil, subsurface soils were observed to generally consist of fine to medium sand with trace to occasional small to fine gravel.

At each boring location, Standard Penetration Testing was conducted to estimate the bearing capacity of on-site soils. Results of this testing revealed that the soils encountered are too weak for use with traditional reinforced footings and foundations.

Based on these findings the following recommendations were issued:

 The field exploration revealed subsurface conditions having poor bearing capacity throughout the upper depths of all boring locations, less than the allowable one ksf as per the New York State Building Code.

 The boring exploration was performed to determine structural design requirements for the construction of new residential structures. Based on the boring data, the soil is too weak due to unconsolidated soils and fluctuating water tables and therefore the use of timber piles is recommended. A traditional reinforced foundation would not be recommended for this location.

 Design plans should incorporate a program for allowing for selective removal of substandard materials based upon conditions found during excavation. This is necessary, as the soil boring is an examination of only a small area. The analysis and recommendations are based on the data obtained from the single test boring performed for this report. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until open excavation is initiated. Variations should be noted and their impact evaluated with respect to the necessity to modify the recommendations of this report.

 Backfill of excavations, following foundation construction, should be performed using clean, excavated soils or compatible imported select common fill where additional material is required. Soil consolidation is expected to be greater than one-half inch due to the loose soil conditions.

 Any and all excavations should follow OSHA [Occupation Safety and Health Administration] guidelines for excavation protection. Any excavations that are adjacent to existing buildings should be reviewed with specific interest in the depths of the existing foundations to determine if underpinning would be required. It is further recommended that existing condition surveys of the nearby buildings be conducted to mitigate potential claims of damage. As discussed in Section 1.1.1.2, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the Canal and Eastern Properties by PWGC in July 2006 (see Appendix C-2). In the Conclusions and Recommendations of the report the following were identified as RECs:

 “Three potential USTs were identified outside the former bait and tackle shop and although the structures on the property are currently heated with natural-gas, additional unknown fuel-oil

Page 2-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

USTs may be associated with the other structures on the property as well. Possible leakage from potential USTs may have impacted the subsurface of the property.”  “Sanitary waste is disposed of through onsite septic systems at each of the three commercial structures. Based upon the historic usage of the site, it is possible that hazardous chemicals were used and/or stored at the subject property. Potential uncontrolled releases and/or improper disposal of hazardous chemicals may have impacted the onsite septic systems.”  “The former bait and tackle shop was historically utilized as a gasoline service station. Based upon the historical usage of the site, it is likely that hazardous chemicals were used and/or stored at the subject property. Furthermore, additional unknown USTs, beyond those identified during the site visit, may be present at the site. Potential uncontrolled releases and/or improper disposal of hazardous chemicals or leakage from potential unknown USTs may have impacted the subsurface of the site.”

PWGC recommended Phase II ESA investigations be undertaken to quantify impacts, if present, due to the RECSs listed above. Their recommendations were as follows:

 Confirm the number and status of USTs on the site;  Determine whether the tanks have impacted the soil and groundwater; and  Determine whether the sanitary systems have been impacted.

PWGC was retained to undertake the investigation of the status and possible impacts of the USTs (see Appendix C-3 for methodology and analytical data). Their findings were as follows:

 “Results of the Tank Condition Assessment revealed the presence of one in-service 550-gallon fuel oil UST and two out-of-service USTs (one 2,000-gallon gasoline UST and one 1,000-gallon fuel oil UST). The 2,000-gallon gasoline UST was found to be heavily corroded and weathered. There was approximately one foot of liquid in the base of the tank with a layer of product floating on the surface and a strong gasoline odor. The investigation of the 1,000-gallon fuel oil UST revealed the tank to be in fair condition and completely full of water, with no product or petroleum odors apparent.”  “Results of the [site soil investigation] SSI indicated the presence of petroleum impacted soil. As a result, PWGC notified the NYSDEC and Spill No. 12-06856 was assigned to the site.”  “Soil and groundwater samples analyzed identified concentrations of VOCs in excess of the NYSDEC standards. The detected compounds are consistent with a historic gasoline spill. At each location where impacted soil was present, it was found at the groundwater interface. No evidence of impact or elevated PID [photo-ionization detector] responses was found investigate and sample the sanitary systems located on the property; and in the unsaturated zone in any of the soil borings. Impacted soils and groundwater are highest at SB004, located near the front of the building on the southeast side. Soil and groundwater impact appear to have spread in the suspected down-gradient direction, northwest towards the Shinnecock Canal, and beneath the building.”

CTS was retained to sample the leaching pools of the site’s four systems (see Appendix C-4 for methodology and analytical data). They sampled the 14 leaching pools in the 4 systems. Their findings were as follows:

Page 2-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Analytical results were above SCDHS Article 12 SOP 9-95 “Pumpout and Soil Cleanup Criteria” Action Levels for toluene in the pool receiving waste from La Casona Restaurant (5 North Highway). None of the other pools exceeded compliance levels.

CTS recommended “that sanitary cesspool structure LC CP-3 located at La Casona Restaurant be cleaned in accordance with SCDHS Article 12 Standard and Operating Procedure No. 9-95 “Pumpout and Soil Cleanup Criteria”. CTS has been retained to clean out the leaching pools under the oversight of the SCDHS.

Upon approval of the re-development of the site, all sanitary pools will be closed out in accordance with SCDHS requirements.

In response to the findings of the above two studies, PWGC was retained to prepare a remediation action plan (RAP; see Appendix C-7) for review and approval by the NYSDEC. The following describes the actions to be taken under the RAP.

Tank Removal The remedial action will start with the removal of the USTs to eliminate them as a potential source of impact. The three USTs will be removed according to the following procedure:  Utility markouts will be called in to document that the tank area is free of underground utilities which may become damaged as a result of tank and soil removal activities.  An excavator will be used to expose the tanks.  Once the tanks are exposed, a vacuum truck will be used to pump the liquid contents from the tanks. Pumped liquids will be properly disposed of as per applicable federal, state, and local regulations.  The empty tanks will then be removed from the ground. The tanks will be visually inspected to document its condition and signs of damage. The tanks will then be cut open so the interior of each tank can be cleaned of residual liquids and sludge. Wastes generated during tank cleaning will be properly disposed of.  The tanks will then be disposed of off-site at a properly permitted recycling facility.

Impacted Soil Removal As noted during the investigation, impacted soils were only encountered at the water table. Should impacted soils be encountered in the unsaturated zone following the removal of the tanks, such soils will be removed. PWGC will also, where possible, attempt to extend the tank excavations to the water table. These excavations may be limited due to the 18-20 foot depth to water on the south side of the building, limitations of the excavation equipment, and the proximity of the building.

Impacted soils will be stockpiled on-site pending off-site disposal. The stockpile will be sampled for waste characterization based upon the requirements of the disposal facility. Stockpiled soils will be placed on and covered with poly-sheeting. The poly-sheeting will be secured to prevent the poly- sheeting from blowing off of the stockpile. Hay bales will be placed around the stockpile to prevent run-off.

Following termination of the excavation, PWGC will collect sidewall and bottom endpoint samples as per NYSDEC DER-10. Soil samples will be analyzed for VOCs [volatile organic compound] by EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] Method 8260 (STARS List) and SVOCs [semi-volatile organic compound] by EPA method 8270 (STARS List). Due to the depth of impacts on the southern

Page 2-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

portion of the property, the presence of impacts beneath the building, and the horizontal extent of impact, full excavation of impacted soils is not expected to be performed during this phase.

Should groundwater be encountered during the soil removal phase, PWGC may consider the application of an oxygen releasing compound (ORC) within the excavation area prior to backfilling. ORC will enhance the biodegradation of contaminates in the saturated zone.

Post Remedial Monitoring Following the soil removal, a monitoring well network will be installed on-site. The network will consist of eight monitoring wells across the site. One monitoring well will be installed down-gradient of the spill near the Shinnecock Canal and one well will be installed upgradient of the spill. The remaining monitoring wells will be installed in the vicinity of the USTs, near SB004 which contained the highest concentration of TVOCs [total volatile organic compounds], inside the building, and immediately down-gradient of the building.

The monitoring wells will be installed via Geoprobe and will consist of 2 inch diameter PVC [polyvinyl chloride]. The monitoring wells will be constructed of 10 feet of 0.010 slot screen installed 7 feet into the groundwater (based upon the water table elevation at the time of installation) and 3 feet above it and riser to grade. Each well will be fitted with a plug and a bolt down manhole cover at grade. The installation procedure and specifications for the monitoring well located within the building may be modified due to limitations of operating the Geoprobe within the building. The monitoring wells will be developed a minimum of two days after installation. Purge water will be containerized for offsite disposal.

Groundwater monitoring and sampling will be conducted on a quarterly basis to determine the effectiveness of the remediation. Wells will be gauged to determine the depth to light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) if it is encountered, depth to water, and depth to the bottom of the well. Wells will then be purged of three to five casing volumes using a submersible pump. Water quality parameters such as pH, temperature, and conductivity will be collected during the purging. Following purging, samples will be collected with a disposable polyethylene bailer and poured directly into laboratory supplied glassware. The samples will be sent to a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) ELAP [Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program] certified laboratory and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (STARS List) and SVOCs by EPA method 8270 (STARS List). Upon receipt of the analytical data, PWGC will provide a quarterly report to the NYSDEC detailing the analytical results. The first sampling report will include a summary of the tank removal, impacted soil removal, and well installation details.

Future Remedial Activities It is anticipated that additional remedial measures, following evaluation of four quarters of monitoring well data, may be necessary. Additional impacted soil removal may be necessary following the demolition of the bait and tackle shop during site redevelopment.

Eastern Property The Eastern Property is vacant wooded land and no known environmental or suspected issues exist with respect to subsoils or environmental contaminants on that property. The existing conditions noted for the Canal Property and summarized above also apply to the Eastern Property. The 2006 Phase I ESA addressed the Eastern Parcel and no REC’s were identified.

Page 2-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The Phase II ESA report findings and conclusions as well as the J.R. Holzmacher Geotechnical Report results concern only the Canal Property.

Two (2) soil borings were completed in the southern portion of the Eastern Property (see Appendix C-10). Review of the log for Boring 1 indicates sandy topsoil and sandy loam from the ground surface to a depth of 2 feet, followed by a fine brown and light brown sand, with a small trace amount of gravel, to a depth of 8 feet. Finally, from a depth of 8 feet to the bottom of the boring (at a depth of 22 feet) is a medium to fine brown and light brown sand, with occasional gravel. For Boring 2, sandy topsoil and sandy loam, with a trace of roots extends, from the ground surface to a depth of 1.5 feet, followed by fine brown and light brown sand, with a small trace of gravel, to the bottom of the boring (at a depth of 5 feet). Groundwater was not encountered in either of the borings. Additional information regarding hydrogeology is provided in Section 2.2.1.2.

2.1.1.2 Topography

CPI Property The existing topography of the CPI Property has been subject to alteration in the past in order to accommodate the development that presently exists. The general topographic profile is noted to slope from a maximum elevation of approximately 50 feet asl in the northwestern corner of the site to a minimum elevation of approximately 11 feet asl in the southeastern portion of the site. The most severe slopes are found in the western half of the CPI Property and exhibit slopes ranging from 5 to 40%. However, several level areas within this section of the site are encountered within the footprints and immediate areas surrounding each of the three existing buildings in this area. The leveling of these areas by previous grading has resulting in a man- made and somewhat “terraced” topography surrounding each structure. Within the eastern half of the subject property, the topographic profile is found to level off where generally flatter topography exists with slopes ranging of 1 to 3% in the area of the existing night club building and parking areas. A slope interval map is provided in Figure 2-2a.

Table 2-2a presents the range and distribution of slope intervals on the site. As can be seen, over 73% of the site has slopes of less than 10%, while 0.78 acres (13.83%) are representative of the steepest slopes, 15% and above.

Table 2-2a SLOPE INTERVALS AND ACREAGES, CPI Property

Slope Interval Acreage of Slopes % of Site 0 - 10% 4.13 acres 73.23% 11 - 15% 0.73 acres 12.94% >15% 0.78 acres 13.83% Totals 5.64 acres 100.0%

Page 2-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Canal Property The existing topography of the Canal Property portion of the site has been subject to alteration in the past in order to accommodate the development that presently exists. The general topographic profile is noted to slope from a maximum elevation of approximately 24 feet asl in the northeastern and southeastern corners of the parcel down to the water level associated with Shinnecock Canal in the western portion of the parcel. The most severe slopes are generally found transecting the site from north to south and along the shoreline areas in the southern end of the parcel. These severe slopes are found to range from 60 to 70%; however, several level areas within the site are encountered within the eastern portion (areas of the parking lots and building) and the western portion (areas of the restaurant and deck) of the property. The leveling of these areas by previous grading has resulting in a man-made and somewhat “terraced” topography surrounding each structure. Within these areas, the topographic profile is found to level off where generally flatter topography exists with slopes ranging of 1 to 3%. The middle portion of the property between these areas exhibits more severe topography with slopes of ranging from 40 to 70%. A slope interval map is provided in Figure 2-2b.

Table 2-2b shows the distribution of slopes on the site. As can be seen, over 73% of the site has slopes of less than 10%, while 0.90 acres (20%) represent the steepest slopes, 15% and above.

Eastern Property The Eastern Property is “U” shaped and surrounds adjoining properties that lie inside the area enclosed on three sides by the subject site. The maximum elevation of approximately 60 feet asl is located in the far northeastern corner of the parcel and slopes to the south down to an elevation of approximately 20 feet asl in the northwestern corner of the parcel. The remaining portions of the parcel slope from a maximum elevation of approximately 50 feet asl located in the near northeastern corner of the parcel towards the south, southwest and west down to minimum elevation of approximately 20 feet asl.

Table 2-2b SLOPE INTERVALS AND ACREAGES, Canal Property

Slope Interval Acreage of Slopes % of Site 0 - 10% 3.31 acres 73.56% 10 - 15% 0.29 acres 6.44% 15 - 20% 0.90 acres 20.00% Totals 4.50 acres 100.0%

Table 2-2c presents the range and distribution of slope intervals on the site. As can be seen, about 40% of the site has slopes of less than 10%, while 0.89 acres (33.21%) are representative of the steepest slopes, 15% and above.

Page 2-12 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-2c SLOPE INTERVALS AND ACREAGES, Eastern Property

Slope Interval Acreage of Slopes % of Site 0 - 10% 1.09 acres 40.67% 11 - 15% 0.70 acres 26.12% >15% 0.89 acres 33.21% Totals 2.68 acres 100.0%

2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts

2.1.2.1 Soils

CPI Property According to the Suffolk County Soil Survey, both of the soils on the CPI Property pose “severe” limitations for development, due to slopes and a sandy surface layer. However, site- specific conditions as well as the project design must be considered when determining the potential impact of these restrictions on the proposed project.

The CpE soils occupy only approximately 0.70 acres in the northwest corner of the CPI Property, and this area will be subject to only limited development consisting of rehabilitation of several existing buildings as well as installation of paved parking and roadway surfaces. Severe limitations attributed to this soil type apply to sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots (slopes), as well as lawns and landscaping and recreational amenities (slopes and a sandy surface layer). Since the proposed project calls only for the rehabilitation of existing buildings, appropriate surface areas are already present and as a result, slopes are not expected to be a constraint. In addition, no recreational amenities are proposed in this section of the CPI Property. With regard to limitations related to sewage disposal fields, roads, parking lots and lawns/landscaping, a Concept Grading and Drainage Plan has been prepared to establish limits of grading, use of retaining walls, suitable grades and slopes and proper drainage conveyance and retention. Disturbed areas of the site will be stabilized during construction and will be graded to an appropriate slope (1:3 slopes) in order to provide suitable surface areas to accommodate development. Limitations to lawns and landscaping will be addressed through the design of an appropriate landscape plan specifically for the site, which will provide plant species appropriate for the sandy conditions present at the subject property. In addition, topsoil removed from proposed paved areas will be reused in other areas of the site to provide more suitable soil conditions for landscape vegetation. As a result, the limitations of the CpE soils do not apply to the proposed development.

The remainder and majority of the CPI Property is occupied by CuB soils, which only poses severe limitations to lawns and landscaping due to sandy surface layer. Limitations to this characteristic of site development will be addressed consistent with the provisions noted above for CpE soils.

Page 2-13 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

With regard to the environmental quality of on-site soils, a Phase I ESA was conducted at the CPI Property during May 2012. Results of the assessment identified the presence of several recognized environmental conditions but it was concluded that none posed a significant risk that would require further investigation or action. As a result, soil quality at the subject property is not expected to impact the proposed development.

Canal Property According to the Suffolk County Soil Survey, all three of the soils on the Canal Property pose “severe” limitations for development due to a high water table, slopes, and a sandy surface layer. However, site-specific conditions as well as the project design must be considered when determining the potential impact of these restrictions on the proposed project.

The CpC soils only occupy a small area in the northern corner of the Canal Property, which will be subject to virtually no development other than perhaps some moderate grading to accommodate new parking surfaces. Severe limitations noted for this soil type apply to recreational areas due to sandy surface layer, which are not proposed in this portion of the Canal Property. As a result, no impacts from this soil constraint are expected.

CpE soils are found to occupy the approximately 1.5 acres in the northern portion of the Canal Property. Severe limitations attributed to this soil type apply to sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots (slopes) as well as lawns and landscaping and recreational amenities (slopes and a sandy surface layer) if proper engineering and site development techniques are not employed. In order to properly prepare the site for grading, a Concept Grading and Drainage Plan has been prepared to establish limits of clearing and grading, provide suitable grades and slopes and proper drainage conveyance and retention. A more detailed, engineered grading plan will be prepared for site plan review. Disturbed areas of the site will be stabilized during construction and will be graded to an appropriate slope (1:3 slopes) in order to provide suitable surface areas to accommodate development. Limitations to lawns and landscaping will be addressed through the design of an appropriate landscape plan specifically for the site, which will provide plant species appropriate for the sandy conditions present at the subject parcel. In addition, topsoil removed from proposed development areas will be reused in other areas of the site to provide more suitable soil conditions for landscape vegetation. Limitations to sewage disposal fields will be addressed through conveyance of sanitary wastes to the proposed WWTF that will be located on the Eastern Property. As a result, these soil constraints would not impact the proposed project.

The remainder of the property is occupied by Fs soils, which pose severe limitations to sewage disposal fields and homesites as well as lawns and landscaping due to a high water table. Limitations to sewage disposal fields in these areas will also be addressed through the conveyance of sanitary wastes to the WWTF proposed on the Eastern Property. Limitations to lawns and landscaping will also be addressed through the provision of measures noted previously. Limitations related to homesites will be addressed through appropriate project design and engineering review as well as proper building techniques. As discussed in Section 2.1.1.1, the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared for this property (Appendix C-9) revealed that the soils encountered here are not sufficiently stable to properly support building

Page 2-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS construction due to unconsolidated soils and a fluctuating water table elevation. Therefore the use of timber piles is recommended. In general, any development that will occur on this property as part of the proposed project will comply with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report and presented in Section 2.1.1.1, including the use of timber piles, selective removal of substandard material, based on conditions found during excavation, and backfill of excavations, following foundation construction, using clear excavated soils. In addition, the proposed project will be subject to review by the Town of Southampton Building Department, which will issue a permit prior to development. These considerations support a conclusion that the constraints of the Fs soil would not pose a significant impact on the project.

With regard to the environmental quality of on-site soils, an RAP is under preparation for review and approval by the NYSDEC. The 2,000-gallon former gasoline tank will be removed, and the soil and groundwater remediated with oversight by the NYSDEC. The two other tanks will be removed in accordance with SCDHS requirements prior to re-development of the site. Furthermore, the leaching pools will be cleaned out under the oversight of the SCDHS.

Eastern Property According to the Suffolk County Soil Survey, the soils on the Eastern Property pose “severe” limitations for development due specifically to slopes and a sandy surface layer. Site-specific conditions must be considered, in order to design a compatible project.

The Fs soils located on the subject property comprise a small portion of the parcel which is located along its western boundary along North Shore Road. No significant development is proposed for this portion of the Eastern Property and as a result none of the limitations to development will have an impact on the proposed project.

The area of the eastern parcel proposed for development is occupied by CpC and CpE soils. The limitations to development for CpC soils on the Eastern Property are related to landscaping and recreational areas due to sandy surface layer. No recreational amenities are proposed for the Eastern Property so no impacts are expected related to these resources. Similarly, limitations related to lawns and landscaping are not significant as only ground cover vegetation will need to be established on the ground over the subsurface leaching field for WWTF effluent. Stockpiled topsoil can be used to establish a suitable planting surface in these regraded areas

The limitations to development for CpE soils apply to sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots (slopes) as well as lawns and landscaping and recreational amenities (slopes and a sandy surface layer). A Concept Grading and Drainage Plan has been prepared to establish limits of grading, suitable grades and slopes and proper drainage conveyance and retention. A detailed, engineered grading plan will be prepared for site plan review. Disturbed areas of the site will be stabilized during construction and will be graded to an appropriate slope (1:3 slopes) in order to provide suitable surface areas to accommodate development. Limitations to lawns and landscaping will be addressed through reuse of stockpiled topsoil and establishment of suitable groundcover vegetation in regraded areas.

Page 2-15 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2.1.2.2 Topography

It should be noted that the CPI Property and the Canal Property are already developed, so that neither of these sites represent natural conditions. In addition, extensive grading is not necessary or anticipated for either the CPI or Canal Properties, and only a limited portion of the eastern property will be cleared and graded for the WWTF. Nevertheless, some alterations to the existing topography of all three properties will be required to accommodate development. Several aspects of grading activities will be consistent for the overall site development are discussed below.

Truck routes for equipment and material deliveries and imported topsoil transport will be established in coordination with the Town, and will utilize major non-residential roadways. These trips may cause localized inconvenience and will increase truck traffic on adjacent roadways; however, this impact will be temporary and short term. A water truck will be available to wet dry soils and maintain interior transport roads in a manner that will reduce fugitive dust. Excavation associated with grading operations will occur within the interior of the sites, thereby reducing potential impacts to neighbors from noise or dust. Departing trucks will cross rumble strips and use the washdown area at the site construction accesses prior to leaving the construction areas, to reduce potential fugitive dust.

It is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise). . The subject parcels range from 2.68 to 5.65 acres in size, and construction will be sequenced to minimize the length of time that activity will occur near the site perimeter. It is expected that construction access will be provided from Newtown Road and Montauk Highway as well as North Shore Road, which will minimize the level of impact to residences on adjacent streets. Due to the projects close proximity to non-residential roadways for construction access and the proposed measures to manage construction activities, off-site impacts due to construction are expected to be of relatively short duration and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The overall design of the construction process and schedule will be formulated to minimize potential impacts to the neighborhood by minimizing the time span that construction occurs, as well as by mitigating potential impacts from noise and dust during this process.

Additional safeguards related to potential erosion will be achieved through the NYSDEC SPDES review of stormwater control measures consistent with Phase 2 stormwater permitting for construction sites in excess of 1-acre (SPDES GP-0-010-001). Under this program, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the NYSDEC 60-days prior to commencement of construction, and a site specific SWPPP must be maintained on site. In addition, a copy of the final Notice of Intent, SWPPP and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan will be submitted to the Town of Southampton Town Engineer simultaneously with the NYSDEC submission. Given that the design of the project will not create any unstable steep slope areas, will implement erosion control measures, and will undergo the review and approval process, no significant adverse topographic impacts are expected with respect to the construction phase. Short-term impacts may occur; however, these are also minimized through project design and construction oversight. Short-term impacts may include dust, noise, truck activity on roads and disturbance in the area.

Page 2-16 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

CPI Property Planned grading of strategic locations of the CPI Property will be necessary to provide appropriate and stable surface and stabilized slope transition areas to allow development of the proposed project. It is noted that due to the existing topographic relief on the CPI Property, any site use would require topographic alterations. Since the existing structures are proposed to be rehabilitated, the proposed project involves the minimum grading necessary to accommodate newly installed paved roadways and parking areas. The existing maximum and minimum elevations on the property as well as general grade from the northwest to the southeast will not change as a result of site grading. However, the slopes will be reduced to allow for better traffic movement and pedestrian access throughout the site. In addition, this program would restore the grade of this property’s Montauk Highway frontage to its historic condition (i.e., before Montauk Highway was modified in the late 1970’s), which would restore the historic appearance and character of this property and enable renewed enjoyment of the structure’s front porch.

It is estimated that approximately 3,000 CY of net cut will be required for grading on the CPI Property (see Cut and Fill Plan). Low points will be situated throughout the site to collect stormwater to direct it into the stormwater recharge system.

It is anticipated that grading operations will occur primarily along the proposed site access roadway and parking areas. Under the proposed project, grading of the site will require the extensive removal of soil (cut) over a majority of the proposed paved areas of the CPI Property. It is estimated that cuts ranging from 0.2 to 11 feet below ground surface will be required resulting in the removal of approximately 3,000 CY of soil, to create suitable grades for the site access roadway and parking. In addition, some limited fill ranging from 0.5 to 1 foot above ground surface will also be required in the eastern end of the parking area north of the proposed catering facility, but due to the limited fill required to raise these areas, this will be accomplished by redistribution of adjacent soils. Any excess material not required for fill in other portions of the proposed project areas will be exported for disposal. As shown in Table 2-2a, the majority of the site has slopes of less than 15%, so that disturbance to steep slopes (defined as slopes of 15% or more) would represent only a minor portion of the site (~14% of the total site). Grading, site elevations and overall site design will be subject to detailed engineering and site plan review. The project will conform to applicable engineering standards and all created slopes will be 1:3 or less and will be stabilized using groundcovers as well as retaining walls.

Four retaining walls will be installed within the northwestern portion of the CPI Property along the site access roadway and along the southwest side of the westernmost parking area. Installation of these retaining walls will further stabilize soils within the topographical high areas of the site and reduce required grading. The retaining walls will range from 80 to 160 feet in length and range in height from 0.5 to 10.4 feet. The three walls on the north side of the access roadway will be visible from the site access as well as to a limited extent from Montauk Highway. The wall on the southwestern side of the western parking area will only be visible from this parking area as well as two of the cottages. In addition to retaining walls and appropriate grade transitions, the planting of ground cover material and installation of stormwater retention facilities will ensure that topographic impacts are mitigated through project design.

Page 2-17 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Canal Property Planned grading of strategic locations of the Canal Property will be necessary to provide appropriate and stable surface and stabilized slope transition areas to allow development of the proposed project. It is noted that due to the existing topographic relief on the Canal Property, any redevelopment would require topographic alterations. The existing maximum and minimum elevations on the property as well as general grade from the east to west will not change as a result of site grading. However, the slopes will be reduced to allow for better parking and pedestrian access throughout the site.

The proposed grading for the Canal Property involves the disturbance of approximately 100 percent of the site, all of which has been previously developed. Along the eastern property line, the grade is to be relatively flat to allow for the construction of a parking lot along this frontage. This area will range in elevation from approximately 14 feet asl to approximately 17 feet asl with low points situated throughout the site to collect stormwater runoff. From here the property will slope up to the entrances of the proposed buildings. Several units in Buildings 4 and 6 and all units in Buildings 7, 8 and 9 will have a rear terrace and private garden. No walk-out basements for any buildings/units are proposed. The proposed community clubhouse is located on the basement level of Building 5. The entrance to this clubhouse is approximately 12 feet below the first floor elevation. For the remaining units, grading at the rear of the units will slope down away from the rear of each building.

At the rear of Buildings 1, 2, and 3, the grading slopes down to the existing boat basin along the northwestern property line. This boat basin will remain a feature of the proposed development and the elevation of the grades surrounding the basin will remain the same (approximately elevation 4.0 feet). At the rears of Buildings 7, 8, 9, and at the front of Building 6, the land is graded to form a depression that will act as a drainage reserve area. This area will capture and recharge stormwater runoff. The elevation of this area is at approximately 8 feet asl at the bottom and 9 feet asl at the top. It is estimated that approximately 18,500 CY of net cut will be generated by grading and excavations for the drainage system, pool and building foundations on the Canal Property (see Cut and Fill Plan).

Eastern Property In general, grading of strategic locations of the Eastern Property will be necessary to provide appropriate and stable surfaces and stabilized slope transition areas to allow development of the WWTF system for the proposed project. It is noted that due to the existing topographic relief on the site, any site use would require topographic alterations. The existing maximum and minimum elevations on the property will not change as a result of site grading and the overall topography will continue to trend from the northeast to the south and southwest. As discussed in Section 1.4.1.3, it is expected that 0.81 acres (30% of the Eastern Property) will be subject to clearing and grading operations. Construction of the WWTF is estimated net of 1,200 CY of soil material, to be removed from this property.

Page 2-18 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS generated on the proposed new vegetated and impervious surfaces will also flow downslope the short distances to either new landscaped areas or retained natural areas (these impervious surfaces are small in size), and recharge in these locales.

In summary, grading operations are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts, particularly in view of the mitigation measures identified in Section 2.1.3. The grading envisioned will be the minimum necessary to provide for the proposed development, with soils reused for fill and landscaping to the greatest extent practicable. During grading, truck traffic will be routed primarily via Newtown Road and Montauk Highway as well as North Shore Road; trucks waiting to load will be parked in proximity to the grading activity, to minimize the amount of truck movements and thereby minimize the potential for raising dust. Each individual parcel is of sufficient size to maintain activity within, and the engineered Site Plan to be reviewed by the Town as well as erosion control measures and stormwater pollution prevention measures will ensure that adverse impacts are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, no significant adverse impacts to topography are expected with respect to development of the individual sites that comprise the overall project development.

Concept Grading and Drainage Plans have been prepared which provide additional detail for overall site grading and are provided in pouches at the end of this document. The project will require Town Planning Board approval prior to initiation of grading activities.

2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation

General  The majority of each of the project sites (approximately 80% of the total site area) have slopes less than 15% so that disturbance to steep slopes (defined as slopes of 15% or more) would represent only a minor portion of the project site (~20% of the total project site).  Grading, site elevations and overall site design will be subject to detailed engineering and site plan review. A detailed Grading and Drainage Plan will be prepared as part of the Site Plan application which provides additional detail for overall site grading and will require Town Planning Board approval prior to initiation of grading activities.  The Concept Grading and Drainage Plans have been designed to minimize the area and volume of disturbance, and the grading envisioned is the minimum necessary to achieve the goals for the proposed development. Resultant development areas will be permanently stabilized and slopes are not anticipated to exceed 1:3. Additionally, graded areas will be either developed with buildings and pavement or will be revegetated with groundcover and landscape species; no bare soil surfaces will remain.  Grading, proposed topographic elevations and overall site design will be subject to detailed engineering and site plan review. The project will conform to applicable engineering standards and all created slopes will be 1:3 or less and will be stabilized using groundcovers as well as other engineering measures as necessary.  Dust raised during grading operations will be minimized and controlled by the use of water sprays, truck cleaning stations at the construction exit, and implementation of any dust suppression systems specified by the appropriate Town agencies.  Erosion control measures such as staked hay bales, silt fences, groundcovers (vegetative or artificial), drainage diversions, minimizing the area of soil exposed to erosive elements at one

Page 2-19 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

time, and minimizing the time span that soil is exposed to erosive elements, will be utilized to minimize loss of soil during construction, particularly in locations where erosion and sedimentation will adversely impact adjoining properties and streets. Applicable Town of Southampton standards and construction practices specified by the appropriate Town agencies will be followed. As long as erosion is controlled during grading and construction, the potential for sediment transport will be minimal, and no significant loss of soils is expected.  Conformance with NYSDEC requirements for the SPDES permit, including preparation of an SWPPP, will ensure that the potential for erosion impacts during construction will be minimized.  Topsoil will be stockpiled and reused on-site for landscaping purposes.  As part of the proposed project, existing facilities that have resulted in environmental impacts to soils will be removed (i.e. USTs and leaching pools). During these procedures, remedial actions will be undertaken to address any environmental issues under the direction of the NYSDEC and/or SCDHS. Contamination to subsurface soils (if present), will be addressed to the satisfaction of these agencies and appropriate documentation will be obtained confirming that no further action will be required. Based on these actions it is anticipated that development of the proposed project will address any existing environmental quality issues with regard to soils and as a result, soil quality at the subject property is not expected to impact development and will provide an environmental benefit.  It is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise), and construction will be sequenced to minimize the length of time that activity will occur near the site perimeter. It is expected that construction accesses will be provided from Newtown Road, Montauk Highway and North Shore Road, which will minimize the level of impact to adjacent residences. Due to the close proximity of the properties to major roadways for construction access and the proposed measures to manage construction activities, off-site impacts due to construction are expected to be of relatively short duration and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The overall design of the construction process and schedule will be formulated to minimize potential impacts to the neighborhood by minimizing the time span that construction occurs, as well as by mitigating potential impacts from noise and dust during this process.

CPI Property  Retaining walls will be installed around roadway and parking areas in the western portion of the CPI Property. Installation of these retaining walls will further stabilize soils within the topographical high and low areas of this property and will reduce required grading.

Canal Property  Any development on the Canal Property will comply with the recommendations issued in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by J.R. Holzmacher, P.E.

2.2 Water Resources

2.2.1 Existing Conditions

2.2.1.1 General Information

Groundwater on Long Island is derived almost entirely from precipitation, which enters the subsurface in the form of recharge. This recharge water passes through the unsaturated zone to

Page 2-20 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

the water table, which marks the upper surface of saturated soils that comprise the Upper Glacial aquifer (see Figure 2-3). Generally, the water table underlying Long Island’s south fork forms a linear mound of groundwater that crests under the central portion of the land area. The apex of this crest forms an east-west trending ridge in the water table, which acts as a groundwater divide that gradually slopes downward towards the north and south. The configuration of this groundwater mound creates a hydraulic gradient, which causes groundwater to flow downslope under gravity (hydraulic gradient) in a direction perpendicular to contours of equal elevation (generally toward the north and south shores) as they descend from the groundwater divide. In addition to horizontal flow, water flow within the central and inland portions of the Island is characterized by a deep flow system which exhibits a generally vertical component that provides recharge to deeper portions of the aquifer, before flowing to the north and south shores to the point of subsurface outflow. Groundwater recharge along the shorelines tends to flow horizontally in a shallow flow system through the Upper Glacial aquifer and eventually discharge from subsurface systems into streams or marine surface waters (Krulikas, 1986).

Movement of water through the deposits of each aquifer is a function of their hydraulic conductivity, which is an expression of the ability of these deposits to transmit water. According to Franke and Cohen (1972), the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity of Upper Glacial deposits is 270 feet per day (fpd) and 27 fpd, respectively. The hydraulic conductivity within the Magothy and Lloyd aquifer is significantly less than that present in the Upper Glacial aquifer with both exhibiting a horizontal conductivity ranging from 40 to 50 fpd and a vertical hydraulic conductivity ranging from 0.001 to 1.4 fpd.

Water quality data for the area was obtained from the Hampton Bays Water District water supply well data from samples collected during June and July of 2006. The available data was from supply wells 2-1 and 2-2 within Plant #2 which is 0.5 mile southwest of the subject property and is therefore expected to be most indicative of groundwater quality near the subject site. As confirmed by the Hampton Bays Water District, these wells are screened in the Magothy Aquifer. The data for these well is presented in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA, 2005 & 2006

Maximum Maximum Level Parameters Contaminant Limit Detected Range (MCL) Inorganic Compounds (1) Chloride, mg/l 11.7 – 50.5 250 Copper, mg/l ND – 1.97 AL=1.3 Sodium, mg/l 7.3 – 59.9 No MCL Iron, μg/l ND – 1,310 300 Lead, μg/l ND - 8.9 AL=15 Manganese, μg/l ND - 177 300 Nitrate, mg/l 2.04 10 Nitrite mg/l ND 10 Sulfate, mg/l 6.2 – 20.8 250 Zinc, μg/l ND – 0.06 5

Page 2-21 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Maximum Parameters Average Value Contaminant Limit (MCL) (2) Volatile Organic Compounds (3) Chloromethane ND5 Vinyl Chloride ND 2 Bromomethane ND 5 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 5 Methylene Chloride ND 5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 5 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 5 Bromochloromethane ND 5 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 5 Benzene ND 5 Trichloroethene ND 5 Dibromomethane ND 5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 5 Toluene ND 5 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 5 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 5 Chlorobenzene ND 5 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 5 Ethylbenzene ND 5 m.p-Xylenes ND 5 o-Xylenes ND 5 Styrene ND 5 Isopropylbenzene ND 5 Bromobenzene ND 5 n-Propylbenzene ND 5 2/4-Chlorotoluene ND 5 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 5 tert-Butylbenzene ND 5 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 5 sec-Butylbenzene ND 5 n-Butylbenzene ND 5 1,3-Dicholorobenzene ND 5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 5 4-Isopropyltoluene ND 5 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 5 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 5 Hexachlorobutadiene ND 5 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 5 Bromodichloromethane, ND5 Bromoform ND 50 Dibromochloromethane ND 50 Chloroform 0.95 50 Carbon Tetrachloride ND5 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND5 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND5 1,1-Dichloroethane ND5

Page 2-22 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1,2-Dichloroethane ND5 1,2-Dichloropropane ND5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, ug/l ND5 Methyl-Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND 10 Tetrachloroethene ND5 Trichlorofluoromethane ND5 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND5 Source: 2005 & 2006 Hampton Bays Water District Water Quality Report (1) Inorganic data for entire district well supply system collected during 2005. Only exception is nitrates and nitrites which is average of concentrations from Plant #2 Wells 2-1 & 2-2. (2) All values are in micgrograms per liter (ug/l). (3) Volatile organic data from sampling of Plant #2 Wells 2-1 & 2-2 ND Not detected, AL - Action Level., μg/l - micrograms per liter.

Based on these data, none of the detected compounds were found to be above their respective MCLs. The only exception was for iron, which is typically elevated on Long Island due to naturally occurring deposits within the underlying aquifer. These levels are published by the State, and reflect maximum contaminant levels set by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (amended in 1986 and 1996). Similar measures have been undertaken at the State level, and both State and Federal regulations are intended to provide safe drinking water in an economically viable manner.

Several water management plans have been prepared by various agencies, which provide pertinent guidance on the protection of groundwater resources across Long Island. A discussion of each of these plans is provided within the text below.

The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (SCDHS, 1987-2) provides information on water quality from 0 to 100 feet below the water table based on observation wells as well as public and private water supply and well monitoring. With respect to nitrate-nitrogen at a depth into the aquifer of between 0 and 100 feet, the Plan shows the subject site as lying within an “excellent” area in terms of water quality (1 to 6 mg/l of nitrogen) (SCDHS, 1987-2; Plate 4). Insufficient nitrate-nitrogen concentration information was available for depths of 100 to 400 feet beneath the site to draw conclusions regarding water quality beneath the site. The Plan also provides information regarding concentrations of VOCs in groundwater. Groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site was also “good” (less than 60% of applicable guidelines), although there were detectable levels of some compounds at a depth of 0 to 100 feet (SCDHS, 1987-2; Plate 6). Insufficient water quality information was available from the area of the site for water at a depth of 100 to 400 feet. VOCs are synthetic organic compounds such as degreasers, oil additives, solvents and pesticides. They are typically introduced to groundwater through chemical manufacturing, dry cleaning, fuel spills, agricultural practices and improper disposal of both household and industrial wastes.

The Long Island Regional Planning Board, in conjunction with other agencies, prepared a management plan for Long Island groundwater resources in 1978 under a program funded by Section 208 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, which is commonly known as the 208 Study. The purpose of the 208 Study was to investigate waste disposal options

Page 2-23 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

and best practice for ground and surface water protection. The study delineated Hydrogeologic Zones for the formulation of management plans based on groundwater flow patterns and quality (Koppelman, 1978). The subject site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV, which is a zone of marginal water quality with potential for saltwater intrusion due to adjacent saltwater bodies.

Stormwater, as runoff, is the vehicle by which pollutants move across land and through the soil to groundwater or surface waters. Contaminants accumulate or are disposed of on land and developed surfaces. Sources of contaminants include:

 animal wastes  highway deicing materials  decay products of vegetation and animal matter  fertilizers  pesticides  air-borne contaminants deposited by gravity, wind or rainfall  general urban refuse  by-products of industry and urban development  improper storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous material

Within Zone IV, existing data suggests that water quality will be a major problem in this zone if strict control measures are not implemented. Several alternative plans have been proposed to offer various approaches to the problem of water supply on the North and South Forks. These approaches consist of the following:

 Requiring sewering in residential areas and/or non-point source controls;  Control of nitrate sources;  Importation of consumable water allowing the underlying aquifer to degrade while minimizing sewering and allowing water levels to be maintained.

In 1982, the Long Island Regional Planning Board prepared the Long Island Segment of the NURP Study). The purpose of the NURP Study was to determine:

 the source, type, quantity, and fate of pollutants in stormwater runoff routed to recharge basins, and  the extent to which these pollutants are, or are not attenuated as they percolate through the unsaturated zone.

The Study determined that stormwater is the vehicle by which pollutants move across land and through the soil to groundwater or surface waters. That is, stormwater runoff generated on impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways, roofs and sidewalks may carry such pollutants as heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, bacteria, and nitrogen. Contaminants then accumulate or are disposed of on land and developed surfaces. Sources of contaminants include those noted in the 208 Study (see list of bulleted items above).

Page 2-24 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Extensive monitoring associated with the NURP Study found a significant reduction in these pollutants, indicating that they are attenuated in soil or volatilized in stormwater transport (Koppelman, 1982). Under the NURP Study, a number of different land use types were studied to determine the impact of stormwater recharge on groundwater. The land use included in the NURP report that is most like the proposed use would be medium density residential development (a site in Syosset was the example analyzed). The NURP study results for this land use type are shown in Table 2-4.

Four inorganic parameters examined in the NURP Study exceeded standards for the reported constituents of runoff recharged at the studied site; cadmium, chromium, lead and arsenic. Such a result was not unexpected, considering the analyses of stormwater runoff conducted for the NURP Study, and the Findings of the NURP Study addressed the implications of these levels. Finding 2 concludes: “In general, with the exception of lead and chloride, the concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality.” This indicates that these constituents in recharged water may exceed their standards, but that their concentrations will be significantly reduced when dispersed into the water table. Finding 3 concludes: “Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. Although the NURP findings concerning chromium are not conclusive, data from an industrial spill at Farmingdale indicate attenuation.” This indicates that, for these two constituents, passage through the soil matrix beneath a recharge basin will attenuate and reduce these concentrations, thereby mitigating any potential impact on water quality. It should be noted that seasonal parking of automobiles on this property may contribute to impacts on surface and groundwater quality, from deposition of engine exhausts and fluid leakages taken into stormwater runoff.

In addition to the above parameters, the NURP Study found that chloride concentrations generally increase by two orders of magnitude during the winter months. Chloride is not attenuated in soils like lead and chromium (Koppelman, 1982), and thus it is anticipated that the amount of chloride contributed to groundwater will be correlated with the amount of salt applied to roadways and parking areas within the stormwater drainage area. Reduction or elimination of roadsalt use would significantly reduce such an impact. Finally, coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through the soil.

Specific information as it relates to each project property is provided in the sections below.

2.2.1.2 CPI Property

Depth to groundwater is important with respect to water resources for sanitary system and drainage installations. Based on a review of the log generated for soil boring B-3, groundwater was encountered at a depth of 10.50 feet below ground surface. The elevation of the property at the location of B-3 is 12.44 feet resulting in a water table elevation of 1.94 feet asl. Utilizing this water table elevation as well as the high and low elevations of the property 50 feet and 11 feet asl, respectively, it can be estimated that the depth to groundwater underlying the site ranges

Page 2-25 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS from 48.08 feet to 9.06 feet below surface grade. Regionally, groundwater from the CPI Property is assumed to flow easterly towards the Shinnecock Canal (see Figure 2-4).

Table 2-4 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS OF STORMWATER Medium Density Residential Use

Parameter Value Standard Spec. Cond. (µmhos) 104.0 [n] pH (standard units) 5.1 6.5-8.51 Turbidity (NTU) 26.0 *

Hardness (mg/1 as CaCO3) 16.5 [n] Calcium, Dissolved (mg/1) 4.85 [n] Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/1) 1.2 [n] Sodium, Dissolved (mg/1) 4.25 [n] Potassium, Dissolved (mg/1) 1.0 [n] Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/1) 7.05 250.0 Flouride, Dissolved (mg/1) 0.1 1.5 Chloride, Dissolved (mg/1) 7.3 250.0 Nitrogen, Dissolved (mg/1) 2.55 10.0 Phosphorus, Ortho, Dissolved (mg/1) 0.010 [n] Cadmium, Dissolved (µg/1) 2.5 0.01 Chromium, Dissolved (µg/) 1.0 0.05 Lead, Dissolved (µg/1) 6.0 0.025 Arsenic, Total (µg/1) 1.0 0.025 Coliform, Confirmed (MPN) 13 ** Fecal Coliform, EC Broth 3 [n] Source: Koppelman, 1982 Notes: Standards from NYS, Section 703.5 Classes and Quality Standards for Groundwaters, except as noted. 1. Standards indicate limit except where exceeded due to natural conditions. * Standard for Total Dissolved Solids for Class "AA" surface water (Drinking Purposes), is 500 mg/1NYS, 1984; Section 701.19) ** Standard for coliform for Class "AA" surface waters, indicates the monthly median coliform value for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed 50 from a minimum of five examinations and provided that not more than 20% of the samples shall exceed a coliform value of 240 for 100 ml of sample (NYS, 1984; Section 701.19). [n] no standards for parameter.

Under current conditions, there are no drainage structures (i.e., stormdrains, drywells, etc.) or features (i.e., drainage swales, recharge basins, etc.) to collect precipitation during a storm event. Precipitation that falls on the site infiltrates downward through soils, though a portion will flow overland, downslope in a direction perpendicular to the topographic contours of the property and onto adjacent lands. The soils and vegetation on the site allow for the infiltration and evapotranspiration of a majority of the precipitation; however, exposed soils in the areas north of the existing building may be subject to sediment transport during storm events.

The groundwater budget for an area is expressed in the hydrologic budget equation, which states

Page 2-26 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS that recharge equals precipitation minus evapotranspiration plus overland runoff. This indicates that not all rain falling on the land is recharged. Loss in recharge is represented by the sum of evapotranspiration and overland runoff. The equation for this concept is expressed as follows:

R = P - (E + Q)

where: R = recharge P = precipitation E = evapotranspiration Q = overland runoff

NP&V has utilized a microcomputer model developed for its exclusive use in predicting both the water budget of a site and the concentration of nitrogen in recharge. The model, named SONIR (Simulation Of Nitrogen In Recharge), utilizes a mass-balance concept to determine the nitrogen concentration in recharge. Critical in the determination of nitrogen concentration is a detailed analysis of the various components of the hydrologic water budget, including recharge, precipitation, evapotranspiration and overland runoff.

The SONIR model includes four sheets of computations: 1) Data Input Field; 2) Site Recharge Computations; 3) Site Nitrogen Budget; and 4) Final Computations. All information required by the model is input in Sheet 1. Sheets 2 and 3 utilize data from Sheet 1 to compute the Site Recharge and the Site Nitrogen Budget. Sheet 4 utilizes the total values from Sheets 2 and 3 to perform the final Nitrogen in Recharge computations. Sheet 4 also includes tabulations of all conversion factors utilized in the model.

It should be noted that the simulation is only as accurate as the data that is input into the model. An understanding of hydrologic principles is necessary to determine and justify much of the data inputs used for water budget parameters. Further principles of environmental science and engineering are applied in determining nitrogen sources, application and discharge rates, degradation and losses, and final recharge. Users must apply caution in arriving at assumptions in order to ensure justifiable results. There are a number of variables, values and assumptions concerning hydrologic principles that are discussed in detail in a user’s manual developed for the SONIR Model and provided in Appendix K-1. Also included are the references used to derive data and hydrologic principles.

The Population Density Equivalent on the CPI Property is calculated as 3,390 gpd (based on 5.65 acres x 600 gpd/acre). However, the grandfathered density load for the property is 20,000 gpd based on the previous uses present on the site. This is the same density load that would be discharged if the existing facilities were to be fully utilized.

As discussed in Section 1.5.3.1, the 23,975 gpd flow of the proposed project is nearly equal to the combination of grandfathered flow for CPI (20,000 gpd) plus the allowed flows under SCSC Article 6 for the Canal and Eastern Properties (2,388 gpd and 1,607 gpd, respectively). These latter three flows total 23,995 gpd.

The SONIR model was run to obtain the existing recharge budget. The run was based on current

Page 2-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS site conditions and coverage’s (see Table 1-2), which include 1.01 acres of unvegetated surfaces, 1.13 acres of impervious coverage, 3.21 acres of natural vegetation, 0.29 acres of landscaped surface areas and a sanitary discharge of 20,000 gpd. The 5.65-acre site currently has a total recharge of 11.41 MGY; the results of this analysis are presented in Appendix K-2.

The SONIR Model results indicate a nitrogen concentration in recharge of 13.50 mg/l for existing site conditions. This concentration exceeds the NYS Drinking Water standard of 10 mg/l established for nitrogen. In addition, to the extent applicable, this concentration also exceeds the SCDHS Best Management Practice (BMP) for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l.

2.2.1.3 Canal Property

Review of soil boring data collected at the Canal Property as part of the Geotechnical Evaluation Report encountered groundwater at depths ranging from 2.7 to 19.7 feet below ground surface and elevations ranging from approximately 0.7 to 3.7 feet asl. Due to the parcels proximity to the Shinnecock Canal, these groundwater elevations may fluctuate with seasonal and tidal variations. In addition, based on the Canal Property position in relation to the Shinnecock Canal it is assumed that groundwater flow is to the west.

There are no drainage structures (i.e. stormdrains, drywells, etc.) or features (i.e. drainage swales, recharge basins, etc.) to collect precipitation during a storm event. Precipitation that falls on the site infiltrates downward through soils, though a portion will flow overland, downslope in a direction perpendicular to the topographic contours of the property and adjacent lands, and will eventually discharge to the Shinnecock Canal. The soils and vegetation on the site allow for the infiltration and evapotranspiration of a majority of the precipitation; however, portions of the southwest part of the site near the Shinnecock Canal exhibit severe erosion and unstable soils and surfaces on some sloped areas may promote sediment transport.

The Population Density Equivalent on the Canal Property is calculated as 2,352 gpd (based on 3.92 acres of non-wetland surface area x 600 gpd/acre). Presently, several facilities generate a total sanitary effluent that is disposed of on the Canal Property. It has been calculated that the existing uses generate a total of 12,338 gpd.

Using the same mass balance program as discussed previously, when applied to existing site conditions, the volume of water recharged on the Canal Property, and its associated nitrogen concentration were computed. Based on the SONIR model results, the total volume of water recharged on-site is approximately 7.95 MGY; the results of this analysis are presented in Appendix K-2.

The SONIR Model results indicate a nitrogen concentration in recharge of 5.26 mg/l for existing site conditions. This concentration is below the NYS Drinking Water standard of 10 mg/l established for nitrogen; however, represents an elevated condition over ambient water quality

Page 2-28 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS and is of particular interest due to the sites proximity to marine surface waters. Furthermore, to the extent applicable, this concentration is below the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l.

2.2.1.4 Eastern Property

The Eastern Property rises in elevation from the Canal Property. Using topographic information from site surveys as well as groundwater elevation data from the nearest boring completed on the Canal Property (which determined groundwater to be at 3.7 feet asl), it is estimated that the depth to water beneath the Eastern Property would range from 56.3 feet below ground surface to 16.3 feet below ground surface, or potentially slightly less if based on an expected higher elevation of groundwater east of the Canal Property. Groundwater flow is expected to be toward the southwest.

Since the Eastern Property consists entirely of vacant wooded land, there are no drainage structures (i.e., stormdrains, drywells, etc.) or features (i.e., drainage swales, recharge basins, etc.) to collect precipitation during a storm event. Precipitation that falls on the site infiltrates downward through soils, though a portion will flow overland, downslope in a direction perpendicular to the topographic contours of the property and adjacent lands. The soils and vegetation on the site allow for the infiltration and evapotranspiration of a majority of the precipitation. In addition, no sanitary facilities are located on the property.

Using the same mass balance program as discussed previously, the volume of water recharged by the existing condition on the Canal Property, and its associated nitrogen concentration were computed. Based on the SONIR model results, the total volume of water recharged on-site is approximately 1.33 MGY; the results of this analysis are presented in Appendix K-2.

The SONIR Model results indicate a nitrogen concentration in recharge of 0.01 mg/l for existing site conditions. This concentration is below the NYS Drinking Water standard of 10 mg/l established for nitrogen as well as, to the extent applicable, the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l.

2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts

2.2.2.1 CPI Property

Development will result in the increase of impermeable surface area across the CPI Property. This will cause an increase in this component of overall recharge generated on this property, due to the reduction of stormwater lost by evapotranspiration. The CPI Property will utilize a recharge system that consists of catch basins and drywell structures. The structures are to be 12 feet (diameter) drainage rings located in the parking lot and driveway areas. Low points situated

Page 2-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS throughout the site will collect stormwater runoff and direct it into the recharge system. The system will then leach this water into the surrounding soil. The drainage system has been sized to accommodate the volume of a two-inch rainfall over the tributary area of the respective stormwater management system in accordance with the Town of Southampton design standards. Since the area of disturbance is greater than 1-acre, the site plan will also be subject to a SWPPP to demonstrate compliance with water quality and water treatment with respect to stormwater handling in conformance with Town Code Chapter 285 and the SPDES General Permit, GP 0- 10-001.

In addition, recharge will also occur through the disposal of sanitary wastewater discharged from the conventional sanitary system that will service the site. As noted previously, Article 6 of the SCSC allows up to 600 gpd/acre of sanitary flow in Zone IV when using conventional on-site wastewater systems. As discussed in Section 1.3.5.1, it is anticipated that the proposed project will generate approximately 10,175 gpd of total effluent, which is more than the allowable flow of 3,390 gpd for on-site septic systems. However, the historic flow for the property is 20,000 gpd based on the previous uses present on the site. Thus, the proposed project represents a significant reduction in water use on this property in comparison to that of its historic use, and therefore a reduction in this component of recharge. Since the rehabilitation of the property is anticipated to generate a total of 10,175 gpd of hydraulic load, which is significantly less than the historic flow, a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system will be used.

Utilizing the same mass balance model described in Section 2.2.1.2, the overall volume of water recharged by the proposed project, and its associated nitrogen concentration were computed. Based on the SONIR model results and despite the increase in the stormwater recharge component, the total volume of water recharged on-site will decrease compared to the existing condition by approximately 30%. It is anticipated that the project will recharge approximately 8.04 MGY, which is a decrease of 3.37 MGY over the existing on site recharge of 11.41 MGY.

It is not anticipated that this increase in volume will be sufficient to adversely impact hydrologic conditions beneath the site, since the depth to water across the site ranges from approximately 9.0 feet to 48.08 feet and aquifer permeability is high as mentioned in Section 2.1.1.1. As a result, no significant increase in water table elevation or change in groundwater flow is expected from this increase in recharge volume. In addition, the separation between the water table and ground surface would not be sufficient to impair operation of recharge or sanitary systems.

The SONIR model was also used to calculate the concentration of nitrogen in recharge following development. Based on the SONIR model results presented in Appendix K-3, it is anticipated that the concentration of nitrates (as nitrogen) generated on-site will be decreased significantly by the proposed project, due primarily to the decreased volume of nitrogen-bearing sanitary recharge. The anticipated nitrogen concentration is calculated at 6.66 mg/l, representing a significant decrease from the existing concentration of 13.50 mg/l. In addition, the anticipated concentration reduction will be less than the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, and, to the extent applicable, will be less than the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l, and is within the target range of predicted nitrogen for this

Page 2-30 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Groundwater Management Zone based on the 208 Study and SCSC Article 6. Therefore the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality with regard to nitrogen loading and in fact will contribute to an improvement in groundwater quality underlying the site.

Based on the results presented above, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have no significant adverse impact on the quality of groundwater underlying the subject site and in the surrounding area. No other significant adverse groundwater impacts are expected.

208 Study This study recommends that on-site septic systems be used in Groundwater Management Zone IV, where the overall wastewater generation totals 600 gpd/acre or less (or for this site, a total of 3,390 gpd). However, the historic flow for the property is 20,000 gpd based on the previous uses present on the site. Because the rehabilitation of the property is anticipated to generate a total of 10,175 gpd of hydraulic load, which is significantly less than the historic flow, a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system will be used. Its design, installation and operation would be subject to agency review and approval, ensuring that the proper level of protection is provided. In addition, the project will control all runoff in an on-site drainage system, as required by the Town and State SWPPP and SPDES requirements. In consideration of the above, the proposed project conforms to the applicable recommendations of the 208 Study, and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Study Based upon information presented in the NURP Study, the increased recharge volume is not anticipated to contain significant concentrations of pollutants. The project will use recommended recharge techniques involving drainage depressions, catch basins and leaching pools. The NURP Study found that any organic chemicals that may be present in stormwater generally volatilize on surfaces, and inorganic chemicals and bacteriological indicators are removed as recharge infiltrates through soil. As noted, the depth to groundwater ranges from 9.06 feet to 48.08 feet below ground surface, providing a substantial unsaturated zone for leaching and attenuation of entrained pollutants.

Based on project design, the proposed development is in conformance with the applicable recommendations of the NURP Study in regard to the proposed stormwater recharge system. The proposed development of the site is not expected to have a significant impact to groundwater resources underlying the subject property and surrounding area as related to the recharge of stormwater runoff.

2.2.2.2 Canal Property

Development will result in the increase of impermeable surface area across the Canal Property. This will cause an increase in this component of overall recharge generated on this property, due to the reduction of stormwater lost by evapotranspiration; however, stormwater runoff is presently not controlled on the site. The site is sloped toward the Shinnecock Canal, and consists

Page 2-31 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS of dirt, sand and unstabilized areas including areas subject to erosion and sedimentation to the canal. The proposed project will provide drainage containment in conformance with Town engineering requirements for all stormwater generated in connection with the proposed project and will stabilize the site such that uncontrolled sheet runoff, impacts from automobile exhausts and fluid leakages, erosion and sedimentation do not occur.

The Canal Property will utilize a recharge system that consists of drywell structures and a drainage reserve area. The structures are to be 12 feet (diameter) drainage rings located in the parking lot areas. The drainage reserve area is a large depression set in the grade in proximity to Buildings 6-9 that will capture and recharge a portion of the groundwater into the surrounding soil. The top elevation of the drainage reserve area will be set at approximately 9 feet asl and the bottom elevation will rest at approximately 8 feet asl. Low points situated throughout the site will collect stormwater runoff and direct it into the recharge system. The system will then leach this water into the surrounding soil. Both the drywell system and the drainage reserve area have been sized to accommodate the volume of a two-inch rainfall over the tributary area of the respective stormwater management system in accordance with the Town of Southampton design standards. Since the area of disturbance is greater than 1 acre, the site plan will also be subject to a SWPPP to demonstrate compliance with water quality and water treatment with respect to stormwater handling in conformance with Town Code Chapter 285 and the SPDES General Permit, GP 0-10-001. The post-project conditions regarding stormwater runoff are expected to significantly improve as compared with existing conditions. The recharge system as designed will effectively collect and recharge stormwater for the “first flush” of pollutants in conformance with best management practice. The NURP Study found that containing the first flush of stormwater, and recharging through sand was an effective means of attenuating contaminant concentrations typical of runoff as is described in a separate subsection below.

As noted previously, Article 6 of the SCSC allows up to 600 gpd/acre of sanitary flow in Zone IV when using conventional on-site wastewater systems. It is anticipated that the proposed project will generate approximately 13,800 gpd of total effluent, which is more than the 2,352- gpd maximum allowed by the SCDHS for on-site septic systems. The development of the townhouse units will exceed the allowable sanitary flow of allowed under SCSC Article 6 and therefore the proposed project will include a WWTF on the Eastern Property to provide wastewater treatment. Utilizing this method of wastewater treatment will result in considerable reductions in the nitrogen levels discharged in proximity to the Shinnecock Canal from existing uses on the Canal Property and their related non-conforming pre-existing sanitary flow. As a result, the proposed redevelopment of the Canal Property will significantly improve wastewater treatment compared to existing conditions.

Utilizing the same mass balance model described in Section 2.2.1.3, the volume of water recharged by the proposed project, and its associated nitrogen concentration were computed. Based on the SONIR model results, the total volume of water recharged on the Canal Property will decrease by approximately 56% from the existing condition. This reduction in volume occurs because the wastewater generated on the Canal Property will no longer be recharged on the Canal Property, but will be conveyed to the WWTF on the Eastern Property for treatment and

Page 2-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS recharge. It is anticipated that the project will recharge approximately 3.52 MGY, which is an decrease of 4.43 MGY over the existing on-site recharge of 7.95 MGY.

It is not anticipated that this decrease in volume will be sufficient to adversely impact hydrologic conditions beneath the site, since the proposed drainage design will employ a surface detention area for stormwater control and many areas of the site have sufficient depth to groundwater for installation of subsurface drainage. The depth to water across the site ranges from approximately 2.7 feet to 19.7 feet and aquifer permeability is high as mentioned in Section 2.2.1.3. As a result, no significant increases in water table elevations or change in groundwater flow are expected from this increase in recharge volume. In addition, design will consider the separation between the water table and ground surface such that recharge systems will function properly.

The SONIR model was also used to calculate the concentration of nitrogen in recharge following development. Based on the SONIR model results presented in Appendix K-3, it is anticipated that the concentration of nitrates (as nitrogen) generated on-site will be decreased significantly by the proposed project, due to conveyance of sanitary effluent to the proposed WWTF on the Eastern Property. The anticipated nitrogen concentration is calculated at 0.44 mg/l, representing a significant decrease from the existing concentration of 5.26 mg/l. In addition, the anticipated concentration will be less than the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, and, to the extent applicable, will be less than the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l, and is within the target range of predicted nitrogen for this Groundwater Management Zone based on the 208 Study and SCSC Article 6. Therefore the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality with regard to nitrogen loading and in fact will contribute to an improvement in groundwater quality underlying the site.

208 Study This study recommends that on-site septic systems be used in Groundwater Management Zone IV, where the overall wastewater generation totals 600 gpd/acre or less (or for the Canal Property, a total of 2,352 gpd). However, the proposed sanitary discharge generated by the townhouse units proposed for the Canal Property is 13,800 gpd and as a result a WWTF disposal system that will be located on the Eastern Property is proposed. Its design, installation and operation will be subject to agency review and approval, ensuring that the proper level of protection is provided. In addition, the project will control all runoff in an on-site drainage system, as required by the Town and State SWPPP and SPDES requirements. In consideration of the above, the proposed project conforms to the applicable recommendations of the 208 Study, and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Page 2-33 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Study Based upon information presented in the NURP Study, the increased recharge volume is not anticipated to contain significant concentrations of pollutants. The project will use recommended recharge techniques involving drainage depressions, catch basins and leaching pools. The NURP Study found that any organic chemicals that may be present in stormwater generally volatilize on surfaces, and inorganic chemicals and bacteriological indicators are removed as recharge infiltrates through soil. As noted, the depth to groundwater ranges from 2.7 feet to 19.7 feet below ground surface, and surface detention will be provided as well as subsurface drainage to be placed in areas where a substantial unsaturated zone for leaching and attenuation of entrained pollutants will be provided.

It should also be noted that with regard to construction design, the lowest proposed finished floor grade of the basements on the Canal Property is at elevation 10.0 feet. This proposed elevation will provide approximately 6 feet of separation between the lowest finished floor elevation and groundwater.

2.2.2.3 Eastern Parcel

Appendix L contains information on the design, operation and performance of the NitrexTM WWTF. The information indicates that use of this technology would not result in any significant adverse impacts on groundwater quality in the vicinity. Two drywells will be installed on the Eastern Property. Drywells will be located to intercept stormwater from the driveway and existing stormwater runoff generated on natural surfaces that presently flows downslope toward lower areas on and along North Shore Road. Runoff generated on the proposed new vegetated and impervious surfaces will also flow downslope the short distances to either new landscaped areas or retained natural areas (these impervious surfaces are small in size), and recharge in these locales. Thus, no impacts to groundwater quality would occur due to recharge of stormwater generated on this property.

Development will result in the minimal increase of impermeable surface area across the Eastern Property due to the construction of the proposed WWTF system (including a small building, access driveway and small parking area). This will contribute to a slight increase in groundwater recharge due to the reduction of evapotranspiration that limits recharge to the underlying Upper Glacial aquifer. The increase in impermeable surface area across the parcel will ultimately result in an increase in groundwater recharge at the site; however, this volume contribution is considered insignificant in terms of site hydrology.

Page 2-34 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As noted previously, Article 6 of the SCSC allows up to 600 gpd/acre of sanitary flow in Zone IV when using conventional on-site wastewater systems. All sanitary waste disposed of the Eastern Property will originate from the development on the Canal Property and as noted previously this anticipated volume will be approximately 13,800 gpd of total effluent, which is more than the 2,700 gpd maximum allowed by the SCDHS for on-site septic systems on the Eastern Property. As a result, a WWTF is proposed on the Eastern Property to treat the effluent from the Canal Property.

Utilizing the same mass balance model described in Section 2.2.1.4, the volume of water recharged by the proposed project, and its associated nitrogen concentration were computed. Based on the SONIR model results, the total volume of water recharged on-site will increase by approximately 380%. It is anticipated that the project will recharge approximately 6.39 MGY, which is an increase of 5.06 MGY over the existing on site recharge of 1.33 MGY.

The SONIR model was also used to calculate the concentration of nitrogen in recharge following development. Based on the SONIR model results presented in Appendix K-3, it is anticipated that the concentration of nitrates (as nitrogen) generated on-site will be increased by the placement of the WWTF on the Eastern Property. The anticipated nitrogen concentration is calculated at 4.34 mg/l, representing an increase from the existing concentration of 0.01 mg/l. However, this anticipated concentration will still be less than the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, and, to the extent applicable, will be less than the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l, and is within the target range of predicted nitrogen for this Groundwater Management Zone based on the 208 Study and SCSC Article 6. This low concentration of nitrogen in recharge is based on the Eastern Property only, with no sanitary waste-generating use, only the WWTF that serves the Canal Property. The nitrogen in recharge on the Canal Property alone is reduced to a very low concentration of 0.44 mg/l as compared with the existing concentration of 5.26 mg/l and a nitrogen source in close proximity to marine surface waters.

As an additional comparison and analysis of the improved nitrogen in recharge conditions that the project will provide, the SONIR model was also run to assess the combined impact of nitrogen concentrations in recharge if the Canal and Eastern properties were considered together (see Table 2-5). As noted in Appendix K-2, under the existing conditions of this scenario, the amount of nitrogen recharged for only the CPI Property is 1,284 pounds annually. Under the proposed project, this value would decrease by over 65%, to 447 lbs/year (Appendix K-3). For both the Canal and Eastern Properties (Appendix K-2), the calculated current amount of nitrogen in recharge is 349 lbs/year, which would decrease by 30% (to 244 lbs/year; see Appendix K-3). This reduced concentration is primarily the result of the proposed WWTF, which will recharge sanitary effluent at a greater distance from marine surface waters resulting in additional water quality improvement as the concentration of nitrogen is expected to decrease with distance from the source (i.e., subsurface leaching system on the Eastern Property).

Page 2-35 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-5 COMPARISON OF RECHARGE IMPACTS Impact of Use of NitrexTM WWTF

Existing Conditions (lbs Proposed Project (lbs of Difference (lbs of Property of Nitrogen/year) Nitrogen/year) Nitrogen/year) CPI only 1,284 447 -837 Canal & Eastern 349 244 -105

As a result, the utilization of a WWTF will ultimately result in considerable reductions in the nitrogen levels discharged into the Shinnecock Canal and adjoining bays as compared with the existing uses on the Canal Property. As noted, it is anticipated that the increased travel distance from the Eastern Property to marine surface waters will further reduce the concentration of nitrogen due to physical, chemical and biological processes as recharge migrates through a longer groundwater flow path. Consequently, the proposed redevelopment will significantly improve wastewater treatment compared to existing conditions.

208 Study This study recommends that on-site septic systems be used in Groundwater Management Zone IV, where the overall wastewater generation totals 600 gpd/acre or less (or for the Canal Property, a total of 2,352 gpd). However, the proposed sanitary discharge generated by the project will be in excess of this requirement and as a result a WWTF system, that will be located on the Eastern Property, is proposed. Its design, installation and operation will be subject to agency review and approval, ensuring that the proper level of protection is provided. In addition, the project will control all runoff in an on-site drainage system, as required by SWPPP regulations. In consideration of the above, the proposed project conforms to the applicable recommendations of the 208 Study, and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Study Based upon information presented in the NURP Study, the insignificant contribution in stormwater recharge volume over existing conditions is not anticipated to contain significant concentrations of pollutants. The project will use recommended recharge techniques. The NURP Study found that any organic chemicals that may be present in stormwater generally volatilize on surfaces, and inorganic chemicals and bacteriological indicators are removed as recharge infiltrates through soil. As noted, the depth to groundwater ranges from 16.3 feet to 56.3 feet below ground surface.

The above discussions establish that the proposed project will generate less wastewater (23,975 gpd) and less sanitary wastewater (20,400 gpd) than are currently generated on the three

Page 2-36 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

properties (32,338 gpd and 24,928 gpd, respectively), and would not exceed the allowed generations on these properties under flow approved by the SCDHS or under SCSC Article 6. In addition, the proposed project will install new drainage systems that will trap and handle all runoff generated on the properties, and thereby cease the existing impacts to the Shinnecock Canal from uncontrolled surface flow.

Overall, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality with regard to nitrogen loading and in fact will contribute to an improvement in groundwater quality underlying the site, Shinnecock Canal and adjoining bays.

2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation

General  Adherence to the applicable recommendations of the plans discussed in Section 2.2.1.1 would ensure that groundwater resources will be protected to the greatest practicable extent, as the studies seek to protect and preserve the quality and quantity of groundwater beneath Long Island.  All stormwater runoff generated on-site will be retained on-site, to be recharged to groundwater via a proposed on-site drainage system designed in conformance with Town and State SWPPP and SPDES requirements.  Landscape maintenance will be conducted under the jurisdiction of the site owner, and will include a community-wide landscape maintenance contract. Fertilizer use will thus be controlled through initial turf and landscape plantings design as well as through the landscape grounds maintenance.

CPI Property  The CPI Property will utilize a conventional on-site sanitary system in compliance with the allowable discharge limits established under the historic flow condition. A nitrogen concentration of 6.66 mg/l for the site is expected, which is a decrease from the existing concentration of 13.50 mg/l. The anticipated reduction in concentration will result in a nitrogen in recharge concentration that complies with the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, as well as the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l and therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality and will mitigate an existing non-compliant condition.

Canal Property  The residential portion of the project will be served by a WWTF, which will be designed in accordance with all appropriate regulations and design requirements. A nitrogen concentration of 0.44 mg/l for the Canal Property is expected, which is a92% decrease from the existing concentration of 5.26 mg/l. The anticipated reduction in concentration will result in a nitrogen concentration in recharge that complies with the NYSDEC drinking water standard of 10 mg/l, as well as the SCDHS BMP for treated wastewater discharged within an area located within the 25 year travel time to a water body or 50 year travel time to a water supply well of 7 mg/l and therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to groundwater quality and will mitigate an existing non-compliant condition.  The volume of water recharged on the entire site will decrease in the proposed project, by 13.2% from its existing value of 20.69 MGY to 17.95 MGY following construction.

Page 2-37 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2.3 Ecology

2.3.1 Existing Conditions

2.3.1.1 CPI Property

Vegetation The CPI Property is currently occupied by a large, old and deteriorated structure that was previously utilized as a restaurant/catering facility and more recently as a nightclub. There are also five individual cottages currently on the west part of the site that are vacant and in extreme disrepair. Former landscaping and parking areas are also evident on the property.

The 5.65-acre CPI Property was inspected on August 16, 2012. Qualifications of NP&V staff that inspected the subject parcel are included in Appendix M-1. The property can best be described as containing Successional Southern Hardwood forest and Successional Old Field as defined by the classification system developed by the NYSDEC (Edinger et al., 2002). The existing site habitat quantities as determined by aerial photography and field inspections by NP&V are presented in Table 2-6a. Figure 2-5a provides a habitat map of the CPI Property. Below is a detailed description of the habitat types found on site along with a list of species present or expected on the site.

The majority of the site (2.07 acres) is comprised of Successional Southern Hardwood forest, which is defined by Edinger (2002) as “a hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Characteristic trees and shrubs include any of the following: American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (U. rubra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), silver maple (A. saccharinum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), gray birch (Betula populifolia), hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and choke-cherry (Prunus virginiana). Certain introduced species are commonly found in successional forests, including black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), tree of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Any of these may be dominant or codominant in a successional southern hardwood forest. Southern indicators include American elm, white ash, red maple, box elder, choke-cherry, and sassafras. This is a broadly defined community and several seral and regional variants are known.” As most of the subject site was previously disturbed, what would have been the original habitat has been significantly altered. Evidence of former pitch-pine oak forest is present due to the selective retention of some oaks and pitch pines. Currently, the habitat is comprised of a mix of invasive species, specimen trees that were retained, and species that are initial colonizers of sites that have been disturbed. As such, Successional Southern Hardwood forest best categorizes the site and is dominated by pitch pine, red cedar, scarlet oak, and black cherry. Other common species encountered in this habitat include autumn olive (invasive), honeysuckle (invasive), and Oriental bittersweet (invasive). Evidence of planted species exists as well, as English ivy (invasive), Norway spruce, and flowering dogwood were encountered in proximity to the cottages.

Page 2-38 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The remaining habitat on the CPI Property consists of Successional Old Field. Edinger (2002), defines Successional Old Field as “a meadow dominated by forbs and grasses that occurs on sites that have been cleared and plowed (for farming or development), and then abandoned. Characteristic herbs include goldenrods (Solidago altissima, S. nemoralis, S. rugosa, S. juncea, S. canadensis, and Euthamia graminifolia), bluegrasses (Poa pratensis, P. compressa), timothy (Phleum pratense), quackgrass, (Agropyron repens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), common chickweed (Cerastium arvense), common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), oldfield cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex), calico aster (Aster lateriflorus), New England aster (Aster novae-angliae), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Queen-Anne'slace (Daucus corota), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and ox-tongue (Picris hieracioides). Shrubs may be present, but collectively they have less than 50% cover in the community. Characteristic shrubs include gray dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), raspberries (Rubus spp.), sumac (Rhus typhina, R. glabra), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). A characteristic bird is the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). This is a relatively short-lived community that succeeds to a shrubland, woodland, or forest community.” Purple top grass, common plantain, Queen Anne’s lace, slender leaved goldenrod and small white aster dominate this habitat. The field area is very early in the succession process as significant quantities of grasses and small shrubs have not yet established.

No wetlands exist on or are adjacent to the CPI Property. The nearest wetland is located approximately 325 feet to the east of the subject property and is associated with Shinnecock Canal. Table 2-6a HABITAT QUANTITIES, CPI Property Existing Conditions

Quantity Coverage Type acres % of site Successional Southern Hardwood Forest 2.07 36.70 Successional Old Field 1.14 20.21 Landscaped 0.29 5.14 Unvegetated 1.01 17.91 Impervious 1.13 20.04 TOTAL 5.65 100.0

Table 2-7a presents a list of vegetation observed or expected on site given the habitats present; it is based upon field investigations conducted by NP&V on August 16, 2012. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but was prepared as part of several field inspections to provide a detailed representation of what is found on site. Care was taken to identify any species that might be unusual for the area.

Page 2-39 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-7a VEGETATION SPECIES, CPI Property Trees * Norway maple Acer platanoides [i] * tree-of-heaven Alianthus altissima [i] * northern catalpa Catalpa bignonioides * flowering dogwood Cornus florida [p] * eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana crab apple Malus coronaria[p] mulberry Morus alba * Norway spruce Picea abies * pitch pine Pinus rigida white pine Pinus strobus eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides. bigtooth aspen Populus grandidenta. * black cherry Prunus serotina choke cherry Prunus virginiana * white oak Quercus alba * scarlet oak Quercus coccinea * scrub (bear) oak Quercus ilicifolia pin oak Quercus palustris red oak Quercus rubra * black oak Quercus velutina * black locust Robinia pseudoacacia [i] sassafrass Sassafras albidum * yew Taxus floridana

Page 2-40 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica [i] stagger-bush Lyonia mariana * bayberry Myrica pensylvanica [p] * Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia mile-a-minute vine Polygonum perfoliatum [i] pinkster bloom Rhododendron nudiflorum [p] azaelea Rhododendron sp. [p, native only] smooth sumac Rhus glabra staghorn sumac Rhus typhina multiflora rose Rosa multiflora [i] brambles Rubus sps. blackberry Rubus allegheniensis * common dewberry Rubus flagellaris wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius[i] greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia * nightshade Solanum sp. Japanese spiraea Spiraea japonica [i] * poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans grape Vitis spp. myrtle Vinca minor[i] Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda [i] American wisteria Wisteria frutescens Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis [i]

Herbs and Groundcovers yarrow Achillia millefolium redtop Agrostis gigantea garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata [i] wild onion Allium stellatum big bluestem grass Andropogon gerardii * little bluestem grass Andropogon scoparius. pigweed Amaranthus sp. ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia dogbane Apocynum maculosa * mugwort Artemisia vulgaris [i] common milkweed Asclepias syrica * asters Aster spp. yellow rocket Barbarea vulgaris mustard Brassica sp. sedge Carex sp. spotted knapweed Centurea maculosa common lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album * chicory Cichorium intybus enchanter’s nightshade Circacea quadrisulcata thistle Cirsium sp. * reindeer moss Cladonia rangiferina crown vetch Coronilla varia black swallow-wort Cynanchum louiseae [i] broom Cytisus scoparius

Page 2-41 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

poverty grass Danthonia spicata * Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota * deer tongue grass Dichanthelium clandestinum cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias common strawberry Fragaria virginiana ground ivy Glechoma hederaceae woodland sunflower Helianthus divaricatus giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum [i] hawkweed Hieracium sp. common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum tall, perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium [i] * field pepperweed Lepidium campestre * devil’s bite Liatris scariosa var. scariosa butter-n-eggs Linaria vulgaris rye grass Lolium sp. white campion Lychnis alba whorled loosestrife Lysimachia quadrifolia Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum [i] Chinese silver grass, Eulalia Miscanthus sinensis [i] * sundrops Oenethera fruticosa evening primrose Oenethera biennis sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis * prickly pear cactus Opuntia humifusa sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytoni * common wood sorrel Oxalis montana panic grass Panicum sp common reed Phramites australis.[i] timothy Phleum pratense * poke weed Phytolacca americana bluegrass Poa sp. Soloman’s seal Polygonatum biflorum * plantain Plantago sp cinquefoils Potentilla spp. mock or Indian strawberry Potentilla indica common buttercup Ranunculus acris lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria [i] black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta dock Rumex crispus bouncing bet Saponaria officinalis green foxtail Setaria viridis * goldenrod Solidago spp. false Soloman’s seal Smilacina racemosa * common dandelion Taraxacum officinale * purple top Tridens flavus clover Trifolium sp. * rabbit foot clover Trifolium arvense * common mullein Verbascum thapsus cow vetch Vicia cracca spring vetch Vicia satvia

Page 2-42 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

sweet violet Viola blanda cocklebur Xanthium chinense

[p] NYS Exploitably Vulnerable Protected Plant [i] NYS invasive species (no legal status) [e] NYS Rare Protected Plant * species observed by NP&V staff during field visits.

Wildlife Site inspections were performed on August 16, 2012 by NP&V staff. Linear transects were utilized throughout the property in order to provide a representative sample of species present on the subject property. Care was taken to identify the presence/absence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the appropriate habitat settings. Relatively few wildlife species other than songbirds were observed, although it is expected that species tolerant of disturbed areas and human activity would utilize the site. The following paragraphs describe the wildlife observed or expected on site.

Birds - Avian species which might be expected on the property include a variety of woodpeckers, wrens, titmice, nuthatches, thrushes, creepers, flycatchers, swallows, warblers, corvids, thrashers, orioles and blackbirds, doves, starling, grosbeaks, finches, towhees and sparrows. During the warmer months, a variety of warblers also migrate into the area.

During the site visit, crows and mockingbirds were observed. In order to provide a more detailed representation of the avian species potentially present on site, the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas was reviewed to obtain data from the 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Survey for the census block encompassing the subject parcel (Appendix M-2). This study surveyed the entire State by 25 km² census blocks over a five-year period (2000 to 2004) to determine the bird species which breed within the State. Most of the species listed by the NYSDEC breeding bird survey are likely to be found on site. Table 2-8a is a list of the bird species observed or expected on site given the habitats present; it is based upon the field investigation conducted by NP&V.

Table 2-8a BIRD SPECIES, CPI Property

Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Canada Goose Branta canadensis Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Rock Pigeon Columba livia * American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Page 2-43 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia * Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater House Sparrow Passer domesticus Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Willet Tringa semipalmata House Wren Troglodytes aedon American Robin Turdus migratorius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

*species observed by NP&V staff during field visits.

Mammals - The habitats found on the proposed project site are expected to support a number of mammal species. Small rodents and insectivores such as mice, shrews and voles are expected to be the most abundant mammals. No mammals were observed on the site. Table 2-9a is a list of the mammal species that are expected to occur on the property because of existing conditions on- site and in the surrounding area. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but is intended to provide a list of the most common species.

Amphibians and Reptiles - The site may support a limited number of terrestrial herptile species. No amphibians or reptiles were encountered during site inspections. Two toads are common on Long Island in upland habitats. The spadefoot toad occurs in woods, shrublands and fields with dry, sandy loam soils, and breeds in temporary pools (Behler and King, 1979). The Fowler's

Page 2-44 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

toad prefers sandy areas near marshes, irrigation ditches and temporary pools. These species are the most likely amphibians to be present on the site. Species that were not observed during these surveys, but would be expected based on site habitat are included in the species list in order to fully account for potential impacts to observed and expected amphibians and reptiles.

Several species of reptiles might potentially be found on the property, including the eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake (Wright, 1957). All of these species are terrestrial species found in a variety of habitats. The garter snake is relatively tolerant of human activity, but prefers moist soils. The milk snake is found in soils of varying moisture content. These snakes are all colubrid snakes, which feed on whole animals such as worms, insects or small amphibians (Behler and King, 1979). The larger milk snake will also take small rodents and birds (Behler and King, 1979).

Table 2-10a presents a list of reptile species that might occur on site given the existing habitats. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive but provides a detailed representation of what is or is likely to be found on site. In addition, further information regarding these species can be found in Appendix M-3.

Table 2-9a MAMMAL SPECIES, CPI Property

short-tailed shrew Blarina breuicauda least shrew Cryptotis parva Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans red bat Lasiurus borealis woodchuck Marmota monax meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus pine vole Microtus pinetorum house mouse Mus musculus long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata little-brown bat Myotis lucifugus * white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus racoon Procyon lotor Norway rat Rattus norvegicus black rat Rattus rattus Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis masked shrew Sorex cinereus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamis striatus red fox Vulpes vulpes meadow-jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff during field visits.

Page 2-45 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-10a REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES, CPI Property

Amphibians Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri

Reptiles Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis eastern milk snake Lampropettis d. triangulum

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff (expected species listed).

2.3.1.2 Canal Property

Vegetation The Canal Property currently contains two restaurants, a bait shop, a two-story house with two apartments and a marina. Some natural vegetation exists along the boundaries of the property; however, the majority of the site is developed and/or previously disturbed.

The 4.50-acre Canal Property was inspected by qualified personnel of NP&V on August 16, 2012. The property can best be described as containing Pitch Pine-Oak forest and Successional Southern Hardwood forest as defined by the classification system developed by the NYSDEC (Edinger et al., 2002). The existing site habitat quantities as determined by aerial photography and field inspections by NP&V are presented in Table 2-6b. Figure 2-5b provides a habitat map of the Canal Property. Below is a detailed description of the habitat types found on site along with a list of species present or expected on the site.

Table 2-6b HABITAT QUANTITIES, Canal Property Existing Conditions

Quantity Coverage Type acres % of site Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 0.52 11.56% Successional Southern Hardwood Forest 0.44 9.78% Tidal Waters 0.58 12.89% Landscaped 0.77 17.11% Unvegetated 0.50 11.11% Impervious 1.69 37.56% TOTAL 4.50 100.00%

The Pitch Pine-Oak forest on site (0.52 acres) is defined by Edinger (2002) as “a mixed forest that typically occurs on well drained, sandy soils of glacial outwash plains or moraines. The dominant trees are pitch pine, mixed with one or more of the following oaks: scarlet oak, white oak, red oak or black oak. The relative proportions of pines and oaks are quite variable within

Page 2-46 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS this community type.” Edinger et al. (2002) includes a range of assemblages within this habitat type, including oak dominated forests with only scattered emergent pines as well as nearly pure stands of pitch pine. This reference further describes the shrub layer of the Pine-Oak Forest as a well-developed heath layer, with scattered clusters of dense scrub oak. In more mature, oak dominated stands, the understory may be sparse due to interception of light by oaks in the canopy. Other typical understory species include oak seedlings, black huckleberry and blueberry, while bracken fern, wintergreen, trailing arbutus, bearberry, Pennsylvania sedge and mosses are typical of the sparse herbaceous layer. As the majority of the subject site was previously disturbed, much of the original habitat does not remain and as such the current pitch pine-oak forest is impacted by the existing disturbance. The predominant species present in this habitat include pitch pine, white oak and bayberry. Other common species encountered in this habitat include black oak, sassafras, and Oriental bittersweet (invasive).

The remaining habitat on the Canal Property consists of Successional Southern Hardwood forest (0.44 acres), for which the Edinger (2002) definition has been provided in the description for the CPI parcel. Tree-of-heaven, black locust, yarrow and bouncing bet dominate this habitat.

Tidal waters associated with the boat basin located in the northern portion of the property and surface water along Shinnecock Canal are the only wetlands associated with the parcel. These tidal waters are defined by the NYSDEC as “LZ” or “Littoral Zone” for which the NYSDEC defines as “The tidal wetland zone that includes all lands under tidal waters which are not included in any other category. There shall be no LZ under waters deeper than six feet at mean low water.” The shore line has been substantially modified including historic bulkheading of the north boat basin and shoreline at the present location of Tiderunners restaurant, and rip-rap shoreline structure associated with the area south of the restaurant. The rip-rap area is substantially in-tact; however, some failure of the structure is evident in the southern length of rip-rap, resulting in unstable shoreline subject to erosion. The former Montauk Highway/Shinnecock Canal bridge abutment stabilizes the shoreline and is evident near the south property line. No vegetated wetlands exist with respect to the wetlands areas within and adjoining the site.

Table 2-7b presents a list of vegetation observed or expected on site given the habitats present; it is based upon field investigations conducted by NP&V on August 16, 2012. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but was prepared as part of several field inspections to provide a detailed representation of what is found on site. Care was taken to identify any species that might be unusual for the area.

Table 2-7b VEGETATION SPECIES, Canal Property

Trees Norway maple Acer platanoides [i] * tree-of-heaven Alianthus altissima [i] northern catalpa Catalpa bignonioides * eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana crab apple Malus coronaria[p]

Page 2-47 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

mulberry Morus alba * pitch pine Pinus rigida white pine Pinus strobus eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides. bigtooth aspen Populus grandidenta. * black cherry Prunus serotina choke cherry Prunus virginiana * white oak Quercus alba scarlet oak Quercus coccinea scrub (bear) oak Quercus ilicifolia pin oak Quercus palustris red oak Quercus rubra * black oak Quercus velutina * black locust Robinia pseudoacacia [i] * sassafrass Sassafras albidum

Shrubs and Vines porcelain-berry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata [i] Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii [i] boxwood Bux sempervirens trumpet creeper Campsis radicans * Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus [i] American bittersweet Celastrus scandens [p] autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata [i] winged eunonymous Euonymus alatus [i] burningbush Euonymus atropurpureus forsythia Forsythia sp. English ivy Hedera helix[i] Japanese holly Ilex crenata ‘Microphylla’ bush clover Lespedeza sp. border privet Ligustrum obtusifolium [i] California privet Ligustrum ovalifolium [i] Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense [i] European privet Ligustrum vulgare [i] honeysuckle Lonicera spp. Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica [i] fly honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii [i] trumpet honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica [i] stagger-bush Lyonia mariana * bayberry Myrica pensylvanica [p] * Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia mile-a-minute vine Polygonum perfoliatum [i] pinkster bloom Rhododendron nudiflorum [p] azaelea Rhododendron sp. [p, native only] smooth sumac Rhus glabra staghorn sumac Rhus typhina * multiflora rose Rosa multiflora [i] brambles Rubus sps.

Page 2-48 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

blackberry Rubus allegheniensis common dewberry Rubus flagellaris wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius[i] * greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia * nightshade Solanum sp. Japanese spiraea Spiraea japonica [i] * poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans grape Vitis spp. myrtle Vinca minor[i] Japanese wisteria Wisteria floribunda [i] American wisteria Wisteria frutescens Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis [i]

Herbs and Groundcovers * yarrow Achillia millefolium redtop Agrostis gigantean * upland bentgrass Agrostis perennans garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata [i] wild onion Allium stellatum pigweed Amaranthus sp. ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia dogbane Apocynum maculosa * mugwort Artemisia vulgaris [i] common milkweed Asclepias syrica * asters Aster spp. yellow rocket Barbarea vulgaris mustard Brassica sp. sedge Carex sp. spotted knapweed Centurea maculosa common lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album chicory Cichorium intybus enchanter’s nightshade Circacea quadrisulcata thistle Cirsium sp. reindeer moss Cladonia rangiferina crown vetch Coronilla varia black swallow-wort Cynanchum louiseae [i] broom Cytisus scoparius * orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata poverty grass Danthonia spicata * Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota deer tongue grass Dichanthelium clandestinum cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias common strawberry Fragaria virginiana ground ivy Glechoma hederaceae woodland sunflower Helianthus divaricatus giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum [i] hawkweed Hieracium sp. common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum tall, perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium [i]

Page 2-49 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

* field pepperweed Lepidium campestre butter-n-eggs Linaria vulgaris rye grass Lolium sp. white campion Lychnis alba whorled loosestrife Lysimachia quadrifolia Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum [i] Chinese silver grass, Eulalia Miscanthus sinensis [i] * sundrops Oenethera fruticosa evening primrose Oenethera biennis * upland white aster Oligoneuron album sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytoni common wood sorrel Oxalis montana panic grass Panicum sp common reed Phramites australis.[i] timothy Phleum pratense * poke weed Phytolacca americana bluegrass Poa sp. Soloman’s seal Polygonatum biflorum plantain Plantago sp cinquefoils Potentilla spp. mock or Indian strawberry Potentilla indica common buttercup Ranunculus acris lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria [i] black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta dock Rumex crispus * bouncing bet Saponaria officinalis green foxtail Setaria viridis goldenrod Solidago spp. false Soloman’s seal Smilacina racemosa common dandelion Taraxacum officinale purple top Tridens flavus clover Trifolium sp. rabbit foot clover Trifolium arvense * common mullein Verbascum thapsus cow vetch Vicia cracca spring vetch Vicia satvia sweet violet Viola blanda cocklebur Xanthium chinense

[p] NYS Exploitably Vulnerable Protected Plant [i] NYS invasive species (no legal status) [e] NYS Rare Protected Plant * species observed by NP&V staff during field visits.

Wildlife Site inspections were performed on August 16, 2012 by NP&V staff. The site is substantially developed and was in active use during the summer season of 2012. As a result, the abundance of wildlife species was low. Linear transects were utilized throughout the property in order to

Page 2-50 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS provide a representative sample of species present on the subject property. Care was taken to identify the presence/absence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the appropriate habitat settings. Relatively few wildlife species other than songbirds were observed on site, although it is expected that species tolerant of disturbed areas and human activity would utilize the site. The following paragraphs describe the wildlife observed or expected on site.

During the site visit, no avian species were observed. In order to provide a more detailed representation of the avian species potentially present on site, the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas was reviewed to obtain data from the 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Survey for the census block encompassing the subject parcel (Appendix M-2). This study surveyed the entire State by 25 km² census blocks over a five-year period (2000 to 2004) to determine the bird species which breed within the State. Most of the species listed by the NYSDEC breeding bird survey that are tolerant of human activity are likely to be found on site. Table 2-8b is a list of the bird species observed or expected on or near the site given the habitats present; it is based upon the field investigation and references reviewed by NP&V.

Table 2-8b BIRD SPECIES, Canal Property

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Saltmarsh Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos American Black Duck Anas rubripes Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Canada Goose Branta canadensis Green Heron Butorides virescens Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous [s] Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Rock Pigeon Columba livia American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Mute Swan Cygnus olor Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Page 2-51 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Osprey Pandion haliaetus [s] House Sparrow Passer domesticus Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Willet Tringa semipalmata House Wren Troglodytes aedon American Robin Turdus migratorius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

* species observed by NP&V staff during field visits (expected species listed). [s] NYS Special Concern species

Page 2-52 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-9b is a list of the mammal species that are expected to occur on the property because of existing conditions on-site and in the surrounding area. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but is intended to provide a list of the most common species.

Amphibians and Reptiles - The site may support a limited number of terrestrial species. No amphibians or reptiles were encountered during site inspections. Two toads are common on Long Island in upland habitats. The spadefoot toad occurs in woods, shrublands and fields with dry, sandy loam soils, and breeds in temporary pools (Behler and King, 1979). The Fowler's toad prefers sandy areas near marshes, irrigation ditches and temporary pools. These species are the most likely amphibians to be present on the site. Species that were not observed during these surveys, but would be expected based on site habitat are included in the species list in order to fully account for potential impacts to observed and expected amphibians and reptiles.

Table 2-9b MAMMAL SPECIES, Canal Property

short-tailed shrew Blarina breuicauda least shrew Cryptotis parva Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana big-brown bat Eptesicus fuscus silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans hoary bat Lasiurus borealis woodchuck Marmota monax meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus pine vole Microtus pinetorum house mouse Mus musculus long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Keen's bat Myotis keenii little-brown bat Myotis lucifugus white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus racoon Procyon lotor Norway rat Rattus norvegicus black rat Rattus rattus Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis masked shrew Sorex cinereus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamis striatus meadow-jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff during field visits (expected species listed).

Page 2-53 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

are all colubrid snakes, which feed on whole animals such as worms, insects or small amphibians (Behler and King, 1979). The larger milk snake will also take small rodents and birds (Behler and King, 1979).

Table 2-10b presents a list of reptile species that might occur on site given the existing habitats. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive but provides a detailed representation of what is or is likely to be found on site. In addition, further information regarding these species can be found in Appendix M-3.

Table 2-10b REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES, Canal Property

Amphibians Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri

Reptiles Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis eastern milk snake Lampropettis d. triangulum

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff (expected species listed)

2.3.1.3 Eastern Property

Vegetation The Eastern Property is currently comprised of vacant, wooded land with an old pump house located near the southwest corner of the parcel. The 2.68-acre parcel was inspected by qualified personnel of NP&V on August 16, 2012. The property can best be described as containing Pitch Pine-Oak forest as defined by the classification system developed by the NYSDEC (Edinger et al., 2002). The existing site habitat quantities as determined by aerial photography and field inspections by NP&V are presented in Table 2-6c. Figure 2-5c provides a habitat map of the Eastern Property. Below is a detailed description of the habitat types found on site along with a list of species present or expected on the site.

The entirety of the site (2.68 acres) is comprised of Pitch Pine-Oak forest of which the Edinger (2002) definition has been previously provided. Dominant species found in this habitat include pitch pine, scrub oak, Pennsylvania sedge, and switch grass. Other species associated with this habitat include tree-of-heaven, black cherry, scarlet oak, red cedar, green briar, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, sundrops, devil’s bite, Queen Anne’s lace, and peppergrass.

Page 2-54 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-6c HABITAT QUANTITIES, Eastern Property Existing Conditions

Quantity Coverage Type acres % of site Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 2.68 100.00% TOTAL 2.68 100.00%

No wetlands exist on or are adjacent to the Eastern Property. The nearest wetland is located approximately 275 feet to the west of the subject property and is associated with Shinnecock Canal.

Table 2-7c presents a list of vegetation observed or expected on site given the habitats present; it is based upon field investigations conducted by NP&V on August 16, 2012. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but was prepared as part of several field inspections to provide a detailed representation of what is found on site. Care was taken to identify any species that might be unusual for the area.

Table 2-7c VEGETATION SPECIES, Eastern Property

Tree species * tree-of-heaven Alianthus altissima [i] * eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana * pitch pine Pinus rigida white pine Pinus strobus * black cherry Prunus serotina white oak Quercus alba * scarlet oak Quercus coccinea * scrub (bear) oak Quercus ilicifolia mossycup (bur) oak Quercus macrocarpa blackjack oak Quercus marilandia pin oak Quercus palustris chestnut oak Quercus prinus northern red oak Quercus rubra post oak Quercus stellata black oak Quercus velutina sassafras Sassafras albidum

Shrub species chokeberry Aronia sp. Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus [i] American bittersweet Celastrus scandens [p] meadowsweet Spiraea corymbosa sweetfern Comptonia peregrina black huckleberry Gaylussica baccata

Page 2-55 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

golden heather Hudsonia ericoides beach heather Hudsonia tomentosa honeysuckle Lonicera sp. stagger-bush Lyonia mariana northern bayberry Myrica pensylvanica [p] * virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica [i] smooth buckthorn Rhamnus frangula [i] winged sumac Rhus copallina smooth sumac Rhus glabra brambles Rubus sp. * greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia * poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans low bush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum

Herbs and Groundcover Species ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia little bluestem Andropogon scoparius big bluestem Andropogon gerardii bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi aster sp. Aster sp. eastern silvery aster Aster concolor [e] stiff-leaved aster Aster linariifolius * Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvania spotted wintergreen Chimaphila maculata [p] stripped pipsissewa Chimaphila umbellata [p] ladyslipper Cypripedium sp. * Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota trailing arbutus Epigaea repens [p] wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens [p] orange grass Hypericum gentianoides pinweed Lechea villosa * field pepperweed Lepidium campestre round-headed bush clover Lespedeza capitata hairy bush clover Lespedeza hirta trailing bush clover Lespedeza procumbens * devil’s bite Liatris scariosa var. scariosa club moss Lycopodium sp. [p] wild lupine Lupinnus perenis Indian pipe Monotropa uniflora * sundrops Oenethera fruticosa cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea [p] panic grass Panicum sp. * switchgrass Panicum virgatum bluegrass Poa sp. Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides [p] jointweed Polygonella articulata bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum

Page 2-56 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

milkwort Polygala nuttallii hair cap moss Polytrichium sp. goldenrod Solidago sp. Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans goat’s-rue Tephrosia virginiana periwinkle Vinca minor

* Species identified on site during field visits by NPV Staff. [e] NYS endangered species [i] NYS invasive species (no legal status) [p] NYS exploitably vulnerable protected plant

Wildlife Site inspections were performed on August 16, 2012 by NP&V staff. Linear transects were utilized throughout the property in order to provide a representative sample of species present on the subject property. Care was taken to identify the presence/absence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the appropriate habitat settings. Relatively few wildlife species other than songbirds were observed on site, although it is expected that species tolerant of disturbed areas and human activity would utilize the site. The following describes wildlife observed or expected.

No wildlife was observed during the site visit. In order to provide a more detailed representation of the avian species potentially present on site, the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas was reviewed to obtain data from the 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Survey for the census block encompassing the subject parcel (Appendix M-2). This study surveyed the entire State by 25 km² census blocks over a five-year period (2000 to 2004) to determine the bird species which breed within the State. Most of the species listed by the NYSDEC breeding bird survey are likely to be found on site. Table 2-8c is a list of the bird species observed or expected on site given the habitats present; it is based upon the field investigation conducted by NP&V.

Table 2-8c BIRD SPECIES, Eastern Property

Page 2-57 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater House Sparrow Passer domesticus Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Willet Tringa semipalmata House Wren Troglodytes aedon American Robin Turdus migratorius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

* species observed by NP&V staff during field visits (expected species listed).

Table 2-9c is a list of the mammal species that are expected to occur on the property because of existing conditions on-site and in the surrounding area. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive but is intended to provide a list of the most common species.

Page 2-58 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 2-9c MAMMAL SPECIES, Eastern Property

short-tailed shrew Blarina breuicauda Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana big-brown bat Eptesicus fuscus southern-flying squirrel Glaucimys volans silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans hoary bat Lasiurus borealis red bat Lasiurus borealis woodchuck Marmota monax pine vole Microtus pinetorum house mouse Mus musculus long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Keen's bat Myotis keenii little-brown bat Myotis lucifugus white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus racoon Procyon lotor Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis masked shrew Sorex cinereus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamis striatus red fox Vulpes vulpes meadow-jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff during field visits (expected species listed).

Page 2-59 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The only turtle species common to terrestrial habitats on Long Island is the eastern box turtle, which requires very little water (Obst, undated). The species is found in a variety of habitats, but prefers moist woodlands. The species feeds on primarily on slugs, earthworms, wild strawberries and mushrooms (Behler and King, 1979). The similar wood turtle utilizes both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, but is restricted to eastern Long Island (Conant and Collins, 1991).

Table 2-10c presents a list of reptile species that might occur on site given the existing habitats. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive but provides a detailed representation of what is or is likely to be found on site. In addition, further information regarding these species can be found in Appendix M-3.

Table 2-10c REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES, Eastern Property

Amphibians Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri Common gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Red backed salamander Plethodon cinerus cinerus Eastern spadefoot toad Scaphiopus holbrooki [s]

Reptiles Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos eastern milk snake Lampropettis d. triangulum eastern box turtle Terrapine carolina [s] Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

* Species observed on site by NP&V staff (expected species listed). [s] NYS Special Concern species

2.3.1.4 Regulatory Conditions

As both the CPI and the Eastern Properties are not located in proximity to tidal or freshwater wetlands, these properties will not fall under Federal, State or Town wetland regulations. Improvements proposed on the Canal Property may fall under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC and the Town. The NYSDEC regulates activities within and adjacent to tidal wetland areas through Article 25 of the ECL. NYSDEC jurisdiction extends 300 feet from the wetlands boundary unless the intervening area is less than elevation 10 or there is a road or other barrier present since prior to August 20, 1977 (NYSDEC 1992). The Canal Property is adjacent to a tidal wetland area (Littoral Zone); however, the majority of the shoreline of the subject property has been structurally stabilized with a bulkhead and rip-rap wall since prior to August of 1977. As a result, letters have been sent to NYSDEC to request review of the site conditions for a determination of non-jurisdiction under Article 25 of the ECL (see Appendix M-4). Any confirmation, updates or response information will be provided as part of the ongoing EIS process.

Page 2-60 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The Town regulates wetlands through Chapter 325 of Town Code. In order to determine applicable Town jurisdictional limits, the Canal Property was inspected on February 22, 2013 and no vegetated tidal wetlands were observed on site. A delineation request to confirm this finding was submitted to the Town on March 21, 2013. Additionally, it is noted that a shoreline stabilization structure exists in the form of rip rap on the southern portion of the site, while the remainder of the site is stabilized by a bulkhead. As a result, it is believed that Town jurisdiction would extend from the apparent high water (AHW) line along the revetment. As per §325-4 (B)(9), when a functional stabilization structure is in place that has been constructed prior to August 13, 1993, the Town jurisdictional limit extends 50 feet from surface waters. It is noted that although this section of the Town Code refers to residential parcels, conversations with Town Conservation Board staffindicate that this regulation would be applied to any parcel with a functional stabilization structure. Figure 2-6 illustrates the Town’s jurisdictional limit on the Canal Property. As with the NYSDEC jurisdictional determination, any confirmation, updates or response information regarding Town jurisdiction will be provided as part of the ongoing EIS process.

Eastern Shinnecock Bay is an important aquatic ecosystem that is part of the South Shore Estuary Reserve. Runoff control is critical to maintaining and improving the environmental quality of this ecosystem. Climate change is implicated as a cause of sea level rise. Sea level rise is of concern with respect to projects proximate to coastal areas. A discussion of the current information concerning sea level rise is provided below.

Sea Level Rise Sea level rise is a global concern, and stems from global climate change, which causes thermal expansion of the oceans, melting of glaciers, polar ice caps and ice sheets, and from land movement. It is estimated that global sea levels have risen by approximately 1.7 millimeters per year – the equivalent of 6.7 inches - over the last century. According to a recent publication of the USEPA, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the sea level rise along Mid-Atlantic coasts - including those within New York State - was substantially higher than this global average. Specifically, the rate of sea level rise in Montauk is estimated at a rate between 2.39 and 2.77 millimeters per year - on average, the equivalent of roughly 10.2 inches over the last century.1

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the average sea level will rise by an additional 0.6 to 2 feet by the year 2100 (over a period of more than 90 years), with higher sea level rise projected to continue throughout the Mid-Atlantic coasts. This will result in loss of wetlands and increased flood risk, erosion, salinity of rivers, bays, tidal estuaries and groundwater, along with other land impacts throughout the world. Over the next 20 years, at the current estimated rate of sea level rise, an increase of 5.16 centimeters (or approximately 2-1/16 inches) may be experienced.

1 Zervas, C., 2001: Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854-1999, NOAA technical report NOS CO-OPS 36. NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 186 pp. As cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region, January 2009.

Page 2-61 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force was created in 2007 to assess impacts to New York State’s coastlines from rising sea levels and recommend protective and adaptive measures. Figure 2-7 presents the Task Force’s map showing areas that would be at risk for flooding due to sea level rise. The subject site is not within an area identified on this map.

2.3.1.5 Rare and Endangered Species Potential

No rare, threatened or endangered plants were observed on any of the subject parcels. The New York Natural Heritage Program (ECL 9-1503) was contacted to determine if there is any record of rare plants, habitats or wildlife in the vicinity. The Natural Heritage Program has one record of known occurrences of rare or state-listed plants, and two records of threatened/endangered birds on or in the vicinity of the subject site. Correspondence with the Natural Heritage Program is contained in Appendix M-5.

Two endangered/threatened avian species were identified as being located within the vicinity of the proposed project. The identified species include Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and Least Tern (Sternula antillarum). A summary of each of these species and its potential for occurring on the property is provided below.

Specific location information regarding the piping plover was not included in the correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program. It should be noted that the piping plover is listed as federally endangered in the Great Lakes Region, and as federally threatened in the Atlantic Coastal Region. Within New York State, the piping plover is listed as an endangered species. The NYSDEC provides the following information on piping plovers: “Piping plovers breed on dry sandy beaches or in areas that have been filled with dredged sand, often near dunes in areas with little or no beach grass. They occur along the Atlantic Coast from southwestern Newfoundland and southeastern Quebec south to North Carolina, and on inland beaches from eastern Alberta and Nebraska to Lake Ontario. Three populations currently exist: one along the east coast, another on the upper Great Lakes, and a third on the major river systems and wetlands of the northern Great Plains. Within New York, this species breeds on Long Island's sandy beaches, from Queens to the Hamptons, in the eastern bays and in the harbors of northern Suffolk County. A single pair was also recorded in 1984 at Sandy Pond, Lake Ontario in Oswego County. Piping plovers spend winters along the coast from Texas to North Carolina, and infrequently as far south as the Bahamas and Greater Antilles.” As the piping plover requires beach/dune habitat, and no beach/dune habitat is present on any of the three project sites, the piping plover is not expected to utilize the project sites.

As with the piping plover, specific location information regarding the least tern, a New York State-listed threatened species, was not included in the correspondence from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The NYSDEC provides the following information on least terns: “The least tern has a nearly worldwide distribution. In the Western Hemisphere, it breeds on the Pacific Coast from central California to Peru, inland along the Colorado, Red, Rio Grande, Missouri and Mississippi river systems, on the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Argentina, and along the Great Lakes in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio. Migrants mainly occur on

Page 2-62 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Long Island's outer coast and rarely on the lower Hudson River. This species winters from the Gulf Coast and Central America south to Peru and Brazil. The least tern breeds on broad, level expanses of open sandy or gravelly beach, dredge spoil and other open shoreline areas, and more rarely, inland on broad river valley sandbars. In an unusual case, 20 pairs nested on the roof of a city auditorium in Pensacola, Florida in 1957, and have continued to do so annually.” As the least tern requires beach/dune habitat, and no beach/dune habitat is present on the project sites, the least tern is not expected to utilize the project sites.

One rare plant was identified as occurring within the vicinity of the project area. Seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) is an annual forb/herb that prefers open beaches and the margins of dunes and salt marshes. These plants were last observed in Meschutt Beach in 2003, which is located north of the subject properties. As the project sites do not contain any beach, dune or salt marsh habitats, this species is not expected to occur on the sites nor was it observed during the August 2012 site inspection.

No "exploitably vulnerable" species were observed within the project sites. "Exploitably vulnerable" plants are species which are not currently threatened or endangered, but which are commonly collected for flower arrangements or other uses. Under ECL 1503.3, no person may "knowingly pick, pluck, sever, damage by the application of herbicides or defoliants or carry, without the consent of the owner thereof, protected plants" (NYSDEC, 1975). As per this section of the ECL the project sponsor (i.e. owner) would not be restricted in utilizing the site for the intended purpose. Therefore, the presence of protected plants would not restrict use of the site under the ECL.

2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts

2.3.2.1 CPI Property

Vegetation The impacts to the ecological resources of a site are generally a direct result of clearing of natural vegetation, increase in human activity and associated wildlife stressors, and the resulting loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. The majority of the site consists of poor quality habitats, as 2.07 acres is comprised of Successional Southern Hardwood forest and 1.14 acres consists of Successional Old Field growing in a former asphalt parking lot. As the entirety of the site has been historically disturbed, no high quality habitat remains and as a result, no retention of current habitats is proposed.

The change in habitat quantities is listed in Table 2-11a. As illustrated in the table, the planned development intends to ultimately provide approximately 57% of landscaped area and 43% or 2.43 acres of impervious surfaces. The landscaped areas will continue to provide some natural habitat for wildlife, though the removal of the existing disturbed woodland vegetation on the property is expected to result in a change in the characteristics of site habitat. As previously indicated, the majority of the proposed development will occur in areas that were previously cleared for the CPI and the associated cottages and now consist of Successional Southern

Page 2-63 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Hardwood forest and Successional Old Field, both of which are poor in quality due to the high levels of site disturbance and prevalence of invasive species.

Wildlife The majority of habitat on the property is dominated by Successional Southern Hardwood forest. The property is not expected to act as a refuge for rare native flora or fauna, but does contain a small population of local birds and mammals, such as chipmunks. The proposed project will favor those wildlife species that prefer edge and suburban habitats and those that are tolerant of human activity. Most of the species expected on the property are at least somewhat tolerant of human activity, but others will be impacted by the proposed clearing operation and increase in human activity.

Table 2-11a CHANGES IN HABITAT QUANTITIES, CPI Property

Existing Proposed Project Conditions Change Coverage Type Coverage Coverage (ac) Percent Percent (ac) (ac) Successional Southern Hardwood Forest 2.07 36.70 0 0.00 -2.07 Successional Old Field 1.14 20.21 0 0.00 -1.14 Landscaped 0.29 5.14 3.22 56.99 2.93 Unvegetated 1.01 17.91 0 0.00 -1.01 Impervious 1.13 20.04 2.43 43.01 1.30 TOTAL 5.65 100.00 5.65 100.00% ---

No natural vegetation will remain on the CPI Property; however, the 3.22 acres of landscaped vegetation is expected to provide habitat for some species to remain that are tolerant and/or dependent on human activity and are adapted to surviving in multiple habitat types.

In the short term, lands adjacent to the property will experience an increase in the abundance of some wildlife populations due to displacement of individuals by the construction phase of the proposed project. Mobile species and particularly large mammals such as fox and deer would be expected to find suitable habitat south of the site where larger areas of natural open space currently remain. Ultimately, competition with both conspecifics and other species already utilizing the resources of the surrounding lands would be expected to result in a net decrease in population size for most species. While some habitat will be provided through site landscaping, site-specific populations will decrease from the loss of woodland habitat/fragmentation. It is anticipated that species that prefer edge habitats will be prevalent within the proposed development.

Page 2-64 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2.3.2.2 Canal Property

Vegetation The impacts to the ecological resources of a site are generally a direct result of clearing of natural vegetation, increase in human activity and associated wildlife stressors, and the resulting loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. The majority of the site consists of poor quality habitats, as the site is heavily disturbed and existing natural habitats are impacted by human activity. As the majority of the site has been historically disturbed, no high quality habitat remains and as a result, no retention of current habitats is proposed.

The change in habitat quantities is listed in Table 2-11b. As illustrated in the table, the planned development intends to ultimately provide approximately 35.56% of landscaped area and 51.56% or 2.32 acres of impervious surfaces; 0.58 acres (12.89%) of tidal waters will remain unchanged. The landscaped areas will continue to provide some natural habitat for wildlife, though the removal of the existing woodland vegetation on the property is expected to result in a change in the characteristics of site habitat. As previously indicated, the majority of the proposed development will occur in areas which were previously cleared for the initial construction of the Canal Property, and existing natural habitats are poor in quality due to the high levels of site disturbance and prevalence of invasive species.

Wildlife The majority of habitat on the property is dominated by Pitch Pine-Oak forest (11.56%) and Successional Southern Hardwood forest (9.78%). The property is not expected to act as a refuge for rare native flora or fauna, but does contain a small population of local birds and mammals, such as chipmunks. The proposed project will favor those wildlife species that prefer edge and suburban habitats and those that are tolerant of human activity. Most of the species expected on the property are at least somewhat tolerant of human activity, but others will be impacted by the proposed clearing operation and increase in human activity.

Table 2-11b CHANGES IN HABITAT QUANTITIES, Canal Property

Existing Proposed Project Conditions Change Coverage Type Coverage Coverage (ac) Percent Percent (ac) (ac) Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 0.52 11.56 0 0 -0.52 Successional Southern Hardwood Forest 0.44 9.78 0 0 -0.44 Tidal Waters 0.58 12.89 0.58 12.89 0.00 Landscaped 0.77 17.11 1.60 35.56 0.83 Unvegetated 0.50 11.11 0 0 -0.50 Impervious 1.69 37.56 2.32 51.56 0.63 TOTAL 4.50 100.00 4.50 100.00 ---

Page 2-65 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

No natural vegetation will remain on the Canal Property; however, the 1.60 acres of landscaped vegetation is expected to provide habitat for some species to remain that are tolerant and/or dependent on human activity and are adapted to surviving in multiple habitat types.

In the short term, lands adjacent to the property will experience an increase in the abundance of some wildlife populations due to displacement of individuals by the construction phase of the proposed project. Mobile species would be expected to find suitable habitat south of the site where larger areas of natural open space currently remain. Ultimately, competition with both conspecifics and other species already utilizing the resources of the surrounding lands would be expected to result in a net decrease in population size for most species. While some habitat will be provided through site landscaping, site-specific populations will decrease from the loss of woodland habitat/fragmentation. It is anticipated that species that prefer edge habitats will be prevalent within the proposed development.

2.3.2.3 Eastern Parcel

The change in habitat quantities is listed in Table 2-11c. As illustrated in the table, the planned development will ultimately provide approximately 70% of naturally vegetated area as well as 1.49% of impervious surfaces and 28.73% landscaped. As a result, the site will continue to provide some natural habitat for wildlife, though the removal of the existing woodland vegetation on the property is expected to result in a change in the characteristics of site habitat.

Table 2-11c CHANGES IN HABITAT QUANTITIES, Eastern Property

Existing Conditions Proposed Project Change Coverage Type Coverage (ac) Percent Coverage (ac) Percent (ac) Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 2.68 100.00 1.87 69.78 -0.81 Impervious 0 0.00 0.04 1.49 +0.04 Landscaped 0 0.00 0.77 28.73 +0.77 TOTAL 2.68 100.00 2.68 100.00 ---

Wildlife The habitat on the Eastern Property is comprised of Pitch Pine-Oak forest. The property is not expected to act as a refuge for rare native flora or fauna, but does contain a small population of local birds and mammals, such as chipmunks and deer. The proposed project will favor those wildlife species that prefer edge and suburban habitats and those that are tolerant of human activity. Most of the species expected on the property are at least somewhat tolerant of human

Page 2-66 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS activity, but others will be impacted by the proposed clearing operation and increase in human activity.

A total of 1.87 acres of natural vegetation is proposed to remain on the site. In the short term, lands adjacent to the property will experience an increase in the abundance of some wildlife populations due to displacement of individuals by the construction phase of the proposed project. Mobile species and particularly large mammals such as fox and deer would be expected to find suitable habitat south of the site where larger areas of natural open space currently remain. Ultimately, competition with both conspecifics and other species already utilizing the resources of the surrounding lands would be expected to result in a net decrease in population size for most species. While a significant portion (69.78%) of the existing habitat will remain, site-specific populations may decrease from the loss of interior woodland habitat/fragmentation of large contiguous areas that certain species prefer. It is anticipated that species that prefer edge habitats will be prevalent within the proposed development.

2.3.2.4 Regulatory Conditions

The Canal Property contains and adjoins a NYSDEC tidal wetland. As the proposed development is located behind a bulkhead and rip-rap wall that have existed since prior to 1977 and a portion of the development that is not behind structures is located above the 10 foot contour, a determination of non-jurisdiction has been requested from NYSDEC under Article 25 of the ECL. Correspondence to the NYSDEC detailing the basis for jurisdictional boundaries and a determination of non-jurisdiction on the Canal Property are provided Appendix M-4. As noted, any further information will be part of the EIS review process.

As previously indicated, it is assumed that the Town’s jurisdiction on the Canal Property is 50 feet from surface waters as the site is stabilized by rip-rap and a bulkhead. As such, any improvements proposed within 50 feet of the AHW line is subject to a Town permit. It is noted that as no vegetated tidal wetlands occur on the Canal Property, no impacts to vegetated wetlands will occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project will provide further stabilization to the shoreline and provide containment of runoff currently discharging to Shinnecock Canal, further reducing impacts to the canal.

Sea Level Rise The site is in an area that is suitable for development with respect to wetlands, surface water and floodplains, and consequently is not expected to experience significant impacts from sea level rise. As noted, Figure 2-7 presents a map prepared by the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force to illustrate areas that would be at risk for flooding due to sea level rise. The subject site is not within an area identified on this map.

Furthermore, at the current estimated rate of sea level rise, (2.39 to 2.77 millimeter/year), an increase of 5.16 centimeters (2-1/16 inches) may be experienced over the next 20 years. Given the site’s position with respect to surface water features, no impact is expected in this intermediate term.

Page 2-67 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The majority of the subject site is above an elevation of 10 feet and as noted on the map, is not considered to be at risk per the NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force map. Section 2.1.1.1 documented test borings at the site indicating that the depth to groundwater in the lower elevation areas where drainage would be installed is greater than 10 feet. As noted in Section 2.2.2.2, site drainage will conform with best management practice for groundwater protection and all drainage systems will be installed in conformance with Town engineering requirements for vertical leaching and elevation of systems above the water table. Given the elevation of the site, the lack of designation of the site as an area at risk for flooding due to sea level rise, and the design of the drainage system in conformance with Town engineering requirements, no significant adverse impacts expected to groundwater, surface water or the Shinnecock Bay ecosystem as a result of the project.

2.3.2.5 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

As previously stated, the New York Natural Heritage Program identified one record of known occurrences of rare or state-listed plants, and two records of threatened/endangered birds on or in the vicinity of the subject site. As the project sites do not contain suitable habitats for any of the species listed, no impacts are anticipated in association with the listed species. No exploitably vulnerable plant species were identified on any of the subject properties. Exploitably vulnerable plant species are protected primarily because they are indiscriminately collected, rather than due to rarity within the State. The presence of these plants, if encountered during future site visits, would not preclude development of the site, as a property owner is permitted to remove exploitably vulnerable plant species from a site.

No rare or endangered wildlife species are expected on the site given the habitats present. The Eastern box turtle and eastern spadefoot toad are the only species potentially expected on-site which are listed as special concern species. Although there is documented concern about their welfare in New York State, these species receive no additional legal protection under ECL Section 11-0535. This category is presented primarily to enhance public awareness of these species that bear additional attention (6NYCRR §182.2(u) and 6NYCRR §182.2(x))).

2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation

General  Disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, including delineating tree- clearing limits, prior to construction in order to avoid inadvertent clearing.

CPI Property  Native plant species that provide food and shelter to wildlife will be utilized in some of the landscaped areas.  No known invasive plant species will be utilized, including those species listed in Resolution 614-2007 enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature. A copy of Resolution 614-2007 is included in Appendix M-6.

Page 2-68 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Canal Property  Native plant species that provide food and shelter to wildlife will be utilized in some of the landscaped areas.  No known invasive plant species will be utilized, including those species listed in Resolution 614-2007 enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature. A copy of Resolution 614-2007 is included in Appendix M-6.

Eastern Property  The retention of 1.87 acres of Pitch Pine-Oak forest will continue to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area.

Page 2-69 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 3.0

HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

3.1 Transportation

Appendix N-1 contains the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared in October 2012 for the proposed project. The following descriptions and discussions of existing conditions, anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation measures have been taken from that document.

The TIS was submitted to the Town in November 2012 as part of the Draft EIS. The TIS was reviewed by the Town’s traffic consultant, Cashin Associates, which resulted in a number of minor comments, including additional analysis related to accidents, the locations of the vehicle accesses, conformance to plan recommendations, and provision of amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. The applicant’s traffic engineer prepared a response letter, which is contained herein in Appendix N-2.

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

Purpose of Report This report summarizes the results of a detailed investigation of the traffic impacts of the proposed development by reviewing the area’s existing roadway characteristics and traffic conditions, estimating the vehicular volume and pattern that the proposed development will generate during peak hours, and analyzing the effect of the additional volume on the surrounding roadway network.

Traffic Volume Data Turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections during the weekday AM (7:00- 9:00 AM), PM (4:00-7:00 PM) on Wednesday and Friday July 11th and 13th, 2012 and on Saturday and Sunday July 14th and 15th, 2012 from 3:00 – 7:00 PM. The traffic counts were conducted in July since July is the peak month in the study area. Therefore the traffic volumes do not require any adjustment for seasonal variations. The manual turning movement traffic were tabulated and summarized. Table 3-1 summarizes the traffic volumes obtained.

As can be seen from the review of Table 3-1, the Wednesday and Friday counts are similar with the Friday counts slightly higher during the PM peak hour and the Wednesday counts slightly higher during the AM peak hour. The traffic counts for all the four days were utilized in the traffic analyses. The existing traffic volumes were not adjusted for seasonal fluctuation since the seasonal factor for the month of the counts is the highest during the year. The existing intersection peak hour volumes obtained in July 2012 are shown on Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and detailed data in Appendix A [of Appendix N-1].

Existing Site Trips The Canoe Place Inn Site was formally developed with 5 cottages, 28 hotel units (Inn) and a night club with a rated occupancy of 1,857 people. The buildings on the site are currently vacant and will be rehabilitated as part of the proposed project to maintain the 5 cottages and the inn containing 20 units and develop the restaurant and catering facility portion of the project. Table 3-2a is a summary of the estimated trip generation for CPI if it was in operation. It can be seen that the existing CPI

Page 3-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-1 COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Intersection Wednesday Saturday Friday July Sunday July July 11th July 14th 13th Traffic 15th Traffic Traffic Traffic Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes AM PM AM PM PM PM CR 80 at Canoe 1,668 2,122 1,629 2,210 1,965 1,678 Place Rd. CR 80 at 1,743 2,106 1,612 2,139 1,951 1,679 Newtown Rd. CR 80 at North 1,594 1,998 1,524 2,085 1,770 1,697 Shore Road North Shore Road at Canal 439 816 517 892 808 773 Rd. Newtown Road 184 218 176 220 337 183 at Holzman Dr.

Table 3-2a TRIP GENERATION, Existing CPI Property

Night Club Total 5 Cottages (1,857 Time Period Distribution Inn (28 units) people rated occupancy) Enter 11 0 0 11 AM Peak Hour Exit 8 2 0 10 Total 19 2 0 21 Enter 10 2 0 12 PM Peak Hour Exit 10 1 0 11 Total 20 3 0 23 Enter 14 1 279* 297 Saturday Peak Exit 11 1 23* 35 Hour Total 25 2 302* 332 Enter 10 1 0 11 Sunday Peak Exit 11 1 0 13 Hour Total 21 2 0 23 * The trips generated by the nightclub was estimated based on rated occupancy using the following assumptions: - A 75% peak occupancy rate (0.75*1857 = 1393 occupants - An average vehicle occupancy of 3 persons per vehicles (1393/3 = 465 vehicles) - Assume no trips for weekday AM, weekday PM, and Sunday peak hours - Assume 60% of trips arrive during the Saturday peak hour (0.6*465 = 279 trips) - Assume 5% of the trips depart during the Saturday peak hour (0.05*465 = 23 trips)

Page 3-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

could have generated 21 trips during the AM peak hour (11 entering, 10 exiting), 23 trips during the PM peak hour (12 entering, 11 exiting), 302 trips during the Saturday peak hour (297 entering, 35 exiting) and 23 trips during the Sunday peak hour (11 entering and 13 exiting). It is therefore noted that the traffic that could have been generated by the CPI portion of the project if they were in operation could have been part of the existing traffic stream. However, since these uses are not currently in operation, they are treated as new uses on the site and no credit was taken for their traffic generation.

The Canal Property is currently occupied by two restaurants (Tiderunners restaurant containing a total 361 seats and a steakhouse containing a total of 100 seats), a Bait and Tackle Shop (3,238 SF ground floor and 3,238 SF 2nd floor storage), and a multi-family residence with two apartments. These existing uses will be removed in order to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the traffic volumes associated with these uses were quantified and then subtracted from the 2014 No Build volumes. Table3-2b summarizes the traffic generated by these existing uses. As can be seen from the review of Table 3-2b, it can be seen that the existing uses on the Canal Property site generates 39 trips during the AM peak hour (23 entering, 16 exiting), 131 trips during the PM peak hour (83 entering, 48 exiting), 155 trips during the Saturday peak hour (89 entering, 66 exiting) and 113 trips during the Sunday peak hour (70 entering and 43 exiting).

Table 3-2b TRIP GENERATION, Existing Canal Property

Tiderunners Steakhouse Bait & Residences Total Time Period Distribution Restaurant 100 seats Tackle Shop (2 units) 361 seats 3,238 SF Enter 9 2 11 1 23 AM Peak Hour Exit 2 1 12 1 16 Total 11 3 23 2 39 Enter 61 17 4 1 83 PM Peak Hour Exit 33 9 5 1 48 Total 94 26 9 2 131 Enter 69 19 0 1 89 Saturday Peak Exit 51 14 0 1 66 Hour Total 120 33 0 2 155 Enter 54 15 0 1 70 Sunday Peak Exit 33 9 0 1 43 Hour Total 87 24 0 2 113

Existing Conditions Analysis The peak hour traffic volumes depicted in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were used to determine the existing capacity and LOS [level of service] of the study intersections. Table 5 [of Appendix N-1] contains the LOS summary for the Existing Condition calculated through the HCS software described previously. The detailed analysis worksheets are in Appendix E [of Appendix N-1].

Montauk Highway (CR 80) and Canoe Place Road - Canoe Place Road intersects Montauk Highway to form a T-intersection with the northbound Canoe Place Road leg being under stop-control. The

Page 3-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

northbound Canoe Place Road approach provides one lane for left turn movements and one lane for right turn movements. The eastbound Montauk Highway approach provides one lane for through movements and one lane for right turn movements. The westbound Montauk Highway approach provides one lane for left turn/U-turn movements and one lane for through movements. During the 2012 Existing Condition the westbound left turn/U-turn movement operates at good LOS B during the analyzed peak periods. The northbound Canoe Place Road left turn movement operates at failing LOS F during the analyzed peak periods and the northbound Canoe Place Road right turn movement operates at a failing LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour, and at LOS C the weekday PM, Saturday and Sunday peak hours.

Montauk Highway (CR 80) at Newtown Road (CR 62) - Newtown Road intersects Montauk Highway to form a T-intersection. At the intersection Newtown Road is one way northbound. Newtown Road is two-way just north of the intersection. Southbound Newtown Road vehicles access Montauk Highway westbound via a ramp. The eastbound Montauk Highway approach provides one lane for left turn movements and one lane for through movements. The westbound Montauk Highway approach provides one lane for through movements and one lane for right turn movements. During the 2012 Existing Condition, the eastbound Montauk Highway left turn movement operates at LOS B or better during the analyzed peak periods.

Montauk Highway (CR 80) and North Shore Road (CR 39) - North Shore Road intersects Montauk Highway to form a T-intersection with the southbound North Shore Road leg being stop-controlled. The southbound North Shore Road approach provides one lane for left turn movements and one lane for right turn movements. The eastbound Montauk Highway approach provides one channelized left turn lane and one through lane and the westbound Montauk Highway approach provides one through lane and one channelized right turn lane. During the 2012 Existing Condition, the eastbound Montauk Highway left turn movement operates at LOS B or better during the analyzed peak periods. The southbound North Shore Road left turn movement operates at failing LOS F during the analyzed peak periods. The southbound North Shore Road right turn movement operates at LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour and at a failing LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday and Sunday peak hours, the southbound North Shore Road right turn movement operates at LOS D and C respectively.

North Shore Road (CR 39) at Canal Road – NYS Route 27 Ramp - Canal Road - NYS Route 27 Ramp intersects North Shore Road to form a four leg intersection with the eastbound Canal Road and westbound NYS Route 27 Ramp legs being stop-controlled. All the approaches to the intersection provide one lane for all movements. During the 2012 Existing Condition, all the approach movements to this intersection operate at LOS C or better except for the westbound NYS Route 27 Ramp approach that operate at LOS E during the Friday PM peak hour.

Newtown Road (CR 62) at Holzman Drive - Holzman Drive intersects Newtown Road to form a T- intersection with the eastbound Holzman Drive leg being stop-controlled. All the approaches to the intersection provide one lane for all movements. During the 2012 Existing Condition, all the approach movements to this intersection operate at LOS A during the analyzed peak periods.

Page 3-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts

Site Access Access to the Canoe Place Inn portion of the project will be provided via one full movement driveway on Newtown Road and one rights in/rights out driveway on Montauk Highway west of the service road that connects Newtown Road to Montauk Highway. Access to the Canal Property portion of the project will be provided via two full movement driveways from North Shore Road.

Sight Distance Sight distance measurements were performed at the proposed Newtown Road access and easterly driveway on Montauk Highway due to concerns regarding horizontal and vertical curvature (see Table 3-3). The posted speed limit on Newtown Road is 30 miles per hour and the posted speed limit on Montauk Highway is 45 miles per hour. The available sight distance at each of the access points was recorded and compared with the recommendations contained in the reference, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published in 2011 by AASHTO [American Association of State Highway Traffic Officials].

Table 3-3 SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT

Recommended Recorded

Driveway Sight Distance (feet) Sight Distance (feet) Right Turn Right turn Newtown Road Access 335 390

Montauk Highway Access 480 725

As can be seen from the review of Table 3-3 above, both the Newtown Road and Montauk Highway access points exceed the recommended sight distance for right turn vehicles exiting the site. No sight distance analyses was done for the left turning vehicles from the Newtown Road access since the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road can be seen from the site access.

Trip Generation In order to identify the impacts the proposed development will have on the adjacent street system, it is necessary to estimate the magnitude of traffic volume to be generated during the peak hours and to estimate the directional distribution of that site traffic when entering and exiting the subject property. The Canoe Place Inn portion of the proposed project located on the northwest corner of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road will contain an Inn (20 units), 5 cottages, a catering hall (350 seats) and a restaurant (70 indoor seats, 20 seats for the bar and 120 outdoor seats for seasonal use). The Canal Property portion of the project located on the northwest corner of North Shore Road at Montauk Highway will contain 40 townhouse units. Trip generation data of related land uses contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ [ITE] publication, Trip Generation, Eighth Edition were obtained and compared to determine the most appropriate land use that will correspond with the proposed developments. Due to the unavailability of trip generation data for catering (banquet) facilities in the ITE trip generation manual, further research was conducted to determine which Land Uses within the ITE trip generation manual have similar trip generation characteristics to catering facilities. From our review, High Quality restaurants have similar characteristic to catering halls.

Page 3-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

According to ITE, the Land Use Code Quality Restaurants “consists of high quality, full–service eating establishments with typical turnover rates of at least one hour or longer. Quality Restaurants generally do not serve breakfast; some do not serve lunch; all serve diner. This type of restaurant usually requires reservation and is generally not part of a chain. Patrons commonly wait to be seated, are served by a waiter/waitress, order from menus and pay for meals after they eat.” Quality restaurants are similar to catering facilities; however, the arrival and departure rates are more dispersed for Quality Restaurants. In the case of catering halls, patrons will arrive over a short period of time and stay for a longer period of time (2 to 4 hours). Trip generation studies conducted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation to determine what type of Access Permit is needed from applicants requesting access from State Roads showed that Banquet facilities has a trip generation rate of 0.3 trips per seat during the PM peak hour. This rate is consistent with the rate for Quality Restaurant contained in the ITE trip generation manual. Therefore, the trip generation rate for Quality Restaurant contained in the ITE tip generation manual was utilized for the catering facility in this project. However, to perform a conservative analysis, it is assumed that, 80% of the trips arrive and 20% of the trips depart during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 3-4 summarizes the trip generation data for land uses obtained from ITE.

The ITE LUC [Land Use Code] 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) was used for the townhouses and cottages. LUC 310 (Hotel) was used for the inn portion of the project and LUC 931 (Quality Restaurant) was utilized for the restaurant and bar portion of the project. As can be seen from the review of Table 3-4 below, it is anticipated that the proposed development will generate 58 trips during the AM peak hour (25 entering, 33 exiting), 191 trips during the PM peak hour (137 entering, 54 exiting), 259 trips during the Saturday peak hour (147 entering, 112 exiting) and 212 trips during the Sunday peak hour (122 entering and 90 exiting). Trip generation work sheets are included in Appendix C [of Appendix N-1].

Table 3-4 TRIP GENERATION

Canal Canoe Place Inn Property Inn (20 5 Cottages Catering Hall Restaurant Townhouses Total units) ITE LUC (350 seats) (210 seats) (40 units) Time Period Distribution ITE LUC 230 ITE LUC 931 ITE LUC 931 ITE LUC 230 310 Enter 8 0 9 4 4 25 AM Peak Hour Exit 6 2 2 2 21 33 Total 14 2 11 6 25 58 Enter 7 2 73 36 19 137 PM Peak Hour Exit 7 1 18 19 9 54 Total 14 3 91 55 28 191 Enter 10 1 67 40 29 147 Saturday Peak Exit 8 1 49 29 25 112 Hour Total 18 2 116 69 54 259 Enter 7 1 53 32 29 122 Sunday Peak Exit 8 1 32 19 30 90 Hour Total 15 2 85 51 59 212 Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, published by ITE

Page 3-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As previously outlined in Section 3.1.1, and shown in Tables 3-2a and 3-2b, existing trips are subtracted from the total traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed project (CPI and Canal Property) to estimate the new trips that will be added on the surrounding roadway network by the proposed project. Table 3-5 depicts the new trips that will be generated by the proposed project.

It can be seen from the comparison of Tables 3-4 and 3-2b that the traffic generated by the proposed 40 condominium units on the Canal Property site is significantly lower that the traffic currently utilizing the uses on the site. Therefore the proposed condominium project is a less intense use.

As can be seen from the review of Table 3-5, it is anticipated that the proposed development will generate 19 new trips during the AM peak hour (2 entering, 17 exiting), 60 new trips during the PM peak hour (54 entering, 6 exiting), 104 trips during the Saturday peak hour (58 entering, 46 exiting) and 99 trips during the Sunday peak hour (52 entering and 47 exiting).

Table 3-5 TOTAL NEW TRIPS GENERATED, Proposed Project

CPI and Canal Property Total Trips New Trips Total Trips generated by Generated by Generated Time Period Distribution Existing uses on Proposed by Proposed the Canal Project Project Property site Enter 25 23 2 AM Peak Hour Exit 33 16 17 Total 58 39 19 Enter 137 83 54 PM Peak Hour Exit 54 48 6 Total 191 131 60 Enter 147 89 58 Saturday Peak Exit 112 66 46 Hour Total 259 155 104 Enter 122 70 52 Sunday Peak Exit 90 43 47 Hour Total 212 113 99

Traffic Impact Analysis As stated previously, the intersection capacity and LOS analyses were based on the procedures and guidelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010), published by the Transportation Research Board. The FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2010) was used to analyze the study intersections and provide a LOS measurement of the intersection operations. The six classes of LOS, ranging from LOS A (excellent) to F (worst), are defined in Appendix D [of Appendix N-1].

Tables 13 through 15[of Appendix N-1] illustrate the LOS summaries for the study intersections.

Page 3-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Montauk Highway (CR 80) at Canoe Place Road - During the No Build Condition the westbound left turn movement and the northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road operate at LOS B and F respectively during the analyzed peak periods (AM and PM peak hours for Wednesday and Friday, Saturday peak hour and Sunday peak hour). The northbound right turn movement operates at LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour and at LOS C or better during the weekday PM, Saturday and Sunday peak hours. After the completion of the project, the intersection will continue to operate at No Build LOS conditions during the analyzed peak periods. Therefore the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of this intersection.

Montauk Highway (CR 80) at Newtown Road (CR 62) - During the No Build Condition the eastbound left turn movement at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road will operate at LOS A and C during the weekday AM and PM peak hours respectively and at LOS B during the Saturday and Sunday peak hours. After the completion of the project, the intersection will continue to operate at No Build LOS conditions during the analyzed peak periods. Therefore the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of this intersection.

Montauk Highway (CR 80) at North Shore Road (CR 39) - During the No Build Condition the eastbound Montauk Highway left turn movement at the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road will operate at LOS B or better during the analyzed peak hours. During the No Build Condition the southbound North Shore Road left turn movement operates at failing LOS F during the analyzed peak periods and the southbound North Shore Road right turn movement operates at a LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour, a failing LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour, at LOS E during the Saturday peak hour, and at LOS C during the Sunday peak hour. As previously mentioned, the proposed residential development on the Canal Property site will generate less traffic than the current uses on the site. Therefore constructing the proposed project will result in less traffic at this intersection. After the completion of the project, the intersection will continue to operate at No Build LOS Condition during the analyzed peak periods with less traffic delays.

North Shore Road (CR 39) at Canal Road –NYS Route 27 Ramp - During the No Build Condition, all the approach movements to this intersection operate at LOS C or better except for the westbound NYS Route 27 Ramp approach that operate at LOS E during the Friday PM peak hour. After the completion of the project the intersection will continue to operate at No Build LOS. Therefore the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of this intersection.

Newtown Road (CR 62) at Holzman Drive - During the No Build Condition, all the approach movements to this intersection operate at LOS B or better during the analyzed peak periods and will continue to do so after the construction of the proposed project. Therefore the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of this intersection.

Newtown Road (CR 62) at Site Driveway - After the completion of the project, all the traffic movements at this intersection will operate at LOS B or better during the analyzed peak hours.

Montauk Highway at Site Driveway - After the completion of the project the driveway on the Montauk Highway service road connecting Newtown Road to Montauk Highway will operate at LOS A during the analyzed peak periods.

Page 3-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

North Shore Road (CR 39) at North and South Site Driveways - After the completion of the project the north and south driveways on the North Shore Road will operate at LOS C or better during the analyzed peak periods.

The TIS concludes as follows:

Based on the results of the TIS… it is the professional opinion of Nelson & Pope that the construction of the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of the study intersections.

Parking Requirement As shown on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, a total of 80 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed 40 townhouse units (2 parking spaces per unit). However, based on the Town of Southampton Parking Code, a total of 100 parking spaces are required for this number of townhouse units.

In order to determine the peak parking demand of this type of use, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th edition manual was reviewed, to determine the parking rate data for Condominium/Townhouse land uses. According to the ITE Parking Generation manual, the peak parking demand for Condominium/Townhouse use is 1.52 vehicles per dwelling unit. Based on this parking rate, the peak parking demand for the proposed 40 townhouse unit will be 61 parking spaces. It is therefore expected that, based on this professional reference, the 80 parking spaces provided will be adequate to meet the peak parking demand for this property.

3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation

 The TIS prepared for the proposed project concludes that the proposed project will not significantly impact the operation of the study intersections. As a result, no mitigation measures are necessary or proposed.

3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

3.2.1.1 Land Use

CPI Property The CPI Property is comprised of two tax lots totaling 5.65 acres on the corner of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road. The site is currently occupied by a large, old and deteriorated structure that has a rated occupancy of 1,857 persons. The building is not built to current building code standards and was mostly recently utilized as a nightclub. The CPI building has become an eyesore and an attractive nuisance. There are also five individual cottages on the west part of the site that are vacant, subject to vandalism and unauthorized use and are in extreme disrepair. Current land use at the CPI Property and surrounding area is described based

Page 3-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

on aerial photographs and visual observations (see Figure 3-1). The subject site is surrounded by transportation corridors, commercial, recreation and single-family residences, as follows:

North: Utility (LIPA transmission lines), Transportation corridor (LIRR ROW), Eleanor Avenue, medium density residential/single-family residences South: Montauk Highway (CR 80), medium and high density residential uses, general and marine commercial uses, gas station East: Public open space (Shinnecock Canal Park), Shinnecock Canal West: Low density residential/single family residences, mixed highway business uses

Canal Property The Canal Property is a 4.50-acre parcel comprised of four tax lots (including one 0.52-acre underwater lot), located north of Montauk Highway directly adjacent to the eastern shore of the Shinnecock Canal. The Canal Property contains two restaurants, a bait shop, a two-story house with two apartments and a marina. Current land use at the Canal Property and surrounding area is described based on aerial photographs and visual observations (see Figure 3-1). The subject site is surrounded by the following land uses:

North: Transportation corridor (LIRR ROW), medium density residential/single-family residences South: Montauk Highway (CR 80), medium density residential/single-family residences, commercial/marina uses East: North Shore Road (CR 39), Eastern Parcel, low density residential/single-family residences and motel West: Shinnecock Canal

Eastern Property The Eastern Property is a 2.68-acre property comprised of a single tax lot located north of Montauk Highway and east of North Shore Road. The parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped and is completely wooded. Current land use at the Eastern Property and surrounding area is described based on aerial photographs and visual observations (see Figure 3- 1). The subject site is surrounded by transportation corridors and single-family residences, as follows:

North: Low density residential/single-family residences South: Canoe Place Road, Montauk Highway (CR 80), vacant undeveloped land East: Low density residential/single-family residences, Wildwood Lane West: North Shore Road (CR 39), Canal Property and Shinnecock Canal

The land use pattern in the vicinity of the three subject properties is generally characterized by commercial (along Montauk Highway), recreational (along Shinnecock Canal) and residential uses (north and south of Montauk Highway). As previously mentioned, Hampton Bays has a vibrant business district along Montauk Highway which begins with some highway business uses about 0.75 miles west of the CPI Property and includes the Hampton Bays Town Center, community use building, a theatre, supermarket, restaurants, and a variety of businesses that serve a multitude of local needs. The Hampton Bays station of the LIRR is located in the heart

Page 3-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS of this business district south of the LIRR and Montauk Highway and west of Ponquogue Avenue. The Macy’s shopping center is located 1.75 miles to the west of the CPI Property at the northwest corner of Montauk Highway and NYS Route 24; this center serves both local and regional needs with a number of retail stores, food/beverage and service oriented uses.

3.2.1.2 Zoning

CPI Property The CPI Property is located within the Resort Waterfront Business (RWB) zoning district. Permitted uses in the RWB district include the following:

 Dwelling lawfully existing prior to the adoption of this chapter  Church or similar place of worship  Park, playground or recreational area when authorized or operated by municipality  Public library or museum  Fire station, municipal office or any governmental building of similar character  School, elementary or high public, denominational or private, nonprofit, operated or licensed by New York State Education Department  Bus passenger shelter  Agriculture, excluding animal husbandry  Restaurant, standard  Restaurant, take-out  Customary accessory structures and/or uses, except those prohibited by this chapter  Home professional office  Private garages or private off-street parking  Private mooring, docks or similar marine structures in tidal wetlands or walkways over the dunes on an ocean beach  Private swimming pools  Signs  Greenhouses, private  Accessory apartment

The current zoning of the CPI Property and surrounding area is described based inspection of the Town Zoning Map (see Figure 3-2), as follows:

North: R15 Residence South: RWB, HB Highway Business East: RWB West: R20 Residence, HB Highway Business

Table 3-6a shows the dimensional requirements for the RWB zoning district which applies to both the CPI and Canal Properties.

Page 3-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-6a ZONING REQUIREMENTS, RWB Zone CPI & Canal Properties

Requirement RWB Minimum lot area (SF) 40,000 Maximum lot coverage by main and accessory buildings (%) 20 Lot width, minimum (feet) 150 Maximum height (feet/stories) 2/35 Minimum front yard (feet) 60 Minimum side yard, minimum for one (feet) 50 Minimum side yard, total for both on interior lot (feet) 100 Minimum side yard, abutting street on corner lot (feet) 60 Minimum rear yard (feet) 50 Minimum distance from street; yards, accessory buildings and structures (feet) 60 Minimum distance from rear line; yards, accessory buildings and structures (feet) 50

An as-of-right yield was estimated based on the current zoning of the site. The As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canoe Place prepared for the site estimated that a 49,187 SF/338 seat restaurant could be accommodated on the property under current zoning.

Canal Property The Canal Property is also located within the Resort Waterfront Business (RWB) zoning district. The current zoning of Canal Property and surrounding area is described based inspection of the Town Zoning Map (see Figure 3-2), as follows:

North: RWB South: RWB East: MTL Motel West: RWB

An as-of-right yield was estimated based on the current zoning of the site. The As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal West Parcel prepared for the site estimated that a 17,176 SF/238 seat restaurant could be accommodated on the property under current zoning.

Eastern Property The Eastern Property is located within the MTL Motel zoning district. Permitted uses in the MTL district include the following:

 1-family detached dwelling, new  Dwelling lawfully existing prior to the adoption of this chapter  Church or similar place of worship  Park, playground or recreational area when authorized or operated by municipality  Public library or museum  Fire station, municipal office or any governmental building of similar character

Page 3-12 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 School, elementary or high public, denominational or private, nonprofit, operated or licensed by New York State Education Department  Philanthropic, fraternal, social or educational institutional office or meeting room, nonprofit  Agriculture, excluding animal husbandry  Restaurant, standard  Restaurant, take-out  Accommodations for not more than 2 roomers or boarders in 1-family detached dwelling, provided that separate kitchen and entrance facilities shall not be provided  Customary accessory structures and/or uses, except those prohibited by this chapter  Home professional office  Private garages or private off-street parking  Private swimming pools  Signs  Greenhouses, private  Accessory apartment

The current zoning of Eastern Property and surrounding area is described based inspection of the Town Zoning Map (see Figure 3-2), as follows:

North: MTL R60 Residence South: MTL, RWB East: R60 Residence, R40 Residence West: RWB

Table 3-6b shows the dimensional requirements for the MTL zoning district that apply to the Eastern Property only.

Table 3-6b ZONING REQUIREMENTS, MTL Zone Eastern Property

Requirement MTL Minimum lot area (SF) 40,000 Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (SF) 40,000 Maximum lot coverage by main and accessory buildings (%) 20 Lot width, minimum (feet) 150 Maximum height (feet/stories) 2/35 Minimum front yard (feet) 60 Minimum side yard, minimum for one (feet) 50 Minimum side yard, total for both on interior lot (feet) 100 Minimum side yard, abutting street on corner lot (feet) 60 Minimum rear yard (feet) 50 Minimum distance from street; yards, accessory buildings and structures (feet) 60 Minimum distance from rear line; yards, accessory buildings and structures (feet) 50

Page 3-13 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

An as-of-right yield was estimated based on the current zoning of the site. The As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal East Parcel prepared for the site estimated that a 21,032 SF/160 seat restaurant could be accommodated on the property.

3.2.1.3 Land Use Plans

Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District (1997) The subject properties lie within the area identified in the Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District Final Recommended Plan. The major objective of the Plan is to make use of the prime canal area to its optimum practical potential. The goals of the study are as follows:

1. Maintaining a scale of development that is compatible with the surrounding community. 2. Improving visual quality through improvements to: a. Landscaping, b. Street signage, c. Architectural design, and d. Lighting. 3. Expanding public access to the waterfront and connectedness to the coast. 4. Developing the waterfront as a focus point for community and regional activities. 5. Building upon existing historic, cultural and natural characteristics to create a unique sense of place for the Shinnecock waterfront area.

The Shinnecock Canal Recommended Plan is shown in Figure 3-3. The figure depicts the transportation and pedestrian circulation intended within the study area. The pedestrian route includes the frontage of the CPI Property and along the waterfront on the Canal Property. The Plan identifies the CPI Property, as well as the parcel to the west of the site, as recommended for Lodging Commercial and an estate conference center on the CPI Property. The Canal Property is recommended for theme development. The Eastern Property is recommended for rezoning for housing for detached cottages.

An exterior survey of building conditions was conducted by the Town Department of Land Management staff. The CPI Property was identified in the report as “one of the few problematic buildings within the study area.”

Town Comprehensive Plan Update (1999) The overall Town Comprehensive Plan consists of the Town’s zoning law and zoning map, the zoning and planning decisions of the Town, and plans and studies that provide guidance for development within Southampton. The Town prepared a Comprehensive Plan Update document in 1999 that outlines various goals under general categories that include:

 Residential living,  Development and design,  Economic development,  Transportation; and

Page 3-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Environmental protection.

The goals of the Comprehensive Plan Update that apply to the project include:

1. The Town will protect its valuable natural, historic and scenic resources. 2. The Town will maintain the existing nature of the local economy, while working to enhance the diversity of the economy for the future, particularly in the areas of tourism and the second home industry, by protecting the Town’s character and quality of place. 3. Devise strategies to maintain the historic character of the Town’s hamlets and rural areas, with an increased emphasis on protecting historic landscapes and settings as well as individual structures. 4. Focus future visitor promotion on the shoulder seasons and on attractions that do not substantially increase summer peaks. Further, focus this investment in the western half of town, where there is a greater need for tax ratables and business center revitalization. 5. Promote small-scale overnight accommodations such as B&B’s, inns and conference centers that will provide amenities without substantially increasing visitation. 6. Enhance the Town’s cultural offerings, and the prestige and enjoyment of the Town’s historic, architectural and scenic features. 7. Strengthen the ability of the marine industry, including marinas, to survive and locate in the Town. 8. Provide incentives for non-conforming uses to comply with zoning, or to relocate to other parts of the Town where they would be compatible.

A few key points are noted in the Comprehensive Plan Update that pertain to housing, seasonal activity and economic drivers of the Town. These points pertain directly to the proposed project and are summarized herein. The Town’s primary economic development engine is its second- home owners and renters. Despite this, the year-round resident population provides demand for base services that sustain the local economy. Second-home residents, the largest component of Southampton’s seasonal population, are the most significant force in the local economy. There are nearly 13,000 housing units used for seasonal recreation or occasional use in Southampton, housing an estimated population of 45,000 persons, equal to the number of year-round, permanent residents.

Second-home residents tend to blend characteristics of both the tourist and the year-round populations in terms of spending habits and contribution to the local economy. Second-home residents are strong contributors to the demand for marina and other recreation facilities, entertainment and cultural facilities, as well as restaurants and specialty retail. Second-home owners are a major generator of visitors to the Town, through their guests, the rental of their homes, the amenities noted above, and, it may be argued, by the presence among them of the rich and famous. The second-home sector fuels the Town’s robust contracting/home improvement sector, including construction, renovation, landscaping, lawn/garden care and pool repair/services. This sector even fuels the Town’s active fundraising and catering businesses, as well as demand for domestic help and house sites. In addition, the second-home residents tend to bring more wealth into the community than what they demand back in the form of community services such as schools. They function in a manner similar to a “base industry” importing “new money” into the Town, to buy services and retail goods and to pay property taxes.

Page 3-15 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Program, Comprehensive Management Plan (2001) The New York State Legislature passed the Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Act in 1993 at the urging of Long Islanders concerned about the future health of the South Shore estuary. The Act declared the estuary to be a resource of unparalleled biological, economic and social value, created the South Shore Estuary Reserve (Reserve) and called for its protection and prudent management.

The Act also created the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council (Council), designated the New York Secretary of State as its Chair, and provided for membership representing six South Shore towns, thirty-one villages, Nassau and Suffolk counties, the City of Long Beach, and recreation, business, academic, environmental and citizen interests. The Act also charged the Council with the preparation of a comprehensive management plan for the Reserve.

To assist the Council, the Department of State Division of Coastal Resources gathered information primarily through partnerships with local governments and federal agencies. The information addressed land and embayment uses, the estuarine economy, water quality, living resources, and other aspects of the Reserve. Much of this information was analyzed by the Department of State through geographic information system technology, and this analysis served as a basis for the implementation actions offered in the Plan. All of this information is presented in the series of technical reports and working papers referenced in the Plan.

The Council is pursuing multiple purposes in issuing this Plan:  to recommend management actions for protecting and improving the health of the South Shore estuary, and to expand such efforts;  to sustain cooperation and commitment among all public and private interests with a stake in the estuary;  to build public awareness and understanding about the estuary and the issues that affect its health and vitality, and to involve the public in its management; and  to identify future research in areas where further scientific information is needed to improve management actions.

The Plan document contained five sections, each addressing one specific resource present in the reserve that was of concern to the public and Council. Each of these sections concluded with a number of specific management recommendations for action. The five sections are as follows:

 Improve and Maintain Water Quality  Protect and Restore Living Resources of the Reserve  Expand Public Use and Enjoyment of the Estuary  Sustain and Expand the Estuary-Related Economy  Increase Education, Outreach and Stewardship

A listing of the recommendations that apply to the subject site and/or the proposed project, with discussions of the project’s conformance to each, is contained in Section 3.2.2.3.

Page 3-16 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Town of Southampton Community Preservation Project Plan (April 2005) The Community Preservation Project Plan identifies community preservation target areas, projects, parcels and priorities within the Town. In addition, a summary and evaluation of land use alternatives to protect community character are included in the Plan. The Community Preservation Project Plan identifies 30,062 acres of land as high priorities for preservation through the appropriate land-use alternatives.

The western tax lot on the CPI Property (SCTM Parcel No. 0900-207-05-03) was identified in the Plan as falling within the Village and Hamlet Greens, Parks, Recreation and Open Space target area. This target area provides the opportunity for the Town, in cooperation with the villages and hamlets, to identify projects and parcels that present opportunities to establish traditional greens, parks, recreation areas and other forms of open space. The Plan identified 274 parcels and project areas comprising approximately 365 acres within the Town’s hamlets.

The Canal Property was not specifically identified in this Plan; however, the Eastern Property was identified in the Plan as falling within the Open Space/Greenbelt target area, specifically the Shinnecock Hills Greenway. This area consists of scenic open pine woodlands and maritime heathlands and runs east-west along the railroad and is considered as a future critical linkage for the Paumanok Path. The Eastern Property is categorized as an OSG1 parcel, or those parcels that should have the highest priority for acquisition in order to protect community character. Furthermore, the Eastern Property was identified as a parcel whose acquisition is crucial to secure and complete existing trails. The Paumanok Path is a hiking trail of regional importance that will ultimately extend approximately 125 miles from Rocky Point to Montauk Point and will be the longest trail in Long Island. As of December 2004, approximately 90-95% of the Paumanok Path was in place.

The parcels and project areas outlined in the Preservation Project Plan were identified by the Town Department of Land Management based on the following sources: recommendations compiled as part of the Town’s comprehensive planning process; current zoning and land use studies; an analysis of hamlet land use patterns and conservation opportunities; and specific recommendations advanced by representatives from various hamlet groups.

Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (Revised July 2010) and Draft GEIS The Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan is a concept plan for the long-term vision and short- term approach for the corridor area, focusing on a variety of privately owned properties as well as public initiatives. The Plan also includes an implementation framework based on a description of individual projects that suggests what actions, when, and by whom will lead to desired responses.

The subject properties lie within the eastern sector of the project area. The Planning, Design and Transportation framework for the eastern sector, as laid out in the Plan involves the following:

Transportation: more detailed investigation of major intersections to facilitate traffic movement. While the eastern area does not lend itself to a parallel corridor to Montauk Highway such as Good Ground Road, cross-access agreements in key areas can link parking lots and be implemented over

Page 3-17 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

time. Traffic conflicts in the area west of the rail overpass can be resolved by replacing pull-in parking with a local service road. Bike lanes and pedestrian linkages should be added where feasible.

Land Use: New development should reinforce the desired entry corridor effect. The area around the canal is both underutilized and in need of aesthetic improvement. Expanding the restaurant area on the east side of the canal can add to the attractiveness of the entry. On the west side, the proposed maritime museum offers the opportunity for expanded public access to the canal as well as creation of a new civic space for community use. Careful consideration of the Canoe Place residential proposal should result in integration of development into the adjacent museum and other civic plans to the benefit of both projects. Similar to the western area, major parcels of undeveloped land are recommended for public purchase, and new structures should have a generous minimum setback and parking in the rear.

Landscape design: Again similar to the western sector, in the area in the east leading up to the rail viaduct, a minimum of 50’-0” setback should be provided for new development, keeping existing major trees and limited ground cover up to a 3’-0” height. This should be supplemented by new landscaping, using native trees and plant material, especially new pine trees along the roadway edges, to maintain year round greenery and complement the nature of the existing tree cover in undeveloped parcels. In the area west of the rail overpass, creation of a service lane on the south side of Montauk Highway should feature tree planting and pedestrian walkways.

At the time of preparation of the Strategic Plan, the previous Residences at Canoe Place PDD application was under consideration. The Strategic Plan stated the desire to see the inn building preserved and put to adaptive reuse due to its historic significance and importance to the community. It is noted that this objective was the subject of a petition drive by the Hampton Bays Historical Society, as well as in articles and op-ed pieces in the local media, and a number of public meetings. The following is excerpted from the Plan that addresses this issue:

Ensure that redevelopment of the Canoe Place Inn respects its historic value and significance to the community. Promote its potential to fulfill the heritage tourism objectives of the Town’s 1999 Comprehensive Plan Updated (Strategic Plan, page 16)

Foremost among the concerns about CPI redevelopment is the desire to see the Inn building preserved and put to adaptive reuse. Many in Hampton Bays and elsewhere in Town have advocated for preservation of the Inn building because of its historic significance and meaning to the community. (Strategic Plan, page 45)

The following community goals and objectives for the CPI Property were identified:

 Respecting the “legend” of the place, through such means as adaptive reuse of the existing Inn building, use of appropriately historical architectural styles and features on new construction; and historic exhibits commemorating the site’s significance as the nation’s oldest inn location, its role in the Revolutionary War as the site of Fort Lookout, and the Inn’s 20th century history as host to a long series of celebrities. As the practicability of preserving and reusing the existing building has come into question, review of the PDD application should include an independent assessment from both structural and economic standpoints, with applicable tax credits and funding for preservation taken into account.

Page 3-18 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Continued public access to, and enjoyment of, the site through such uses as a restaurant, catering facility, hotel, conference center, spa, health club, etc.  Use of the facility by a transient, vacationing population rather than adding to the community’s resident population, with its associated fiscal impacts.  Maintaining a scale proportionate to the property and the surrounding community. The massing and height of any new proposal should be analyzed for impacts on area aesthetics and community character, and the review process should include a visual analysis to illustrate the impacts of the proposal from key vantage points. Distribution of new bulk in a series of related buildings with varying sizes is preferred, based on the traditional scheme of a resort complex with main building, subordinate buildings and outlying cottages. Consideration should also be given to the charrette recommendation of abandoning the adjacent service drive to the south in order to increase the area available to expand the existing landscaping.  Use of the site to contribute to the hamlet’s economic activity and vitality. Project review should include an assessment of potential impacts to area businesses.  Address potential impacts and benefits to the planned maritime park across Newtown Road to the east. Although the history of the CPI Property and the maritime history to be celebrated at the park are separate and distinct, the area would benefit from some joint site planning to avoid conflicts in access and circulation, plan for intermodal transportation connections, and ensure that the experience of the park is enhanced, rather than hampered, by the adjacent development.

The Strategic Plan also provides recommendations for the Canal Property. A pedestrian walkway/bikeway loop with bridge connection along Montauk Highway was recommended to connect the Maritime Heritage Center located on the western shore of the Shinnecock Canal to the eastern shore of the canal. The Strategic Plan identifies the existing restaurants on the Canal Property as a potential expansion of such uses into a “Canalside East” complex of shops and restaurants similar to the Gosman’s Dock pierside development in Montauk. A public esplanade along the canal waterfront on the Canal Property was recommended which would allow public pedestrian and water access at a lower level than the private development on the parcel.

3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts

3.2.2.1 Land Use

CPI Property Proposed redevelopment of the CPI Property includes the rehabilitation of the CPI building in a similar use and configuration as its historic conditions, including an inn (20 units), catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, 70-seat (minimum) restaurant with 20-seat bar area and 120-seat (maximum) seasonal outdoor seating, as well as the renovation of the five existing cottages on the property. The intended use of the site is consistent with land use plans outlined in Section 3.2.1.1, as will be discussed in greater detail herein.

Rehabilitation of the CPI building and cottages will be in a similar, if not exact footprint as current conditions. The site will be accessed via a single point of access from Montauk Highway, and one from Newtown Road. Parking will be provided throughout the property (128 spaces), with areas of overflow event parking (108 spaces). Rehabilitation and the continued

Page 3-19 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS public use of the CPI building is a major public benefit that has been identified as being important to the community. The existing character of the property will be retained through maintaining the existing buildings on the site, and the value to the community will be enhanced through rehabilitation of the buildings and public accessibility. There is a significant cost in the renovation, operation and maintenance of the CPI Property, which is provided in exchange for the remaining density requested at the Canal Property, as described below. The design flow for the proposed inn, catering, restaurant and cottages can be accommodated on the CPI Property using conventional sanitary systems grandfathered based upon the most recent use of the site. This flow will be substantially less than the historic flow from the site.

It is anticipated that the facility will be used year-round as demand warrants; however, outdoor uses such as restaurant seating and tents associated with catering activity would be used weather permitting. Consistent with the seasonal nature of the Hamptons area, it is expected that there would be a greater demand for the inn units during the summer months (between Memorial Day and Labor Day). The proposed restaurant (including bar area) will be open to the public year- round. The catering facility would be available via reservation/lease for private events year- round and would be expected to be used for local functions and available for regional, destination and/or tourism related use based on demand.

Canal Property The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 40 high-quality townhouses. All existing buildings and uses on the Canal Property would be eliminated as result of the redevelopment. Nine separate buildings, each housing four, five or six townhouse units, all of which would contain three bedrooms, will be located throughout the Canal Property and the pool will be located in the central portion of the site. The recreation building/amenities is located in the lower basement level of Building 5 and is approximately 6,000 SF in size. The townhomes will be three stories and 35 feet in height. The townhomes will be accessed via a two-way driveway and parking area in the northern portion of the site (serving Building #1 and 2) and a larger one- way in/out driveway in the central portion of the site serving the remaining buildings. The townhomes will be unique and attractive and have a high probability of success in the market as described previously. Also, as outlined in Section 1.1.2.1, the townhomes are expected to attract second home owners and would be subject to greater summer seasonal and tourism-related use potential due to the water enhanced location, access to maritime and other forms of recreation (beaches, boating, fishing golf and parks), and location in the Hamptons with access to tourism- based activities (recreation, shopping, dining, sightseeing). As a result, it is expected that occupants will bring revenue to Hampton Bays and the surrounding area as a result of consumer spending (patronage of business, sales tax, economic ripple effect) and tax revenue, with little burden on community services (especially the school district) during much of the year. The use concept will strengthen the local economy and tax base and reduce burden on services; this is a concept that is promoted in the land use planning documents that the Town has prepared for the Shinnecock Canal area (described later in this section).

The boat basin/marina will be privately used by residents of the proposed townhouses. Continued waterside use of the existing floating dock will be available. The private marina has space for approximately 17 slips that will be available for sale to residents of the townhomes on a first-

Page 3-20 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS come, first-served basis. Annual maintenance fees will be collected for any residents who purchase a slip. Water and electric service will be provided for the marina; however, gasoline and pump-out facilities are not planned or necessary as marina support services are abundant in close proximity to the Canal Property.

Despite the change of use on the Canal Property from mixed commercial uses to residential use, this use is already represented in the vicinity, so that no new land uses would be introduced into the area by the redevelopment. The primary land use effect of the proposal will be to generate additional seasonal multi-family housing to the Town.

Eastern Property The Eastern Property will remain mostly natural and will be used for the Nitrex™ WWTF to be constructed to serve the proposed townhouse units.

3.2.2.2 Zoning

The proposed project includes the three non-contiguous properties and projects so they can be integrated into a unified development plan where the properties relate to one another in terms of density exchange and public benefits. A change of zone to MPDD is proposed on all three properties to provide flexible zoning and public benefits to facilitate the proposed project.

The MPDD is designed to provide flexible residential and/or commercial development with predominately water-dependent or water-enhanced uses, while maximizing the preservation of natural vegetation and resources. Clustering, open space preservation, water access and the most efficient utilization of the waterfront, transportation systems, utilities and public services are intended to be achieved by the MPDD. The intent is to support creative, desirable and coordinated development by providing incentives and flexibility that encourage the use of innovative planning and design techniques.

Permitted uses in the MPDD district include the following:

 Multiple dwellings  Residential condominiums or residential cooperatives, motels, hotels, inns, bed-and-breakfasts  Swimming pools  Beach clubs, marinas and yacht clubs  Parks, playgrounds, trails  Health clubs, spa facilities or other indoor recreation facilities  Waterfront business complex  Maritime museums, outdoor theaters, marine centers/parks, aquariums or similar type of entertainment or cultural facility  Any use not specifically identified above but otherwise permitted or special exception in the existing underlying zoning district  Any other water-dependent or water-enhanced use where it can be demonstrated that such use will be beneficial, compatible and harmonious with the uses of the MPDD and the surrounding

Page 3-21 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

area and where it is further demonstrated that the goals and objectives set forth in this article and the Comprehensive Plan are maintained and furthered.

The Town of Southampton provides dimensional requirements in its Zoning Code; however, in order to allow maximum flexibility in the achievement of the legislative intent for a PDD, the Town recognizes the need to provide flexibility in modifying dimensional standards within the district based on specific land use proposals and provides for this in the local law. Specific dimensional standards for the proposed MPDD will be included as part of the Site Plan application process, and will be determined by the Town Board at that time.

Conformance to the Goals of the Town’s PDD and MPDD Ordinances The proposed project conforms to the Town’s long-term goals for use under the PDD ordinance (Section 330-240E), as well as to the requirements of the MPDD District (Section 330-246E) and the standards for Community Benefits associated with a PDD contained in Section 330-245I and NYS Town Law Section 261-b. The requirements are given below, followed by brief discussions as to whether and how the proposed project conforms to each.

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), Long-Term Goals (Section 330-240E) The various long-term goals which the Town Board wishes to achieve by this legislation are:

1) Preservation and conservation of open space, natural resources, diverse ecological communities, species diversity, and groundwater quality and quantity. The proposed project conforms to this long-term goal to the maximum extent practicable; not all of these resources are present on the project site or found in the vicinity. Specifically, the only open spaces present are on the Eastern Property but are only 2.68 acres in size. The project will retain the majority of this acreage (1.87 acres), but this area is not contiguous to other open spaces, and so any existing open space benefits would not be significantly reduced. Natural resources associated with the project site are mostly related to aquatic resources associated with Shinnecock Canal and nearby bays. Potential water resources-related impacts from the project would occur from uncontrolled stormwater runoff flowing into the canal; however, as required by Town regulations, no such impact would occur, as all runoff must and will be retained on-site, in a system that will be subject to the prior review and approval of the Town. As the subject properties are non-contiguous and small (and two are already developed), the value of any ecological communities present and/or species diversity would be low; the only natural habitat present is on the Eastern Property, almost all of which will be retained. Finally, groundwater quality and quantity would be protected, as the project will be served by two, new treatment systems, both of which will be subject to the prior review and approval of the SCDHS.

2) Connection of open space systems and maximization of open space corridors and to establish and maintain open space and open space corridors for active and passive uses. The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded. The applicant is agreeable to pursuing additional public benefits in the form of easements or other mechanisms for public access to this part of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the trail linkage (i.e., Paumanok Path), if desired by the Town.

3) Preservation of agricultural lands and uses.

Page 3-22 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

There are no agricultural lands on the site or in the immediate vicinity; this goal does not apply to the proposed project.

4) Increase consideration of and coordination with school districts, utilities and governmental services. The proposed project will require use of the various community services that are available in the area, which include schools, water supply, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas, as well as governmental services of the Town and County. These service providers will participate in the review and approval of the PDD application through the SEQRA process.

5) Encourage the most efficient and purposeful use of all remaining vacant land. The subject properties are small in size and only the Eastern Property is presently vacant. The proposed retention of the majority of this acreage as vacant space conforms to this goal.

6) Preservation and improvement of existing smaller communities. The proposed project, particularly the rehabilitation of the CPI facility and its re-incorporation into the fabric of the Hampton Bays community, are primary goals of the project, and so conform to this long-term goal.

7) Preservation of a sense of place in communities and the creation and reestablishment of small hamlet communities and atmosphere which foster the sharing of amenities and the utilization of local services. Similar to #6) above, the rehabilitation of the now-dilapidated CPI facility is expected to contribute to the reinvigoration of Hampton Bays by reestablishing a significant locus of community pride and identity. In this way, the overall project would add to utilization of local businesses, utilities and amenities, by attracting business patrons and visitation by tourists and shoppers.

8) Creation of planned residential communities providing an array of housing meeting the social and economic needs of the residents of the hamlets, the Town and the region. The proposed project, while a PDD, does not provide for “an array of housing” types, and so does not strictly conform to this long-term goal. However, it should be noted that the three project properties are small in size, of which one is planned for rehabilitation (CPI Property) and another will used solely for open space retention and sanitary wastewater treatment (Eastern Property). The third (Canal) property is only 4.50 acres in size, and so presents minimal opportunity to accommodate more than one residential type.

9) Reduction in the effective cost of governmental and other public services. The proposed project minimizes the costs of governmental and other public services by providing and maintaining its own sanitary wastewater treatment, roadway and drainage systems.

10) Elimination of excessive and inefficient infrastructure and the minimization of infrastructure development and maintenance costs and maximization of efficiency and coordination of existing and planned transportation facilities and networks. The proposed project will remove the two existing septic systems on the CPI and Canal Properties, and replace them with new, County-approved septic (CPI Property) and NitrexTM (Canal Property) treatment systems. In addition, new drainage systems will be installed on these two properties as well. Maintenance activities and associated costs for these systems will be borne by the applicant. Finally, any and all transportation improvements associated with the

Page 3-23 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

project will be provided by the applicant.

11) Prevention of inappropriate development on stale previously filed subdivision maps encompassing wetlands, high-water-table areas, steep slopes and other impractical or unsuitable terrain and topography. The project properties are not encumbered with stale or previously-filed subdivisions of any sort; two of the three properties are already developed, while the majority of the third property will be retained as open space. Wetlands and a high water table characterize all three sites, but these limitations can and will be addressed, to the satisfaction of all applicable development standards, as determined by the appropriate Town and County reviewers during the site plan review process.

12) Development of communities wherein, collectively, the mix of uses, aesthetically, physically, socially and economically encourages the creation and/or preservation of a sense of place, pride and values. Similar to #s 6 and 7 above, the rehabilitation of the now-dilapidated CPI facility, supported by the high-quality residential and recreational uses proposed on the Canal Property, is expected to help reinvigorate Hampton Bays by reestablishing a significant locus of community pride and identity.

13) Provide flexible but definitive standards to facilitate innovative and creative land use planning and development techniques not possible under conventional zoning ordinances. This long-term goal is realized through use of the Town’s PDD ordinance, specifically, the MPDD District, to provide the flexibility needed to allow the proposed project to go forward. This flexibility is inherent in the design and setback standards to be established for the project, and are simply not possible under the site’s existing RWB and MTL zonings.

14) Encourage the development, rehabilitation and improvement of identifiable and unique historic and architecturally significant areas and communities, “main streets” and centers of residential, commercial and industrial activities. The rehabilitation of the only historically significant resource on the subject properties, the CPI facility, is a central aspect of the proposed project. In this way, the project conforms to this long- term goal.

15) Encourage comprehensive and innovative planning and design of the highest quality, utilizing and incorporating a variety of land uses. The proposed project conforms to this goal in its use of a NitrexTM sanitary treatment system (as a mechanism to minimize potential adverse groundwater quality impacts, as well as potential impacts to marine surface water quality), and in its use of architectural and building material technologies to rehabilitate the dilapidated CPI facility.

16) Provide reasonable incentives and standards to encourage private participation in and compliance with the comprehensive goals of this article. The proposed project is the result of Town and community participation in discussions with the applicant that determined the overall concept of the project (as well as the incentive represented by the rehabilitation of the CPI facility).

17) Assure that lands set aside for receiving or sending areas are consistent and harmonious with the Town’s comprehensive land use objectives and locate areas permitted to be developed in such a

Page 3-24 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

manner as to maximize the continuity and connection of open spaces, preserves and wildlife corridors. The proposed project does not include the transfer of development rights or PBCs, so that sending and/or receiving sites do not apply.

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), MPDD District (Section 330-246E) The Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) is designed to provide flexible residential and/or commercial development with predominantly water-dependent or water-enhanced uses, while maximizing the preservation of natural vegetation and resources. Clustering, open space preservation, water access and the most efficient utilization of the waterfront, transportation systems, utilities and public services are intended to be achieved by the MPDD. The intent is to support creative, desirable and coordinated development by providing incentives and flexibility which encourage the use of innovative planning and design techniques

(1) Requirements (a) The MPDD shall be beneficial, compatible and harmonious with the surrounding land uses, and the goals and objectives set forth in this article and the Comprehensive Plan and a local waterfront revitalization program must be maintained and furthered. The proposed project is beneficial, compatible and harmonious with the surrounding land uses. The historic CPI structures and uses will be retained and rehabilitated for use by the public. Construction of the 40 luxury townhomes on the east side of the Shinnecock Canal will support and finance the construction and rehabilitation of the CPI. The Canal Property will be developed to provide waterfront homes. The proposed project conforms to the applicable recommendations of the Town Comprehensive Plan Update and the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (see Section 3.2.2.3).

(b) An MPDD shall be located within 1,000 feet of the tidal shoreline. The Canal Property is located directly adjacent to the Shinnecock Canal, along the canal’s eastern bank. All properties lie directly north of Montauk Highway, within 1,000 feet of Shinnecock Bay. (2) Yield (a) The initial yield for the receiving site shall be determined by a yield map prepared in accordance with the existing zoning set. The proposed density exchange transfers the existing development yield between the three sites; the inn units and cottage would be transferred from the CPI Property to the Canal Property, and the 25 motel units would be transferred to the CPI Property to allow 20 inn units and 5 cottages. Pursuant to Section 330-155 of the Village Code, the inn units may be converted to condominiums. However, as requested by the Town, townhomes are proposed for greater tax generation. The combined as-of-right yield for the properties east of Shinnecock Canal, which are zoned RWB and MTL, would provide for approximately 25 motel units. As noted, the Eastern Property would be occupied only by the Nitrex™ WWTF, with no other development proposed on that parcel. The proposed density yield and transfer is summarized in Section 1.3.1.

(b) The resultant yield for an MPDD shall be the sum of the receiving parcel yield plus the density obtained from the transfer of development rights or PBC’s from any sending parcels as set forth in this chapter. Each development right or Pine Barrens Credit shall be equivalent to a sewage flow rate of 300 gallons per acre per day as described in the Suffolk County Department of

Page 3-25 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Health Services standards and/or up to a two-percent increase in building coverage, floor area, height or building mass. However, there shall not be an overall increase in building coverage, floor area, height or building mass greater that 10% over the requirements of the underlying zone (i.e., where 30% is the maximum coverage in the underlying zone, a maximum of 40% may be permitted). The proposed project’s yield does not include density transferred to the site from any external source, nor does it include any PBCs. Rather, that portion of the project’s yield that is in excess of the site’s inherent yield will be more than fully compensated for by the dollar value of the public benefits to be provided (see Table 1-4).

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of the aforementioned subsections, the yield or the building coverage, floor area, height or building mass may be increased at the discretion of the Town Board, to achieve any of the goals set forth in this chapter, or to provide for a community benefit or a public facility that satisfies an identified public need as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan or as established by the Town Board, excluding common and/or requisite public improvements. New York State law permits the Town to utilize incentive zoning for the purpose of obtaining community benefits. New York State Town Law §261-b of the State of New York defines “community benefits or amenities” as “open space, housing for persons of low or moderate income, parks, elder care, day care, or other specific physical, social or cultural amenities, or cash in lieu thereof, of benefit to the residents of the community authorized by the Town Board”. The proposed MPDD results in a net increase of condominium (townhome) units on the Canal Property over the allowable yield. This surplus in yield over as-of-right conditions will be offset by three specific Community Benefits, as defined by NYS Town Law Section 261-b and required in Town Zoning Code Section 330-245 I. The project does not propose to incorporate the use of transfer of PBCs, as the value of the proposed Community Benefits greatly exceeds the value of the excess units. The main Community Benefit being proposed for the MPDD is the investment in rehabilitating the historic CPI structure and the benefits associated with that investment. Furthermore, a total of $14.631 million in Public Benefits is anticipated as a result of the proposed MPDD.

As discussed in Section 1.3.1, the combined as-of-right yield for the two properties east of Shinnecock Canal, which are zoned RWB (Canal Property) and MTL (Eastern Property), would provide for a total of approximately 25 motel units, based on the Town Code calculation of 1 motel unit/11,000 SF of lot area as shown in the PDD Density Swap Yield Map, Canal West Property (in pouch at the end of this document). The proposed project would transfer the yields calculated from the inn and cottage units from the CPI Property to the Canal Property, and the 25 motel units would be transferred from the Canal and Eastern Properties to the CPI Property, as the 20 inn units and five cottages to be developed at the CPI facility. As noted, the Eastern Property would be occupied only by the Nitrex TM WWTF, with no other development proposed on that parcel. The proposed number of townhomes exceed the number of units being transferred to the Canal property by 11 units. As shown in Table 1-4, the proposed project will provide Community Benefits (within a larger set of Public Benefits) that are well in excess of the required compensatory benefits (based on dollar value).

(d) In no case shall the yield exceed two residential units per acre or a sewage flow rate equivalent to 600 gallons per acre per day, unless the site is served by public water and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has approved the method of sewage treatment. The proposed development on the Canal Property includes 40 townhouse units on the 7.18-acre (combined with the Eastern Property) site. However, the site will be served by public water

Page 3-26 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

(Hampton Bays Water District) and a WWTF will be constructed on the Eastern Property to handle the proposed townhouse units.

Town PDD Ordinance (Article XXVI), Community Benefits (Section 330-245I) For each PDD approved, the Town Board shall establish a required community benefit(s) specific to the project. The required benefit(s) shall be detailed in the resulting PDD legislation. In determining the community benefit requirement for a proposed PDD, the Town Board shall consider:

1) The benefit to the applicant of the proposed zone changes, above an as-of-right project on the subject property: The Town Board has fully considered the benefit that the applicant would realize by the requested zone change in comparison to that of re-development under the existing zonings of the three project properties. This fact is proven by the Board’s emphasis that the applicant retain, rehabilitate the CPI structure, and make it the centerpiece of the project, rather than demolish it

2) The value to the Town and hamlet of achieving the proposed development or redevelopment project in the project location, including, but not limited to, whether the project; (a) Advances the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans relevant to the project location; As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, the proposed project conforms to the Town Comprehensive Plan Update in its retention and rehabilitation of the CPI facility, in order to support tourism in the Town, particularly for a site located on the Shinnecock Canal, a major local recreational and commercial location.

(b) Eliminates a nonconforming use; This does not apply; there are no nonconforming uses present or proposed.

(c) Meets an established community need; The proposed project conforms to established community needs and desires, by rehabilitating the dilapidated CPI facility and providing for residential use conforming to that of the vicinity, by enhancing public open space purchases, with its valuable public recreational amenities (the boardwalk and potential linkages to the Paumonok Path walking trail).

(d) Involves site rehabilitation or reclamation; The project involves significant rehabilitation efforts for the CPI structure, as well as some soil remediation work for the Canal Property, as detailed in the RAP and presented in Section 2.1.1.1.

(e) Will set a model for future area development or redevelopment; or It is not expected that the proposed project would set a precedent for further local development, as the project involves a unique combination of sites and circumstances and few if any other sites in the vicinity or along or near the Shinnecock Canal are available for such efforts.

(f) Stimulates desired economic development activity; The proposed rehabilitation of the CPI structure is expected to contribute to increased patronage of local businesses, by enhancing the area’s image as a desirable commercial, recreational and tourism destination.

Page 3-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3) Community impacts anticipated as a result of the PDD that cannot be mitigated through project design and traffic system improvements. Such impacts include, but are not limited to, long-term costs of community services and development inducing impacts; Analyses in this document indicate that the proposed project would not result in any significant or unmitigated adverse impacts to the community associated with its design, its traffic characteristics or its effect on community services.

4) The cost to the applicant of providing the community benefit, with such costs verified by independent, fair appraisals, professionally prepared estimates and/or other relevant documentation as may be appropriate to the specific benefit(s) under consideration; Analysis presented in this document indicates that the cost to the applicant of rehabilitating the CPI structure alone far exceeds the cost to purchase the number of PBCs necessary to offset the potential increase in residential yield requested.

5) Whether the project is in a school district with unredeemed Pine Barrens credits. If so, priority shall be given to PBC redemption as all or part of the required community benefit; Review of the Central Pine Barrens Joint Policy & Planning Commission website indicates that there are no unredeemed PBCs in the Hampton Bays UFSD.

6) Whether the applicant proposes project features that would otherwise be required of development on the subject property through the site plan, subdivision, architectural, SEQRA, or other regulatory review process. Said features shall not qualify as community benefits. There are no features of the project that would otherwise be required of the applicant for development; the CPI structure has been established as not eligible for designation on the National Register. Its rehabilitation has been agreed to by the applicant as a major component of the project’s Community Benefit package (with the substantial contribution for open space preservation).

7) Whether affordable housing is an appropriate public benefit, that is, when there is a demonstrated need in the hamlet where the project would be located for the type of affordable units proposed. The proposed project does not include an affordable housing component.

a) In making said determination, consideration shall be given to the need for affordable housing in the particular hamlet, the appropriateness of the proposed site, the environmental suitability of the site, and the protection of community character; The project does not include an affordable housing component. The increase in density for the proposed townhouses is necessary to support the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn which is the primary public benefit of this proposed project.

b) In making said determination, the density incentive should not result in an adverse impact on the affected school district or other special assessment district. The density increase associated with this project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impact on the Hampton Bays UFSD or any other district associated with the project. The small number of schoolchildren that may reside in these excess units particularly as second home units that would be occupied at times of the year outside of the school year, would not require a significant additional expenditure of funds. Additionally, the project is expected to generate school taxes well in excess of any expenditure incurred on the Hampton Bays UFSD.

Page 3-28 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

(8) A list of desired hamlet-specific community benefits, maintained by the Department of Land Management, and prepared in accordance with community input, and hamlet-specific priorities identified in the Comprehensive Plan and/or other related studies. Said list shall not be exclusive. Based on the results of discussions between the community, the Town and the applicant, and in consideration of the conditions and characteristics of the three project properties, the proposed CPI rehabilitation, open space preservation contribution, and boardwalk were deemed to be the most realistic and desirable Community Benefits that could be provided.

a) Where there are several alternative benefits being considered, the Town Board shall consider the feasibility and timing of the implementation of each, with priority being given to benefits that may be more readily achieved. No other Community Benefits were considered.

In addition to zoning requirements, there are other requirements to which the proposed project must and shall conform. These requirements are associated with the site’s location in proximity to tidal wetlands (Town Code Chapter 325), Yards (Town Code Section 330-83 G(2)(a)(3)), and interior landscaping requirements (Section 330-99J). Table 3-7 lists these requirements and indicates the project’s conformance to each.

Table 3-7 CONFORMANCE TO MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS Proposed Project

Proposed Project Requirement Standard CPI Canal Eastern Min. Wetland Setback (1) ------Lawn (feet) 75 n/a 0 n/a Structures (feet) 100 n/a 0 n/a Sanitary System (feet) 150 n/a n/a n/a Min. Depth, Transition Yard (2) ------Adjoining Limited Access Highway (feet) 20 n/a n/a n/a Adjoining All Other Roadways (feet) 20 20 20 68 Min. Parking Area Landscaping (SF/parking space) (3) 25 70.5 34.7 n/a (1) From Town Code Section 325. (2) From Town Zoning Code Section 330-83G(2)(a)(3). (3) From Town Zoning Code Section 330-99J. n/a Not present on or adjacent to property.

3.2.2.3 Land Use Plans

Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District (1997) The proposed project does not directly comply with the individual site recommendations identified in the Plan, which includes an estate conference center on the CPI Property, theme development on the Canal Property and rezoning to housing on the Eastern Property. However, the proposed project achieves partial if not substantial compliance, by rehabilitating the CPI as a catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, and a 20-room inn with five cottages

Page 3-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS that will be available for conferences. The overall development will result in the implementation of many elements of this plan, specifically, rehabilitation of the CPI building (for overnight guests and catering/banquet events) which will permit public access and use, and creation of a water-enhanced use with public access to the proposed boardwalk in the southwestern portion of the Canal Property, along the Shinnecock Canal. More specifically, the proposed CPI structure will include a catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy and overnight guest accommodations that could accommodate conferences as well as a seasonal restaurant with both inside and outside seating. The proposed use of the Canal Property will enhance an underutilized area near the Shinnecock Canal waterfront and provides the revenue to ensure the successful rehabilitation of the CPI Property. Therefore, the proposed project advances many of the plans goals.

The proposed project will retain the historic CPI structure and use and will greatly improve the aesthetics of the CPI Property that have significantly deteriorated over the years. The visual quality of the proposed rehabilitation will substantially improve the site by improving landscaping, architectural design and lighting and replacing the existing deteriorated site conditions on the property.

Town Comprehensive Plan Update (1999) The proposed project complies with many of the goals of the Plan Update. The rehabilitation of the CPI Property is possible through substantial investment in the site that will substantially upgrade the current conditions of the property and immediate vicinity and enhance surrounding property values. Rehabilitation of the CPI Property will create an aesthetically and architecturally appealing structure and use on the site, reminiscent of its history. Furthermore, retention of the CPI Property as a public use (inn, catering facility and restaurant) will once again open the site to public use.

The proposed project will enhance an underutilized area near the Shinnecock Canal waterfront. Rehabilitation of CPI will include a catering facility with a 350-person maximum occupancy, and a 20-room inn with five cottages that will be available for conferences.

The Plan identified heritage tourism as a sector of the economy that was growing. Southampton, with its unique character and high quality of historic resources, is well-situated to exploit this economic sector. Heritage tourism opportunities would also support and enhance the visitor and second-home economies that are key for the Town’s economic vitality. Retention of the historic CPI use will aid in continuing to achieve attracting this type of tourism.

The Town is encouraged to promote development that contributes to the Town’s exclusive image. Thus, inns and conference centers are preferred to franchise motels, specialty stores are preferred to chain stores, historic restoration is preferred to demolition/new construction, local historic and cultural attractions are preferred to major new tourist attractions, etc. Zoning and regulatory policy cannot easily discriminate between uses by such nuances; but the Town can influence what type of development takes place through its special exception, site plan, subdivision, PDD, and other discretionary reviews and approvals. The proposed development will utilize density exchange for the three separate parcels to transfer development yield from

Page 3-30 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS one to another to allow for the rehabilitation and retention of the historic CPI use as well as the construction of 40 townhomes.

Cumulatively, the proposed project will reinforce the already strong tourism and second home industry, while simultaneously promoting year-round tourism (not just during the peak summer season). The proposed rehabilitation of CPI as well as the construction of the townhomes will support the resort economy in the Town. Southampton is one of the premier vacation and second-home destinations in the region, and the Town’s primary economic development engine is its resort economy.

The majority of the Eastern Property (1.87 acres, or 70% of the site) will remain in its natural, vegetated state thereby retaining valuable natural resources.

Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Program, Comprehensive Management Plan (2001) The following presents the specific recommendations of this Plan that apply to either the project site or the proposed project. Each recommendation is followed by a discussion as to whether and how the project conforms to that recommendation.

 Improve and Maintain Water Quality 6. Adopt best management practices to control drainage, erosion and sedimentation prior to and during construction. As required by Town and NYSDEC standards, the project will provide conforming drainage and erosion control systems, to be reviewed and approved as part of the site plan review process.

7. Adopt best management roadway operation and maintenance. The proposed project will incorporate necessary and appropriate traffic-related design considerations, to be subject to the review and approval of the Town during the site plan review process.

8. Institute appropriate best management practices to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff by hazardous materials, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, household hazardous wastes, and wildlife and pet wastes. The project will minimize the potential for contamination of stormwater runoff, by minimizing the presence of substances that could contaminate runoff, by minimizing the use of such substances if necessary to be present (such as landscaping chemicals), by utilizing an innovative and efficient sanitary wastewater treatment system, and by locating the WWTF on an adjacent property upland of and distant from the Shinnecock Canal.

9. Adopt marina and recreational boating best management practices, and educate marina patrons about specific best management practices. The project’s 17-slip marina will be reserved for the exclusive use of the site’s residents. This will enable the imposition of appropriate best management practices by the HOA created to own and operate the site.

12. Adopt best management practices to protect wetlands and streams. The project will conform to the tidal wetland regulations of both the Town and NYSDEC, which are designed to protect such resources. The site does not contain any vegetated

Page 3-31 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

wetlands and current conditions are such that erosion and sedimentation and uncontrolled runoff enter the canal. The proposed project is expected to improve these conditions.

13. Adopt best management practices that reduce the environmental effects of on-site wastewater treatment systems. The project has been designed to minimize the potential for impacts on surface waters in the Shinnecock Canal from recharge of treated sanitary effluent, by utilizing a new NitrexTM system, and placing it on the Eastern Property. Wastewater from the CPI Property will be handled in a new septic system to be placed on that property. Both systems conform to SCSC Article 6 requirements, and will be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, thereby assuring that impacts would be minimized.

 Protect and Restore Living Resources of the Reserve 2. Conserve remaining riverine emergent and forested wetland areas through restoration and protection measures. The proposed project does not include removal of any of the existing tidal wetland vegetation on the Canal Property, and minimizes the amount of clearing of upland vegetation on the Eastern Property. There are no vegetated wetlands on any of the three project properties, so no such vegetation would be disturbed.

6. Provide for continued abundance and diversity of avian species by protecting key foraging and nesting habitat areas necessary for shorebird, waterfowl, and colonial waterbird populations, as well as feeding and resting areas for migratory birds. Because none of the existing shoreline vegetation will be disturbed, the amount of this existing habitat type would not be impacted by the project. Rather, the project would enhance the quality of this habitat area by controlling runoff, reducing erosion and sedimentation to the waterway, removing any debris present, and clearing out any dead or encroaching vegetation,

9. Support productivity of commercially and ecologically important estuarine species by sustaining existing habitats of high functional quality and restoring degraded habitats, particularly submerged aquatic vegetation beds and shallows. As noted above, the proposed project will not adversely impact the amount of aquatic habitat on the Canal Property (the only project property that fronts on the Shinnecock Canal), and will enhance this area by controlling runoff, reducing erosion and sedimentation to the waterway, removing any debris present and clearing away dead or encroaching plants. In this way, the value of this area as aquatic habitat for commercial estuarine species would be increased.

 Expand Public Use and Enjoyment of the Estuary 1. Expand public shoreline access opportunities by increasing the amount of land dedicated to physical and visual access. The project includes the construction of a boardwalk in the southwestern portion of the Canal Property, for the use and enjoyment of the public.

2. Improve and sustain the levels of public access and recreation opportunity at existing sites. The proposed boardwalk will increase the level of access to the waterfront (the Shinnecock Canal) available to the public, and will enhance the quality of that access with appropriate features such as benches and signage (no lighting for this amenity is planned).

Page 3-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

9. Increase the amount of funds dedicated for open space preservation. As one of the three Community Benefits of the proposed project, the donation of $250,000 to the Town for open space preservation would increase the amount of funds available for this purpose.

12. Establish a land and water trail system to link existing and new open space lands of the Reserve. The Town Paumanok Path walking trail traverses the area, portions of which run along the south side of the Canal Property (along the north side of Montauk Highway), and pass opposite the east side of the CPI Property (along the east side of Newtown Road). The proposed project may provide pedestrian linkages to this amenity between either or both the CPI and Canal Properties.

13. Promote and preserve the cultural resources that contribute to the Estuary’s unique character and sense of place. The proposed project includes a number of features and presents characteristics that, combined, will significantly contribute to enhancing the area’s cultural environment. These features include the three Community Benefits (rehabilitation of the CPI facility, monetary contribution for open space preservation, and boardwalk), and potential walking trail linkages, Project characteristics that aid in this goal include the provision of residential spaces, the architectural and landscape designs of the residential site maintaining the character of the vicinity, and the use of a NitrexTM WWTF (to produce highly-treated sanitary effluent to minimize potential adverse impacts to surface water quality).

14. Recognize and preserve elements of the coastal landscape that contribute to the Reserve’s unique character and sense of place. The project has been designed to preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation on all three of the project properties as much as practicable, in order to retain the visual character of the sites and the sense of place of the Shinnecock Canal corridor. This is achieved by minimizing the removal of this type of vegetation on the three sites.

 Sustain and Expand the Estuary-Related Economy 3. Provide for the siting, expansion and retention of water-dependent businesses as part of municipal comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations. The proposed project indirectly supports water-dependent businesses by its rehabilitation of the CPI facility. This Community Benefit will enhance the area’s longstanding tourism and recreational character, which in turn would incrementally assist other businesses in attracting customers, sales, and overall visitation.

4. Facilitate the establishment and expansion of water-dependent businesses as part of municipal waterfront redevelopment plans and revitalization programs. Similar to #3 above, the proposed project would help to facilitate new water-dependent businesses in the area primarily through its rehabilitation of the CPI facility. This Community Benefit will enhance the area’s longstanding tourism and recreational character, which would help in creating a local economic environment that would encourage new businesses complementary to that of the proposed project.

5. Enhance the economic viability of traditional estuary-related businesses.

Page 3-33 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The marine and residential nature of the project will enhance the existing commercial businesses along and near the Shinnecock Canal, by increasing the potential customer bases and by attracting additional visitation (and therefore, commercial patronage) of these enterprises.

8. Encourage and support waterfront redevelopment and revitalization in maritime centers. In its provision of Community Benefits, the potential walking trail linkages, preservation of waterfront habitat, increase of open spaces, and protection of surface and groundwater quality, the project would support other waterfront development and revitalization efforts. The proposed project will help to enhance local tourism, recreation, and business patronage by attracting customers, sales, and overall visitation to the area.

 Increase Education, Outreach and Stewardship 10. Build an interpretive system that presents a unified picture of the Reserve and encourages people to travel throughout the Reserve to learn about and enjoy its many features. The project’s proposed boardwalk and potential linkages to the Paumonok Trail could be enhanced with interpretive signage or other minor improvements as part of a Town interpretive system.

Town of Southampton Community Preservation Project Plan (April 2005) The CPI Property includes five cottages located on SCTM Parcel No. 0900-207- 05-03, which were identified in the Plan as falling within the Village and Hamlet Greens, Parks, Recreation and Open Space target area. These cottages will be rehabilitated and therefore, will not directly comply with Plan’s recommendation. However, the proposed project maintains the existing cottages and increases public access through possible guest house use.

The Eastern Property was identified in the Plan as falling within the Open Space/Greenbelt target area, whose acquisition is crucial to secure and complete the Paumanok Path walking trail. The proposed project will only utilize the southern part of the Eastern Property. The area of use will be cleared and graded for the WWTF. It is expected that the WWTF area will be fenced but will remain a relatively passive use with an access road to be used for periodic service of the plant in conformance with the operating permit. The area surrounding the WWTF site and exclusive of the access drive will include perimeter buffering which will remain vacant and wooded. The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded. The applicant is agreeable to pursuing additional public benefits in the form of easements or other mechanisms for public access to this part of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the trail linkage (i.e., Paumanok Path), if desired by the Town.

Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (Revised July 2010) and Draft GEIS The proposed project satisfies fulfills the community’s goal to maintain and rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn, as specified in the Plan.

It is noted that the Plan envisions a PDD as a mechanism by which coordinated development of both sides of the Shinnecock Canal would be realized:

Page 3-34 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

In the canal area, the Canoe Place Inn site is under consideration for PDD zoning, as discussed. Coupling it with the maritime heritage park across Newtown Road, as well as with property on the east side of the canal in a multi-parcel, public/private PDD should be considered in order to promote integrated canal area development, coordinating area traffic improvements, parking, signage, viewsheds, etc. (Strategic Plan, page 60).

Specifically, the Plan envisions the following for the Canal Property:

On the eastern shore of the canal, the existing waterside restaurant points the way to a potential expansion of such uses into ‘Canal East’, a complex of shops and restaurants similar to the Gosman’s Dock pierside development in Montauk. Such an attraction is consistent with the intent of the recommended 1996 plan and would provide an important anchor to this end of the Hampton Bays corridor. (Strategic Plan, page 47)

It is acknowledged that the proposed townhomes on the Canal Property do not conform to the specific type of PDD envisioned by the Plan. Nevertheless, the proposed project is a PDD that would be appropriate in this location, retain a significant public feature, provide numerous other benefits, and would conform to the spirit and intent of the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan. Finally, it must be remembered that the Eastern Property is privately-owned, so that its redevelopment will be subject to the owner’s decision as to whether and how to do so. Such a determination will be made based upon the landowner’s consideration of a number of factors, including zoning, market forces, and the financial feasibility of the project.

In summary, the proposed development complies with many of the vision points laid out in the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.

 The Plan identified the community’s desire to see the CPI building rehabilitated and put to adaptive reuse due to its historic significance and meaning to the community.  The proposed project will comply with the community goals and objectives identified for the CPI Property, including: o Respecting the “legend” of the place, through such means as adaptive reuse of the existing Inn building, use of appropriately historical architectural styles and features on new construction. o Continued public access to, and enjoyment of, the site through such uses as a restaurant, catering facility, hotel, conference center, spa, health club, etc. o Use of the facility by a transient, vacationing population rather than adding to the community’s resident population, with its associated fiscal impacts. o Maintaining a scale proportionate to the property and the surrounding community. Distribution of new bulk in a series of related buildings with varying sizes is preferred, based on the traditional scheme of a resort complex with main building, subordinate buildings and outlying cottages. o Use of the site to contribute to the hamlet’s economic activity and vitality. Project review should include an assessment of potential impacts to area businesses. o Redevelopment of the CPI Property as a PDD would incorporate provisions for public benefits. As noted, a much-desired public benefit for this project is rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the existing structure.

Page 3-35 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 The Plan recommends a complex of shops and restaurants similar to the Gosman’s Dock pier side development in Montauk on the eastern shore of the canal. The proposed townhome complex would not directly conform to this recommendation; however, the proposed residential use is the mechanism by which the CPI Property can be rehabilitated for public use.  Use of the WWTF will result in considerable reductions in the nitrogen levels discharged into the Shinnecock Canal from existing uses on the site and their related flow.  Use of the Eastern Property exclusively for wastewater treatment would preclude development of this site, which is currently wooded. While some clearing would be necessary, the site would retain the appearance of open space, contributing to another community goal.  Townhome form of ownership avoids the reduced tax assessment afforded to condominiums.  Development of the Canal Property as townhomes will include public access via the boardwalk, thus providing a further benefit and conforming to the spirit and intent of the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.

The CPI and Canal Properties will incorporate landscaped setbacks along Montauk Highway and will assist in creating an attractive gateway into Hampton Bays from the east. The residents of the townhomes will support nearby businesses, maritime activities and recreational facilities. Both developments will result in the aesthetic enhancement of their respective sites which will contribute to the area as a whole.

The proposed zoning for the eastern sector of the Plan identifies a PDD as the most useful tool to ensure control over types and design of uses and flexibility in planning. The proposed project is proposing a change of zone from RWB and MTL to MPDD.

The use of townhomes on the Canal Property will increase the property taxes that would be generated on this property in comparison to the taxes generated by condominiums. This will help to maintain tax revenues allocated to the various community services serving the site and area.

Use a a NitrexTM WWTF to treat the sanitary wastewater generated on the Canal Property will significantly reduce the potential for adverse impact on the quality of surface water in the Shinnecock Canal, as well as groundwater beneath the site.

Finally, locating the WWTF on the Eastern Property, with no other uses allowed on it, will permanently protect the natural vegetation, open space and habitat functions of this parcel, which will benefit the community.

As a result, the proposed project is consistent with the recommendations of this Plan pertaining to the CPI Property. The proposed project is not directly consistent with the Plan’s recommendations for the Canal Property. However, the combination of these two properties provides the revenue necessary to support and advance the most significant aspect of the proposed project, which is to rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn, which would not otherwise be possible.

Page 3-36 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation

General  The proposed project incorporates traditional architectural design, extensive site improvements and landscaping features on the CPI and Canal Properties.  The proposed project will provide a one-time $250,000 contribution to the Town for open space preservation.  The proposed project will provide public amenities, which includes a public boardwalk along a portion of the Canal Property’s frontage on the Shinnecock Canal, and may provide for pedestrian links to the Paumanok Path walking trail on the Canal and CPI Properties. CPI Property  The proposed project meets the Town Comprehensive Plan Update goals of retaining and rehabilitating the historic CPI use and structure as well as enhancing the diversity of the economy and promotion of tourism to the Town during the shoulder seasons in addition to the summer months. Canal Property  The Canal Property will include on-site recreational amenities for residents of the townhomes.

3.3 Community Facilities and Services

The various community services relevant to the project site include schools, police, fire and ambulance, water supply, solid waste disposal, parks and recreation services and energy/utility service providers. Each service provider was contacted to inform them of the project and obtain input with respect to their service capabilities. Appendix O contains the related correspondence with community service providers regarding facilities, services and conditions. Information provided in these responses is included in the following subsections. Also identified herein is the existing tax structure for distribution of tax revenues, and existing and anticipated future tax generation.

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

The project site is served by the following service districts and community service providers:

 Hampton Bays UFSD  Hampton Bays Fire District  Southampton Town Police Department  Hampton Bays Water District  LIPA/National Grid

Information regarding these community resources as well as the related fiscal considerations are discussed in this section.

3.3.1.1 Fiscal Considerations and Tax Revenue

The following is taken from the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis completed for the proposed project (see Appendix F-1):

Page 3-37 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The majority of the Town’s revenues are levied through property tax generation, which is based upon a rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation for a given parcel. As indicated in Tables 3-8a, 3-8b and 3- 8c, property owners within this part of the Town of Southampton are currently1 taxed at a rate of $15.0290 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This tax rate accounts for property taxes paid to Hampton Bays UFSD, Library District, Suffolk County, various Town funds, Hampton Bays Fire District, Hampton Bays Ambulance District, Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other local taxing jurisdictions.

Table 3-8a EXISTING TAX REVENUES, CPI Property

Current Tax Rate Current Percent of (per $1,000 Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Total Tax Assessed Revenue Revenue Valuation) Total: School Tax 12.0050 $62,981 79.0% Hampton Bays School 11.5100 $60,384 75.7% Hampton Bays Library 0.4950 $2,597 3.3% Total: County Tax 0.2010 $1,054 1.3% Suffolk County 0.2010 $1,054 1.3% Total: Town Tax 1.3980 $7,334 9.2% Southampton Town - General 0.3950 $2,072 2.6% Highway 0.3660 $1,920 2.4% Police 0.5270 $2,765 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 0.0490 $257 0.3% Zoning 0.0560 $294 0.4% Out of County Tuition 0.0050 $26 0.0% Total: Other Tax 1.4250 $8,363 10.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law 0.0710 $372 0.5% New York State MTA Tax 0.0070 $37 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District 0.7490 $3,929 4.9% Hampton Bays Lighting District 0.0530 $278 0.3% Hampton Bays Water District 0.2260 $1,186 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District 0.2750 $1,443 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms -- $525 0.7% Hampton Bays Park District 0.0260 $136 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District 0.0180 $94 0.1% Water Arrears -- $362 0.5% TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS 15.0290 $79,732 100.0% Source: Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by NP&V. CPI Property According to the Town of Southampton Tax Receiver’s Office, the two tax parcels that comprise the Canoe Place Inn Property are assessed at $5,246,200 (100% of the market valuation). This translates into a current generation of $79,732 in property tax revenues. Of this, $60,384 or 75.7% of the total

1 The Town of Southampton’s fiscal year is between December 1, 2011 and November 30, 2012.

Page 3-38 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS taxes generated by the site are distributed to the Hampton Bays UFSD, and $2,597 or 3.3% of the taxes are allocated to the Library District. An additional $1,054 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.2% of the tax revenue is levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total over $7,300 in revenues. The balance of the current property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others and as seen in Table 3-8a.

Canal Property According to the Town of Southampton Tax Receiver’s Office, the four tax parcels that comprise the Canal Property are assessed at $6,361,000 (100% of the market valuation). This translates into a current generation of $95,599 in property tax revenues. Of this, $73,215 or 76.6% of the total taxes generated by the site are distributed to the Hampton Bays UFSD, and $3,149 or 3.3% of the taxes are allocated to the Library District. An additional $1,279 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.3% of the tax revenue is levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total over $8,893 in revenues. The balance of the current property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others and as seen in Table 3-8b.

Eastern Property According to the Town of Southampton Tax Receiver’s Office, the one tax parcel that comprises the Eastern Parcel is assessed at $327,200 (100% of the market valuation). This translates into a current generation of $4,917 in property tax revenues. Of this, $3,766 or 76.6% of the total taxes generated by the site are distributed to the Hampton Bays UFSD, and $162 or 3.3% of the taxes are allocated to the Library District. An additional $66 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.3% of the tax revenue is levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total over $457 in revenues. The balance of the current property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others and as seen in Table 3-8c.

Page 3-39 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-8b EXISTING TAX REVENUES, Canal Property

Current Tax Rate Current Percent of (per $1,000 Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Total Tax Assessed Revenue Revenue Valuation) Total: School Tax 12.0050 $76,364 79.9% Hampton Bays School 11.5100 $73,215 76.6% Hampton Bays Library 0.4950 $3,149 3.3% Total: County Tax 0.2010 $1,279 1.3% Suffolk County 0.2010 $1,279 1.3% Total: Town Tax 1.3980 $8,893 9.3% Southampton Town - General 0.3950 $2,513 2.6% Highway 0.3660 $2,328 2.4% Police 0.5270 $3,352 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 0.0490 $312 0.3% Zoning 0.0560 $356 0.4% Out of County Tuition 0.0050 $32 0.0% Total: Other Tax 1.4250 $9,064 9.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law 0.0710 $452 0.5% New York State MTA Tax 0.0070 $45 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District 0.7490 $4,764 5.0% Hampton Bays Lighting District 0.0530 $337 0.4% Hampton Bays Water District 0.2260 $1,438 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District 0.2750 $1,749 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms ------Hampton Bays Park District 0.0260 $165 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District 0.0180 $114 0.1% Water Arrears ------TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS 15.0290 $95,599 100.0% Source: Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by NP&V.

Page 3-40 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-8c EXISTING TAX REVENUES, Eastern Property

Current Tax Rate Current Percent of (per $1,000 Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Total Tax Assessed Revenue Revenue Valuation) Total: School Tax 12.0050 $3,928 79.9% Hampton Bays School 11.5100 $3,766 76.6% Hampton Bays Library 0.4950 $162 3.3% Total: County Tax 0.2010 $66 1.3% Suffolk County 0.2010 $66 1.3% Total: Town Tax 1.3980 $457 9.3% Southampton Town - General 0.3950 $129 2.6% Highway 0.3660 $120 2.4% Police 0.5270 $172 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 0.0490 $16 0.3% Zoning 0.0560 $18 0.4% Out of County Tuition 0.0050 $2 0.0% Total: Other Tax 1.4250 $466 9.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law 0.0710 $23 0.5% New York State MTA Tax 0.0070 $2 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District 0.7490 $245 5.0% Hampton Bays Lighting District 0.0530 $17 0.4% Hampton Bays Water District 0.2260 $74 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District 0.2750 $90 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms ------Hampton Bays Park District 0.0260 $9 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District 0.0180 $6 0.1% Water Arrears ------TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS 15.0290 $4,917 100.0% Source: Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by NP&V.

3.3.1.2 Educational Services and Facilities

The following analysis is taken from the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis in Appendix F-1:

The CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties are located within the Hampton Bays UFSD. The district is comprised of three (3) schools – Hampton Bays Elementary School (grades K-4), Hampton Bays Middle School (grades 5-8) and Hampton Bays High School (grades 9-12).

As seen in Table 3-9, the cumulative enrollment within the school district has increased by 257 students, or 15.3%, over the ten (years between 2001-02 and 2010-11. This substantial increase in student enrollment indicates an influx of families with school-aged children and a trend toward new residential development in Hampton Bays. Regardless of these trends; however, there are no known capacity or overcrowding issues within the school district.

Page 3-41 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-9 ENROLLMENT TRENDS, Hampton Bays UFSD

Academic Hampton Bays Hampton Bays Hampton Bays Total: Hampton Year Elementary School Middle School High School Bays UFSD 2001-02 955 726 1,681 2002-03 987 765 1,752 2003-04 968 801 1,769 2004-05 941 811 1,752 2005-06 972 813 1,785 2006-07 971 784 1,755 2007-08 947 836 1,783 2008-09 668 595 564 1,827 2009-10 726 583 607 1,916 2010-11 725 589 624 1,938 +257 students Change: 2001-02 to 2010-11 15.3% increase Source: New York State Education Department; Analysis by NP&V.

According to the NYS School Report Card, Fiscal Accountability Supplement for Hampton Bays UFSD, expenditures averaged $11,138 per general education student and $34,350 per special education student during the 2009-10 academic year.2 During this year, 284 students, or 13.3% of the students within Hampton Bays UFSD, were enrolled in the special education program.

Based on the 2011-12 tax rates, the subject site generates approximately $137,365 in annual property tax allocations to the Hampton Bays UFSD.

Figure 3-4 illustrates the locations of educational resources within the vicinity of the site.

3.3.1.3 Police Protection

The subject properties and surrounding area are located within the jurisdiction of the Southampton Town Police Department. The Department is located at 110 Old Riverhead Road, Hampton Bays. The vehicle that patrols the subject properties is the B32 car. Figure 3-5 illustrates the location of police services within the vicinity of the site.

Based on the 2011-12 tax rates, the subject site generates approximately $6,289 in annual property tax allocations to the Southampton Town Police Department.

2 As of the date of submission of this analysis, this represents the most current year that such detailed financial data is available.

Page 3-42 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.3.1.4 Fire Protection

The subject properties and surrounding area are located within the jurisdiction of the Hampton Bays Fire District. The district covers approximately 13 square miles, from Jones Road to the west and Peconic Road to the east; from Red Cedar Point to the north and Dune Road to the south. The boundary on Dune Road is from just east of Triton Road to Shinnecock Inlet. The main firehouse is located at 69 West Montauk Highway, approximately 1.3 miles west of the CPI Property. The sub-station is located at 106 Ponquogue Avenue, approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the CPI Property. Figure 3-5 illustrates the fire stations in the area.

Correspondence from the Hampton Bays Fire District revealed that the Department has 98 volunteer members that are on call 24/7. Equipment utilized by the Department includes the following:

Headquarters:  Class A pumper  Brush truck  Flood light utility truck/heavy rescue  Fire police van  Class A pumper/heavy rescue  2.5 ton utility truck/high water rescue  Scat airboat for ice/water rescue

Sub-station:  Class A pumper/heavy rescue  Pick-up w/ dive trailer  Class A pumper/95-foot ladder  Class A pumper/tanker  Brush truck  Fire police van

Funding for fire protection is received through property taxes placed on lands within the fire districts. During the 2011-12 tax year, the subject property will generate $8,939 for the Hampton Bays Fire District.

3.3.1.5 Public Water Supply

The CPI and Canal Properties and area are presently served with water from the Hampton Bays Water District using an existing distribution system that includes large transmission and supply mains to serve existing uses in the area. The two nearest well fields are located as follows:

 Well Field # 1: located off Ponquogue Avenue, has three wells (SCTM No. 900-224-2-36.11)  Well Field # 2: located off Old Riverhead Road East, has two wells (SCTM No. 900-227-1-7.39)

Page 3-43 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The Hampton Bays Water District 2011 Drinking Water Quality Report provides information on the public water supply for the area including the subject properties. The source of water for the District is groundwater pumped from 11 active wells located throughout the community that are drilled into the Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Generally, the water quality of the aquifer is good to excellent, although there are localized areas of contamination. The water from these areas is treated by the District to remove any contaminants prior to the conveyance to the consumer.

The number of household and commercial establishments serviced by the Hampton Bays Water District during 2011 was 6,375. The total amount of water withdrawn from the aquifer in 2011 was 849.2 million gallons, of which 98.9 percent was billed directly to consumers.

3.3.1.6 Solid Waste Removal and Disposal

As shown in Table 1-5, it is estimated that the CPI Property generates approximately 447 pounds per day (lbs/day) of solid wastes (6.7 tons/month), while the Canal Property currently generates 2,828 lbs/day (42.42 tons/month). The Eastern Property is vacant and therefore does not generate solid waste. The Town of Southampton does not provide municipal curbside garage and recyclable collection service. Residents and small businesses can either arrange for collection through private carters or self-haul trash and recyclables to a local recycling center.

Correspondence from the Town of Southampton Department of Municipal Works Waste Management Division indicates that the Town operates four transfer stations within the Town of Southampton (Westhampton, Hampton Bays, Southampton and Sag Harbor). In 2011, the Town received and disposed of approximately 5,900 tons in total of municipal solid waste. Approximately 1,200 tons of the total was received and disposed of at the Hampton Bays transfer station. In addition to municipal solid waste, the Town accepts recyclable material comprised of comingled (plastics, glass, metal, cans), corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, and various other recyclable materials. These commodities are disposed of/recycled, at facilities that the Town has contracted with through the competitive bid process. In 2011, among all four facilities, the breakdown of tonnage was as follows: 5,900 tons of municipal solid waste, 1,400 tons of comingled, 885 tons of corrugated cardboard and 1,600 tons of mixed paper.

3.3.1.7 Energy Services

LIPA is the local provider of electricity in the vicinity of the subject properties. The LIPA power distribution “grid” includes the overhead transmission wires to the north of the site. National Grid maintains a 2-inch, 124 pound-per-square inch (psi) steel gas main located on the west side of Newtown Road as well as approximately 400 feet north of Canoe Place Road on the east side of North Shore Road.

Page 3-44 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.3.1.8 Recreation Facilities

A multitude of recreational activities are available to the residents of Southampton Town including residents of Hampton Bays. Beaches are located south of the CPI Property by Ponquogue Road over the Ponquogue Bridge to Ponquogue Beach and other beaches that span the barrier beach from the Shinnecock Inlet on the east to the Cupsogue County Park and Beach to the west at Moriches Inlet are available. The Paumanok Path hiking trail is located in the vicinity of the subject properties. Areas around and including the Eastern Property consist of scenic open pine woodlands and maritime heathlands and runs east-west along the railroad and is considered as a future critical linkage for the Paumanok Path. The Eastern Property is categorized as an OSG1 parcel, or those parcels that should have the highest priority for acquisition in order to protect community character. Furthermore, the Eastern Property was identified as a parcel whose acquisition is crucial to secure and complete existing trails. The Paumanok Path is a hiking trail of regional importance that will ultimately extend from Rocky Point to Montauk Point. Golf courses are an abundant recreational resource in the area and other opportunities in eastern Southampton Town, as well as the Indian Island county golf course to the north in Riverhead. The Shinnecock Canal area offers marinas for boating activities and fishing charters.

Nearby parks include Suffolk County Parks at Meschutt Beach, less than a mile to the north, as well as Sears-Bellows Park and Red Creek open space parklands several miles to the west. These provide both passive and active recreation and are an asset within the community that provides convenient opportunities in the Hampton Bays area. The Town of Southampton has established a park on the parcel immediately east of the CPI Property, across Newtown Road and west of Shinnecock Canal.

3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts

All community service providers were contacted by mail. As a result, all recipients have been made aware of plans for the CPI Property, Canal Property and Eastern Property. Responses received from service providers are included in Appendix O. Further impact analysis and discussion regarding community services are included herein.

3.3.2.1 Fiscal Considerations and Tax Revenue

The following analysis is taken from the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis in Appendix F-1:

Many of the Town and County’s community services and facilities are supported in large part by the revenues generated through property taxes. The Town of Southampton and Suffolk County, as well as other local taxing jurisdictions will greatly benefit from an increase in such property tax revenues, resulting from the development and operation of the proposed project.

Page 3-45 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

CPI Property For the purpose of this analysis, it is necessary to determine the assessed valuation for the Canoe Place Inn Property. The value was determined based upon construction and rehabilitation costs and estimated valuation provided by the applicant. As seen in Table 3-10a, the estimated market valuation for taxing purposes is approximately $10.7 million. This market valuation includes existing land values, $3 million in rehabilitation costs, as well as an estimated value added to the cottages, hotel and catering facility/restaurant stemming from the rehabilitation of the property.

Table 3-10a ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION, CPI Property

Type of Development Assessed Valuation Cottages $1,250,0003 Hotel $1,991,5284 Catering Facility/Restaurant $2,425,3885 Rehabilitation of Existing Conditions $3,000,0006 Full Market Valuation $10,687,216 Equalization Rate 100.00% Total Assessment $10,687,216 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; RS Means Square Foot Costs; Analysis by NP&V.

Current tax rates can be applied to the assessed valuation in order to project the impact that the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn Property will have on the local tax base. Table 3-11a shows the current tax rates and revenues that are projected to be levied from the Canoe Place Inn Property. The information provided in the table was derived from the current assessment factors and tax rates provided by the Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes, the Town of Southampton Assessor’s Office, as well as the total projected assessed valuation for the development upon full build-out. It is important to note that all analyses are based on current tax dollars, and the revenue allotted among taxing jurisdictions will vary from year to year, depending on the annual tax rates, assessed valuation and equalization rates. Further, the final assessment and levy will be determined by the sole assessor at the time of occupancy. Projections included herein are as accurate as possible using fiscal impact methodologies, for the purpose of the planning and land use approval process.

3 It is assumed that the rehabilitation of the property will add value to the five (5) cottages located on the Canoe Place Inn Property. For the purpose of this analysis, and per estimates provided by the applicant, it is assumed that each of the five (5) cottages will be valued at $250,000, for a total of $1,250,000. 4 It is assumed that the rehabilitation of the property will add value to the 20-room hotel located on the Canoe Place Inn Property. For the purpose of this analysis, and per estimates provided by RS Means Square Foot Costs, it is assumed that value will be added in the amount of $145.75 per square foot of rehabilitation (11,200 SF) of the hotel, plus a location factor of 1.22 to reflect inflated costs in Suffolk County, for a total of $1,991,528. 5 It is assumed that the rehabilitation of the property will add value to the catering facility/restaurant located on the Canoe Place Inn Property. For the purpose of this analysis, and per estimates provided by RS Means Square Foot Costs, it is assumed that value will be added in the amount of $159.45 per square foot of rehabilitation (12,468 SF) of the catering facility/restaurant, plus a location factor of 1.22 to reflect inflated costs in Suffolk County, for a total of $2,425,388. 6 Rehabilitation costs were provided by R Squared Development LLC, in July/August 2012. It is important to note that all costs are estimates based upon market conditions as of the date of submission of this analysis.

Page 3-46 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-11a ANTICIPATED TAX REVENUE GENERATION, CPI Property

Percent Current Projected Increase of Total Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Tax in Tax Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Total: School Tax $62,981 $128,300 $65,319 79.9% Hampton Bays School $60,384 $123,010 $62,626 76.6% Hampton Bays Library $2,597 $5,290 $2,693 3.3% Total: County Tax $1,054 $2,148 $1,094 1.3% Suffolk County $1,054 $2,148 $1,094 1.3% Total: Town Tax $7,334 $14,941 $7,607 9.3% Southampton Town - General $2,072 $4,221 $2,149 2.6% Highway $1,920 $3,912 $1,991 2.4% Police $2,765 $5,632 $2,867 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 $257 $524 $267 0.3% Zoning $294 $598 $305 0.4% Out of County Tuition $26 $53 $27 0.0% Total: Other Tax $8,363 $15,229 $7,753 9.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law $372 $759 $386 0.5% New York State MTA Tax $37 $75 $38 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District $3,929 $8,005 $4,075 5.0% Hampton Bays Lighting District $278 $566 $288 0.4% Hampton Bays Water District $1,186 $2,415 $1,230 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District $1,443 $2,939 $1,496 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms $525 ------Hampton Bays Park District $136 $278 $141 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District $94 $192 $98 0.1% Water Arrears $362 ------TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS $79,732 $160,618 $81,773 100.0% Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis.

The rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn Property will significantly increase taxes generated by the site, resulting in a substantial increase in revenues distributed to each taxing jurisdiction. The Canoe Place Inn Property is projected to generate over $160,000 in annual taxes. This represents a net increase of nearly $82,000 per year when compared to existing site conditions.

The Canoe Place Inn Property will levy approximately $123,000 to the Hampton Bays UFSD, representing 76.6% of the total tax generated by the site. Likewise, the Canoe Place Inn Property will levy approximately $5,300 to the Library District, comprising 3.3% of the tax levy. An additional $2,148 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are projected to be distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.3% of the tax revenue is projected to be levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total nearly $15,000 in projected revenues. The balance of the projected property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing

Page 3-47 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others.

Canal Property For the purpose of this analysis, it is necessary to determine the assessed valuation for the Canal Property. The value was determined based upon construction costs, comparable selling prices in the local housing market, and estimated valuation provided by the applicant. As seen in Table 3-10b, the estimated market valuation for taxing purposes is approximately $46.7 million. This market valuation includes existing land values, as well as estimated costs to construct the townhouses, clubhouse/amenity building, and private marina.

Table 3-10b ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION, Canal Property

Assessed Type of Development Valuation High Quality Townhouses $44,000,0007 Clubhouse/Amenity Building and Pool $1,339,5608 Private Marina $100,0009 Full Market Valuation $46,735,160 Equalization Rate 100.00% Total Assessment $46,735,160 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; RS Means Square Foot Costs; MLS Long Island; Analysis by NP&V.

Current tax rates can be applied to the assessed valuation in order to project the impact that the development of the Canal Property will have on the local tax base. Table 3-11b shows the current tax rates and revenues that are projected to be levied from the Canal Property. The information provided in the table was derived from the current assessment factors and tax rates provided by the Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes, the Town of Southampton Assessor’s Office, as well as the total projected assessed valuation for the development upon full build-out. It is important to note that all analyses are based on current tax dollars, and the revenue allotted among taxing jurisdictions will vary from year to year, depending on the annual tax rates, assessed valuation and equalization rates. Further, the final assessment and levy will be determined by the sole assessor at the time of occupancy. Projections included herein are as accurate as possible using fiscal impact methodologies, for the purpose of the planning and land use approval process.

7 For the purpose of this analysis, and per a sampling of comparable housing units located within townhouse/condominium developments in the Hampton Bays UFSD listed on the MLS Long Island website, an average selling price of approximately $1,100,000 per each of the 40 townhouse units was assumed. This amounts to a total market valuation of $44,000,000. 8 For the purpose of this analysis, and per estimates provided by RS Means Square Foot Costs, it is assumed that value will be added in the amount of $165.15 per square foot of construction (6,000 SF) of the clubhouse/amenity building, and $89.25 per square foot of construction (1,200 SF) of the swimming pool. In addition, a location factor of 1.22 for each type of development was assumed to reflect inflated costs in Suffolk County. This amounts to a total market valuation of $1,339,560. 9 Construction improvement costs of the private marina were provided by R Squared Development LLC, in July/August 2012. It is important to note that all costs are estimates based upon market conditions as of the date of submission of this analysis.

Page 3-48 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-11b ANTICIPATED TAX REVENUE GENERATION, Canal Property

Percent Current Projected Increase of Total Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Tax in Tax Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Total: School Tax $76,364 $561,056 $484,692 79.9% Hampton Bays School $73,215 $537,922 $464,707 76.6% Hampton Bays Library $3,149 $23,134 $19,985 3.3% Total: County Tax $1,279 $9,394 $8,115 1.3% Suffolk County $1,279 $9,394 $8,115 1.3% Total: Town Tax $8,893 $65,336 $56,443 9.3% Southampton Town - General $2,513 $18,460 $15,948 2.6% Highway $2,328 $17,105 $14,777 2.4% Police $3,352 $24,629 $21,277 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 $312 $2,290 $1,978 0.3% Zoning $356 $2,617 $2,261 0.4% Out of County Tuition $32 $234 $202 0.0% Total: Other Tax $9,064 $66,598 $57,533 9.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law $452 $3,318 $2,867 0.5% New York State MTA Tax $45 $327 $283 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District $4,764 $35,005 $30,240 5.0% Hampton Bays Lighting District $337 $2,477 $2,140 0.4% Hampton Bays Water District $1,438 $10,562 $9,125 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District $1,749 $12,852 $11,103 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms ------Hampton Bays Park District $165 $1,215 $1,050 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District $114 $841 $727 0.1% Water Arrears ------TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS $95,599 $702,383 $606,783 100.0% Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by NP&V.

The development of the Canal Property will significantly increase taxes generated by the site, resulting in a substantial increase in revenues distributed to each taxing jurisdiction. The Canal Property is projected to generate over $702,000 in annual taxes. This represents a net increase of over $606,000 per year when compared to existing site conditions.

The Canal Property will levy approximately $561,000 to the Hampton Bays UFSD, representing 76.6% of the total tax generated by the site. Likewise, the Canal Property will levy approximately $23,000 to the Library District, comprising 3.3% of the tax levy. An additional $9,394 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are projected to be distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.3% of the tax revenue is projected to be levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total over $65,000 in projected revenues. The balance of the projected property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays

Page 3-49 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others.

Eastern Property For the purpose of this analysis, it is necessary to determine the assessed valuation for the Eastern Property. The value was determined based upon construction costs and estimated valuation provided by the applicant. As seen in Table 3-10c, the estimated market valuation for taxing purposes is approximately $1.37 million. This market valuation includes existing land values, as well as estimated costs to construct the 15,000 gallon NitrexTM WWTF.

Table 3-10c ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION, Eastern Property

Type of Development Assessed Valuation Wastewater Treatment Facility $1,050,00010 Full Market Valuation $1,377,200 Equalization Rate 100.00% Total Assessment $1,377,200 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Analysis by NP&V.

Current tax rates can be applied to the assessed valuation in order to project the impact that the development of the Eastern Property will have on the local tax base. Table 3-11c shows the current tax rates and revenues that are projected to be levied from the Eastern Property. The information provided in the table was derived from the current assessment factors and tax rates provided by the Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes, the Town of Southampton Assessor’s Office, as well as the total projected assessed valuation for the development upon full build-out. It is important to note that all analyses are based on current tax dollars, and the revenue allotted among taxing jurisdictions will vary from year to year, depending on the annual tax rates, assessed valuation and equalization rates. Further, the final assessment and levy will be determined by the sole assessor at the time of occupancy. Projections included herein are as accurate as possible using fiscal impact methodologies, for the purpose of the planning and land use approval process.

The development of the WWTF will increase taxes generated by the site, resulting in a substantial increase in revenues distributed to each taxing jurisdiction. The Eastern Property is projected to generate over $20,000 in annual taxes. This represents a net increase of over $15,000 per year when compared to existing site conditions.

The Eastern Property will levy approximately $16,000 to the Hampton Bays UFSD, representing 76.6% of the total tax generated by the site. Likewise, the Eastern Property will levy approximately $682 to the Library District, comprising 3.3% of the tax levy. An additional $277 or 1.3% of the total tax revenues are projected to be distributed to Suffolk County, and approximately 9.3% of the tax revenue is projected to be levied to the Town of Southampton, which includes the General Fund, Highway, Police, Emergency Dispatching (e911), Zoning and Out of County Tuition funds. These six line items combine to total over $1,900 in projected revenues. The balance of the projected property tax revenues are apportioned to various other local taxing jurisdictions – including Hampton Bays

10 Construction costs of the WWTF were provided by R Squared Development LLC, in July/August 2012, and reflect an estimate of $70 per gallon to construct. When coupled with the existing valuation of the land, this amounts to a total market valuation of $1,050,000. It is important to note that all costs are estimates based upon market conditions as of the date of submission of this analysis.

Page 3-50 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Fire District, Lighting District, Water District, Ambulance District, Park District and Parking District, among others.

Table 3-11c ANTICIPATED TAX REVENUE GENERATION, Eastern Property

Current Projected Increase Percent of Taxing Jurisdiction Tax Tax in Tax Total Tax Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue

Total: School Tax $3,928 $16,533 $12,605 79.9% Hampton Bays School $3,766 $15,852 $12,086 76.6% Hampton Bays Library $162 $682 $520 3.3% Total: County Tax $66 $277 $211 1.3% Suffolk County $66 $277 $211 1.3% Total: Town Tax $457 $1,925 $1,468 9.3% Southampton Town - General $129 $544 $415 2.6% Highway $120 $504 $384 2.4% Police $172 $726 $553 3.5% Emergency Dispatching - e911 $16 $67 $51 0.3% Zoning $18 $77 $59 0.4% Out of County Tuition $2 $7 $5 0.0% Total: Other Tax $466 $1,963 $1,496 9.5% New York State Real Property Tax Law $23 $98 $75 0.5% New York State MTA Tax $2 $10 $7 0.0% Hampton Bays Fire District $245 $1,032 $786 5.0% Hampton Bays Lighting District $17 $73 $56 0.4% Hampton Bays Water District $74 $311 $237 1.5% Hampton Bays Ambulance District $90 $379 $289 1.8% Unpaid Security Alarms ------Hampton Bays Park District $9 $36 $27 0.2% Hampton Bays Parking District $6 $25 $19 0.1% Water Arrears ------TOTAL: ALL TAXING JURISDICTIONS $4,917 $20,698 $15,780 100.0% Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; Analysis by NP&V.

3.3.2.2 Educational Services and Facilities

Correspondence from the Hampton Bays UFSD, dated August 21, 2012 in Appendix O indicates that the District is in support of the seasonal nature of the proposed townhomes.

If this project moves forward, the seasonal nature of the Canal Property is preferable to the District. However, what the future holds beyond this initial proposal is unknown and therefore the District remains cautious. Given the current economy, it is realistic to imagine a scenario whereby someone purchases a condominium as a second-home but rents it to a local family with children during the off-

Page 3-51 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

season months. In that instance, this property would indeed have an adverse impact on the District’s enrollment. If these properties are developed, we strongly support their exclusively as seasonal and second-homes.

It is noted that the Residential Market Analysis (Appendix D-2) supports a finding that the 40 townhomes will be able to be successfully marketed. The units would be attractive to second home owners who would want the flexibility of occupying the unit as a “getaway” and would be unlikely to rent for year-round use. In addition, seniors and families with few or no children may also seek ownership and as a result, the overall average number of school-age children is expected to be low (thereby reducing the cost of education), while the revenue to the school district would remain high.

The following analysis of potential impacts to the school district is taken from the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis in Appendix F-1:

An analysis of housing occupancy estimates allows for the determination of the number of residents and school-aged children that would likely result from the proposed project. These data are important in projecting fiscal impacts to the school district as related to tax revenue and cost of education.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average household size in the Town of Southampton is 2.49 persons.11 Moreover, the Long Island Housing Partnership indicates an average of 0.08 school- aged children per multi-family housing unit within the Town of Southampton.12 Given these assumptions and the proposed unit mix, it is projected that the development of the 40 townhouses at the Canal Property will create 100 residents (see Table 3-12). Of the 100 residents, it is projected that three persons would be school-aged children.

Given the unique nature of the proposed development, it is important to note that the above- mentioned housing statistics represent a conservatively high population projection, as it is likely that a portion of the housing units will be purchased by seasonal residents.

The proposed project is located within the Hampton Bays UFSD. As such, it is likely that the three school-aged children will be enrolled within this district.

Table 3-12 PROJECTED IMPACT ON POPULATION

Number of Units 40 Average Household Size 2.49 Average School-Aged Children per Household 0.08 Projected New Residents 100 School-Aged Children 3 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; U.S. Cen Bureau; The Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc.; Analysis by NP&V.

11 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates 12 The Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc., “Multifamily Housing on Long Island: Its Impact on Numbers of School-Age Children & School District Finances.”

Page 3-52 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

The ratio of special education students to the total enrollment at Hampton Bays UFSD is approximately 13.3%. For lack of any other statistics to use as a basis for projection, it is assumed that the portion of special education students will remain constant with the development of the proposed project. When applied to the three school-aged children that are projected to attend public schools, it is anticipated that all students residing at the proposed development would be enrolled within the district’s general education program.

The three students will result in additional costs to the Hampton Bays UFSD. According to the New York State School Report Card, Fiscal Accountability Supplement for Hampton Bays UFSD, expenditures averaged $11,138 per general education student and $34,350 per special education student during the 2009-10 academic year.13 Given these assumptions, it is estimated that the three general education students will cost the school district approximately $33,414 per academic year. However, as seen in Table 3-13, it is estimated that the school district will revenue nearly $538,000 in taxes from the Canal Property alone. In total, the proposed project will generate over $676,000 in annual property tax revenue to the Hampton Bays UFSD. Such revenues will more than cover the associated expenses incurred by the three students, resulting in a net revenue to the Hampton Bays UFSD of approximately $504,508 per year from the Canal Property, and over $643,000 per year from the proposed project. This net revenue could ease the district’s need to tap into additional fund balances, reduce their financial burden, and could also help alleviate an increased burden on other taxpayers throughout the district. These revenues are most crucial during a time of fiscal and economic hardships throughout Long Island, New York State and the nation.

As discussed in Section 1.1.2.1, in regard to the number of school-age children that may occupy the townhomes which are expected to be primarily occupied by seasonal residents, and therefore may have a minimal number of children enrolled in the local school district, the Residential Market Analysis indicates that, based on a study prepared by the Long Island Housing Partnership (LIHP; Appendix D-3), three school-age children are anticipated to reside on the Canal Property, a rate of 0.08 school-age children/unit. This value is based on a survey of children resident in five multi-family, non-senior condominium projects in the Town of Southampton that found a total of 11 school-age children in the 138 units surveyed (see Table C- 8 of Appendix D-3). While the sample for the LIHP study seems small, it is more relevant to the types of housing present in the Town of Southampton and the expected seasonal nature of the proposed townhomes. For comparison purposes, reference to values derived by the Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR; Rutgers University) indicates an average of 0.26 school-age children/single-family, attached unit, which would yield 11 school-age children for the Canal Property. The Rutgers multiplier considers all multi-family housing unit types, not luxury units exclusively (values for the housing units include all units greater than $225,000 which are significantly less than the anticipated selling price of the proposed townhomes), and do not consider the proposed projects location within a resort community. However, assuming the same methodology (i.e., the ratio of public to private school enrollment, the ratio of general to special education enrollment and the per pupil expenditures for each), 11 school-aged children would result in a net revenue of $542,191 to the school district. Regardless of which of these two differing rates is assumed, it is clear that the proposed project would result in minimal potential enrollment impact to the local school district and would be tax-positive with respect to the local

13 As of the date of submission of this analysis, this represents the most current year that such detailed financial data is available.

Page 3-53 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS school district. This is partly due to the fact that although Section 330-155 of the Town Code permits inn units to be transferred to condominiums units, townhouse units are proposed which generate higher taxes on a per-unit basis than condominium units.

3.3.2.3 Police Protection

The proposed project will be served by the Southampton Town Police Department. Based on the size of the development areas and the number of residents (Canal Property) and employees (CPI and Canal Properties) expected, this increase in the potential need for services is not anticipated to be to a level which would cause a significant impact on the ability of the Southampton Town Police Department to provide such services. Furthermore, it is expected that rehabilitation of the CPI structure, which will be constructed to current building code with sprinklers, modern building materials, design of fire escapes and correct door and window locations and sizes, alarms for early warning, convenient hydrants and water supply and the like, will result in a safe, low risk use of the site that would not increase the need for fire, ambulance or police response significantly more than what is currently needed.

Table 3-13 FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT

General Special Total: All Parameter Education Education Students Student Enrollment: Hampton Bays UFSD 1,858 284 2,142 Percentage of Enrollment 86.7% 13.3% 100.0% Number of Additional Students 3 0 3 Expenditure per Pupil $11,138 $34,350 -- Additional Expenditures Incurred by Hampton Bays UFSD $33,414 $0 $33,414 Projected Tax Revenue Allocated to Hampton Bays UFSD (from Canal Property) $537,922 Net Revenue (from Canal Property) $504,508 Projected Tax Revenue Allocated to Hampton Bays UFSD (from proposed project) $676,783 Net Revenue (from proposed project) $643,369 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Hampton Bays UFSD; Town of Southampton Receiver of Taxes; New York State Education Department; Analysis by NP&V.

It is estimated that the project will result in an increase to $30,987 in annual tax revenue for the Police Department (including $5,632 from the CPI Property, $24,629 from the Canal Property and $726 from the Eastern Property), which is expected to offset the costs to provide the increase in police services.

3.3.2.4 Fire Protection

The proposed development projects will be serviced by the Hampton Bays Fire Department. The rehabilitation of the CPI structure and construction of the townhomes will include current building materials and safety installations per the NYS Building Code. The projects will be

Page 3-54 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS planned with suitable access for emergency vehicles and will include installation of fire hydrants as directed through the site plan review process.

It is expected that the project will result in an increase to $44,041 in annual tax revenue for the Fire Department (including $8,005 from the CPI Property, $35,005 from the Canal Property and $1,032 from the Eastern Property), which (in addition to the design and construction factors noted above) is expected to assist in offsetting the costs to provide fire protection services to the project.

3.3.2.5 Public Water Supply

The proposed project will utilize public water, to be supplied by the Hampton Bays Water District via connections to the existing water mains surrounding the subject properties. The potable water requirement of the CPI Property of approximately 10,175 gpd and 13,800 gpd for the Canal Property are not anticipated to impact the ability of the Water District to serve the subject properties and existing customers. The Hampton Bays Water District is chartered to provide water to its service district customers, based on approved tariffs.

3.3.2.6 Solid Waste Removal and Disposal

The CPI development is expected to generate approximately 20.6 tons of solid waste per month, based on 3 lbs/day/inn room and cottage and 2 lbs/meal for the restaurant and catering and the townhomes are expected to generate approximately 5.2 tons of solid waste per month, based on 3.5 lbs/day/capita. The proposed developments will utilize private haulers for removal of solid waste and recyclables.

The site design for CPI locates a dumpster at the north east corner of the existing building, in the vicinity of the existing dumpster location. This area is to be enclosed with a fence. A truck servicing the dumpster will be able to enter the property from the eastern entrance, empty the dumpster, turn around and exit the property from the same entrance.

Dumpster locations for the proposed townhomes on the Canal Property are proposed at the north and south ends of the property. The proposed dumpster on the south part of the site will be located along the western side of the parking circle. Truck movement patterns were modeled based on AutoTrack turn models combined with the local carter’s estimates for the size of a garbage truck. At the proposed locations, a truck will be able to enter, empty the dumpster, turn around, and exit the site. The proposed dumpster at the north end of the site is located at the north end of the proposed parking lot, east of the existing electrical tower. A truck servicing this dumpster will be able to enter the site, empty the dumpster, and back out of the site on exit.

Page 3-55 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.3.2.7 Energy Suppliers

The proposed project will use LIPA and National Grid to supply energy resources to the subject properties. Existing utilities will be abandoned in phases coordinated with new development areas. Connections to the proposed townhomes will be made to each utility through the creation of an internal distribution network within the development. It is anticipated that both of these energy supply companies maintain adequate resources to supply the proposed development projects. The LIPA response letter confirms that electrical service will be provided to the proposed project. Correspondence with National Grid indicates that gas load information will be required to supply the proposed development projects with natural gas. Energy saving devices will be utilized in the rehabilitated CPI and townhomes where practical to reduce the total energy demand that will be required by the project sites upon completion. The proposed development projects will conform to applicable requirements of Chapter 123, Article V (Energy Conservation).

3.3.2.8 Recreation Facilities

The townhome development on the Canal Property will include amenities for residents including a clubhouse, pool and marina. The Canal Property is privately owned and will not be used as a public recreational area. Recreational opportunities are abundant in the area and no significant demand or burden on such resources are expected. The existing active and passive recreational opportunities previously described in Section 3.3.1.8, will be available to residents of the townhomes and visitors of CPI.

3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation

 The proposed project will generate significant increases in tax revenues and allocations to each of the pertinent community services, which would more than offset any change in cost to the pertinent community services to provide services.  The Hampton Bays UFSD will receive nearly $677,000 in taxes - covering the associated expenses incurred by the three students projected to be generated by the proposed project.  The proposed project will generate a significant increase in tax revenue, which would more than offset any change in cost to the pertinent community services to provide services.  Conformance to the NYS Building and Fire Safety Codes will partially mitigate potential health and safety impacts from fire response providers.  Energy efficient design and current construction methods will be utilized and buildings will be constructed consistent with NYS Building Code requirements.

Page 3-56 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.4 Community Character

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

3.4.1.1 Aesthetic Resources

Both the CPI and the Canal Properties play different but significant roles in the establishment of community character along the Shinnecock Canal. CPI is one of the first buildings visible when travelling west across the Shinnecock Canal and presently creates a less-than-ideal image upon entering Hampton Bays; the same can be said for the Canal Property when travelling east and entering Shinnecock Hills. Appendix G-1 presents a number of photographs of the three project properties in their current conditions.

CPI Property As seen in the historic images of the site contained in the Historic Property Study in Appendix B-2 as well as the architectural analysis in Appendix B-3, CPI traditionally presented an understated, informal and inviting face to travelers along both Montauk Highway and the Shinnecock Canal. Changing with the times, the CPI structure has gone through a wide range of architectural and aesthetic modifications in an attempt to remain in tune with the times and which, until relatively recently, retained the character as an inviting place for locals and visitors alike. Starting with the construction of the “new” bridge across the canal in the 1970’s and the change of the inn to a nightclub, the site has slowly become less visually appealing.

The building presently on the CPI Property was constructed in 1923 to replace an earlier, historic inn that burned down in a major fire in July 1921. The “new inn” consisted of an inn rebuilt over the earlier foundation, a new “dance pavilion” and a small connector between the two. The Inn was added to and modified almost continuously from the late 1920’s through the 1970’s, changing with the demands and fashions of the times as well as from roadway and bridge construction adjacent to the site, which changed the overall grades in the vicinity.

Generally a commercial area, the site context has consisted of various commercial and marine uses with residential buildings located either to the north of the rail line or set back off Montauk Highway to the south for more than 100 years. In 1925 the site included the inn, the dance pavilion and the connector, as well as a series of small cottages and larger barns located between the dance pavilion and the railroad tracks. The half-round structure on the front of the dance pavilion was not part of the original construction and was not added until after World War II. By 1947, the addition to the dance pavilion was complete and other smaller additions had been constructed, in particular the connector that had been expanded to make room for a larger kitchen and other service areas.

Between the end of the war and the early 1960’s, the residential area to the north of the tracks began to fill in and the inn underwent a number of aesthetic changes to make it more “contemporary” with the times, with window and color changes which attempted to give the building an Art Deco look. The connector was further added to, bringing the inn’s footprint essentially to its present configuration.

Page 3-57 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

By the early 1970’s, the barn-like industrial buildings located between the inn and the railroad tracks had been modified and at least one of them torn down, presumably due to poor condition and lack of use, creating the large open parking area behind the inn seen on the site today.

By 1978, Montauk Highway had been re-aligned and the present vehicular bridge over the Shinnecock Canal was constructed. This permanently altered the relationship between the inn and the roadway, a change which somewhat reduced its visibility from the road. The increased roadway elevation allowed a higher clearance for boats using the canal; however, the grading of the CPI Property changed in a subtle but important way. The first floor of the inn, which had previously been a three-season porch lined with windows, was partially buried to allow the entry drives to match the grade of the new roadway. Not only did this change the internal use of the first floor from a light and airy porch to a dark enclosed space, but it also changed the visual proportions of the building. The first floor was visually turned into a basement and the second floor porches now visually seem to be the first floor, creating visual confusion upon entering the building. By comparing old pictures of the inn with the present conditions, it is evident that the south facing elevation appears truncated and an essential visual characteristic of the building was lost. By this time the final barn on the site had been demolished and the first part of the marina across Old Montauk Highway was completed, significantly altering the visual relationship between the inn and the bay.

By 1984, the building and site were essentially in the configuration they are today with the small exception of piers flanking the present entrance, which were in place by 2001. The building, which operated as a nightclub until 2010, is and has been in poor condition for many years and much if not most of the 1920's fabric of the building either no longer exists or is in a state of significant disrepair. Essentially none of the landscaping shown in early photos remains and much of the vegetation on the site today is made up of either weed trees or other types of invasive plantings.

Canal Property The Canal Property, located between North Shore Road and the Shinnecock Canal, is very long and narrow, in particular on the northern half of the property adjacent to the marina. The site is bordered to the north by the LIRR train trestle/abutment and to the south by the Montauk Highway bridge and associated abutment that crosses the canal. The site, which drops down to the canal, rises in elevation across its North Shore Road frontage from the middle to both of these abutments and is almost 30 feet lower than the wooded hill on the east side of the road (Eastern Property). There is an existing publicly accessible floating dock along the canal on the southern portion of the site. Since the construction of the canal, the site has been occupied by various commercial uses and a two-story house with two apartments remains on the site.

There are four major wood-framed buildings on the site; the Tiderunner’s restaurant directly on the canal, two other single-story commercial structures and an old, two-story house. The site and buildings are highly visible from Montauk Highway, North Shore Road, and from boats on the canal as well as from the LIRR train trestle. While Tiderunner’s has a deck and is attractive when seen from the highway bridge and the canal, its roof is visible from the parking lot and the

Page 3-58 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS road. The remaining buildings face the road and are not attractive when viewed from either the canal or Montauk Highway.

Most of the site is a gravel parking lot. While there are some trees and natural vegetation on the site, the majority of them are not specimen-type trees and do not create any real sense of landscaping when viewed from any surrounding area. In particular, the slope between the northern portion of the site and the marina is covered by scrub and other invasive species and is not attractive when viewed from the canal.

There are few other commercial uses adjacent to the site on the eastern side of the canal, and all immediately adjacent uses are residential. Due to the nature and type of buildings as well as the lack of landscaping on this parcel, there is no essential visual characteristic to this site that contributes to the character of the community or as a gateway to Shinnecock Hills.

Eastern Property The Eastern Property is currently comprised of vacant, wooded land with an old pump house located near the southwest corner of the parcel. The entirety of the site (2.68 acres) is comprised of Pitch Pine-Oak forest

3.4.1.2 Noise

General Noise Information The environmental impact of noise can have various effects on human beings ranging from annoyance to hearing loss. A noise problem is said to exist when noise interferes with human activities (Rau and Wooten, 1980). Various noise scales have been developed to describe the response of an average human ear to sound. The most common unit utilized to characterize noise levels is the A-weighted decibel (dBA), which weighs the various components of noise according to the response of the human ear. Because the human ear perceives the middle range of frequencies better than the high or low frequencies, the dBA scale assigns the middle range a much larger “loudness” value than higher and lower frequencies. For the purpose of this report, sound levels are reported in Leq and range (minimum/maximum). Leq refers to the energy- average sound level for a specific time period and relates sound intensity level to time as the "equivalent sound level" scale expressed in dBA. Leq is commonly utilized as a statistical average sound level in noise impact prediction.

Physical measurements of noise may be measured in dBA using a sound level meter. The meter collects frequency values, which are automatically interpreted as a function of human hearing frequency response (according to the weighted decibel scale). The weighted scale thus provides a measure of noise that is meaningful for assessing ambient noise environments and potential noise impacts as heard by human beings. On average, a change of 3 dBA is required for the average person to detect a difference in the level of noise, whereas a change between 2 and 3 dBA is the level associated with the threshold of detection and a change in the range of 5 dBA is noticeable and is considered to be an impact (see Table 3-14).

Page 3-59 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-14 AVERAGE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS

Change Human Perception of Change in Sound Levels (dBA) 2-3 Barely perceptible, threshold of detection 5 Readily noticeable 10 Doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 Dramatic change 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and very loud sound Source: Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic, Report No. PB-222-703, FHWA, June 1973.

Sound levels decrease with distance from the source as a result of dispersion which is predicted using the "inverse square law", which applies a reduction of 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from a line source (such as a roadway) and 6 dBA reduction for a point source (a stationary source). This reduction effect is due to natural dispersion only and is not a function of the presence of barriers or other objects (USDOT, 1980-1), which may result in additional attenuation of noise. Also, because the decibel scale is logarithmic, the laws for addition of logarithms must be utilized for addition of decibels. The addition of two similar noise levels will result in an increase of 3 dBA. For example, a noise level of 50 dBA added to an existing noise level of 50 dBA would result in an end noise level of 53 dBA, an increase that is considered to be the threshold for human detection.

As a point of reference and comparison, an increase of 10 dBA equates to a doubling of the sound energy. This phenomenon is related to the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, which will be explained below. In the same respect, a decrease of 10 dBA appears to the listener as a halving of noise. Table 3-15 relates changes in dBA to a receiver as compared to a base reference of 60 dBA.

In addition to measurable and detectable increases in dBA, public reaction to noise is also a function of location (urban, suburban, rural), time of day, fluctuation of noise levels, duration, and individual judgment of the listener.

In addition to attenuation by distance from the source, vegetation and noise barriers also result in attenuation of noise levels. Densely wooded areas are expected to have an attenuation rate of 5 dBA for every 100-foot depth of woods (up to a maximum attenuation of 10 dBA). For low- density vegetation, a nominal amount of attenuation of 2 to 3 dBA per 100 feet of woods may be expected to occur. The attenuation of noise due to barriers (walls and buildings) is a function of the height and composition of the barrier. A barrier capable of reducing sound energy transmission through the structure which interrupts the line of sight between a source and a receptor, will generally provide a minimum sound reduction of 5 dBA.

Page 3-60 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 3-15 COMMON NOISE LEVELS AND REACTIONS

Noise Apparent Level Typical Human Reaction Sound Source Loudness (dBA) Military jet 130 128X as loud Limit of amplified speech Air raid siren Amplified rock music 110 32X as loud Maximum vocal effort Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100 16X as loud Train horn at 30 meters Freight train at 15 meters 95 Heavy truck at 15 meters Very annoying Busy city street 90 8X as loud Hearing damage Loud shout (8+ hours) Busy traffic intersection 80 4X as loud Annoying Highway traffic at 15 meters Train horn at 500 meters 70 2X as loud Telephone use difficult Noisy restaurant Predominantly industrial areas Light car traffic at 15 meters City or commercial areas 60 Base reference Intrusive Residential areas close to industry Noisy office Quiet office Suburban areas with medium- 50 1/2 as loud Speech interference density transportation Public library 40 1/4 as loud Quiet Soft whisper at 5 meters 30 1/8 as loud Very quiet 10 1/32 as loud Just audible Threshold of hearing 0 1/64 as loud Note: The minimum difference in noise level noticeable to the human listener is 3 dBA. A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, while a 10 dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness. Source: (NYSDOT, 1980 and White, 1975)

By utilizing this information, it is possible to use the ambient noise, source noise and attenuating factors to predict noise levels resulting from a particular source. The adjusted level is the noise level associated with the source after it is attenuated by distance and other attenuating factors such as structures interrupting the line of sight between the source and receptor, noise barriers, and thick vegetation. The adjusted level is combined with the ambient level using the concepts of decibel addition described previously.

Town of Southampton Code Noise regulations are contained in Chapter 235 of the Town Code. No person shall create or cause to be emitted any noise which, when measured at or beyond any lot line of the property on which such noise is being generated in a commercial or industrial district, exceeds the following standards:

Page 3-61 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

From 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM:

 Airborne noise in excess of 70 dBA’s; or  Airborne sound which has an octave band sound pressure level in decibels which exceeds the values listed below in one or more bands:

Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Octave Band Sound Pressure Level (dB) 31.5 85 63 80 125 74 250 67 500 62 1,000 58 2,000 53 4,000 50 8,000 47

From 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM:

 Airborne noise in excess of 65 dBA’s; or  Airborne sound which has an octave band sound pressure level in decibels which exceeds the values listed below in one or more bands:

Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Octave Band Sound Pressure Level (dB) 31.5 78 63 73 125 67 250 60 500 55 1,000 51 2,000 46 4,000 43 8,000 40

It is noted that noise from construction activities is exempt from the maximum sound levels if performed between 7:00 AM through 7:00 PM, provided that such activities and such equipment and their use comply with other noise provisions.

Existing Noise Conditions In order to assess potential noise impacts of the project, several factors must be considered including the location of potential sensitive noise receptors with respect to the noise source, the existing background environment and sources of noise, potential noise generated by the project and attenuation factors.

CPI Property The most recent use on the CPI Property, which was used seasonally on weekends as a nightclub,

Page 3-62 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

has been documented as a source of noise in the area in the Town’s Night Club Study (2002). CPI was among the preexisting nonconforming nightclubs that were studied to evaluate land use compatibility (since these clubs were all located in or near residential zoning districts, including the RWB district). The 2002 study documented noise complaints for all of the nightclubs studied, and found that CPI had among the highest number of complaints relative to noise during 2001 and 2002.14 During the off-season and hours when the club was not in operation, the facility contributed little or no noise to the ambient environment.

The ambient noise environment is characteristic of the adjacent transportation infrastructure (LIRR and Montauk Highway) located to the north and south of the property respectively. NP&V recently inspected the property to characterize the typical noise environment. Several locations were selected to first, identify the existing sound environment at the nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., the NYS property to the west and the nearest residential property lines to the north opposite the railroad tracks) and second, to determine whether an appropriate sound level for outdoor use at the site for future use. It was verified that sound levels on the property are characteristic of the site’s location in proximity to the highway and railroad. At Station #1, on the subject property adjacent the NYS property to the west, the sound levels ranged between 34.6 dBA at a time when no vehicles were passing on Montauk Highway to 60.6 dBA during times of equipment usage on the subject property for cleaning the cottage structures. In general, the sound levels in the interior of the site were in the range of 53 dBA. At Station #2, in the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Montauk Highway, the levels were correspondingly higher (averaging 67 dBA) due to the proximity of the roadway. The sound levels at the residential property line located north of the site and LIRR (Station #3) were slightly lower than Station #1 due to the distance from Montauk Highway, averaging 52.5 dBA. A key map illustrating the station locations, and associated datasheets for each station indicating individual readings and sound equivalence levels during the inspection are provided in Appendix P. In general, the levels measured are consistent with noise references that characterize outdoor noise levels of a main road in a suburban area.

Canal Property No noise readings were taken at this location, as no sensitive receptors are located on or proximate to this property.

Eastern Property The site is a vacant wooded area adjacent to North Shore Road, which is a frequently traveled roadway. Receptors in the area are residences located to the north and east of the property. To establish a baseline for analysis, sound level monitoring was conducted during a weekday afternoon at one station near the residential property line adjacent to the Eastern Property (Station #4). The sound levels taken at this location were the lowest recorded (compared to those taken on/near the CPI Property), due to the vegetated buffer provided on the property, with an average noise level of 51.4 dBA. The existing noise environment surrounding the site is fairly typical for a property located in a moderately developed area along a roadway with frequent traffic.

14 Police responded to a total of 71 calls in 2001 and 50 calls in 2002 at CPI that included the noise complaints.

Page 3-63 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts

3.4.2.1 Aesthetic Resources

Appendix G-2 presents three photosimulations of the proposed Canal Property, as prepared by Arrowstreet. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, these views support a conclusion that this proposed development would minimize potential adverse impacts on views of this property and of the vicinity, by its use of building material color, massing and architectural design. More specifically, Views 1 and 2 (from points across the Shinnecock Canal to the west and southwest, respectively) show that the townhouse structures would be lower than the treeline in the background. This would tend to minimize adverse visceral effects on observers, by reducing the apparent massing of these structures. It is acknowledged that, as shown in View 3, observers from the east and southeast will see the buildings obscuring the distant trees to its rear (on the west side of the canal). However, this impact occurs because, since the canal abuts this property’s western side, a treeline close to and behind the townhouse buildings is not possible, unlike the relationship shown in Views 1 and 2. An additional mitigating effect is related to foreground character, width and depth. Because of the presence of the Shinnecock Canal, observers from the west will see this property across a wide, deep, open and vegetated foreground occupied by the Town park and canal. This separation would tend to reduce potential aesthetic impacts that would otherwise occur from a shallow foreground emphasizing the visual difference between natural and developed surfaces seen by observers. In summary, the three views show that the project’s architectural character and use of building material color would minimize the visual disharmony between the developed nature of the project and the adjacent natural vegetation and built environment, which include the Shinnecock Canal and the road and LIRR bridges.

CPI Property Because of the poor condition of the existing building fabric, much of the rehabilitation of CPI will involve repairing and/or enhancing those building elements that represent the “essential visual characteristics” or qualities of the building. Since the building is less than 100 years old and many of the building elements that are cherished by the community as part of CPI Property’s essential character are even newer, determining which parts from which era should be maintained and which should be modified is difficult. One of the goals of the proposed rehabilitation is, within the constraints of the existing roadway and fiscal realities, to bring some of the Inn’s earlier inviting character back to this gateway site.

Through discussions with members of the community and individuals who have expressed interest in the history of the building, the project applicant has begun to identify certain elements of the building fabric which are critical to the character and perception of the building, both on the inside and the outside of the building. These include:

 The 1922 inn building;  The 1927 dance pavilion;  The half-round “porch” on the front of the dance pavilion;  The open porches at the second floor;

Page 3-64 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 The roof forms and shapes of the inn, the pavilion and the splayed dormers;  The tall brick chimneys with arched top crowns;  The portions of the inn that were constructed with terra cotta fire walls;  The stucco exterior and shutters;

In addition, historical photographs show that certain key visual characteristics have been lost over time and should be restored, if possible, including:

 The full height of the first floor (which is presently partly buried);  The casement windows and filigree lattice work at the first floor;  A formal, vehicular drop-off between the inn and Montauk Highway (CR 80);  Formal landscaping between the inn and Montauk Highway (CR 80);  Paths and landscaping connecting the inn and the cottages on the site.

As noted above, the inn buildings are in varying states of disrepair both due to their age and heavy wear on the building fabric due to the buildings use as a nightclub for a number of years. In addition, the construction of the bridge over the canal changed the grading on the site and buried a small but critical visual portion of the first floor of the building. A Site Plan Rendering and project renderings for the CPI Property are provided in Appendix J-1.

In order to rehabilitate the main CPI structure, and to rework some of the original design intent to deal with changes in the surrounding infrastructure and roadways since 1922, a number of changes are proposed. Most of these changes are intended to bring the Inn’s essential visual characteristics back to the fore and return the site to a true gateway for Hampton Bays. Other changes are intended to allow the building to once again function as a place of public accommodation safely and in compliance with modern standards. This work will include:

 The remaining portions of the 1922 construction will remain and be rehabilitated, which will include the replacement of old materials with new where existing materials are beyond their useful life, including both the Inn building as well as the pavilion;  The connector, bar and kitchen additions built between the inn and pavilion after 1922, which are in very poor condition and are not part of the essential character of the building, will be replaced with new construction more in keeping with the design and visual character of the Inn and pavilion;  The first floor of the Inn and pavilion will be refurbished with casements and lattice work similar to that shown in the early photographs;  The roof shingles will be returned to a more traditional color as shown in the early photographs;  Parts of the interior that remain and can be re-used and repaired will be, especially in the dance pavilion; other areas will be rehabilitated with finishes matching the visual character of the inn;  A new, formal drop-off will be located between the Inn and Montauk Highway along with new landscaping throughout the site including new pathways, parking and lawns where the existing gravel parking lot is located;  The new lobby for the Inn and pavilion will be located in the new “connector” and will re-create the formal entry sequence shown in old photographs.

Page 3-65 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

A Visual Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Addendum was prepared for the CPI Property (see Appendix Q). The rehabilitation of the CPI Property will significantly improve the character of the community and has been identified by the community as a welcomed project. The current condition of the site is in extreme disrepair and has become an eyesore.

Canal Property The project for the Canal Property includes complete redevelopment of the site to include 40 townhomes in nine new buildings as well as new walkways, landscaping and paved parking areas. Approximately the same height as the existing residential building on the site whose ridgeline is lower than the crest of the hill on the east side of North Shore Road, the proposed project will be more in keeping with the residential character of the surrounding area and is designed to present attractive, finished facades in all directions to this highly visible site. Proposed rendering and floor plans for the townhomes site are provided in Appendix J-2. A Visual EAF Addendum was prepared for the Canal Property (see Appendix Q).

Each building, which may contain up to six townhouse units (Building #9), is designed to look like a single home in keeping with the scale and style of traditional Hampton’s architecture. The roof forms and window fenestration pattern will make the multiple units look like a single bay home; the separate entries for the individual units are disguised as porches. Each of these bay homes will share an architectural vocabulary, materials and colors but will be a distinctive, individual building that presents an attractive, finished face to both the street and the canal.

Parking is divided in two lots to reduce paved area, and is placed behind a noise attenuation wall and landscaped buffer along North Shore Road. The homes on the southern half of the site frame a large open lawn visible from the canal and Montauk Highway; the homes on the northern half frame the marina.

As outlined in Section 330-84D of the Zoning Code, all buildings and structures on any lot in any district must remain within the “sky plane” of the lot. This is a flat surface pictured to rest one edge on the ground along the lot line, and tilt upward at an angle. Any portion of a building that penetrates the sky plane would constitute an encroachment in allowed height at that distance from the lot line. The sky plane shall begin at all property lines from the average elevation of the existing natural grade (prior to any site disturbance) adjacent to that building or structure and extend inward at an angle of 45 degrees from the ground. The proposed townhomes will be three stories/35 feet in height and approximately the same height as the existing residential building on the site. Due to grading activities the proposed townhomes will break the sky plane as illustrated in white in the diagrams below:

Page 3-66 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

View of Canal Property from the southwest

View of Canal Property from the southeast

As shown, the majority of locations where the sky plane will be broken due to the proposed height of the townhomes face the canal. As a result, visual impacts from adjacent roadways are not expected to be significant. Furthermore, the proposed project involves a change of zone to MPDD. As discussed in Section 3.2.2.2, the height or building mass may be increased at the discretion of the Town Board, to achieve any of the goals set forth in Chapter 330 of the Town Zoning Code.

Eastern Property Use of the Eastern Property exclusively for the Nitrex™ WWTF would preclude development of this wooded site. As a result, the site would retain the appearance of open space. Interior sections on the south part of the parcel would be cleared and graded for a small WWTF building and subsurface leaching pools that would become maintained field vegetation. The northern part of this site would remain unchanged. A total of 1.87 acres of natural vegetation are proposed to be retained. The retention of most of the site as woods, with buffering of the south part of the

Page 3-67 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

site (to be used for the WWTF), will result in minimal change in the visual character of the site. A Visual EAF Addendum was prepared for the Eastern Parcel (see Appendix Q).

The proposed sites are important visual gateways at the entrances to both Hampton Bays and Shinnecock Hills. As they exist today, they provide neither visual character nor an attractive gateway at the Shinnecock Canal. This project will return CPI to its historic public stature in the Hampton Bays community, and at the same time, will bring the building and uses into the 21st century. The new bay homes on the Canal Property will provide the other bookend to the Shinnecock Canal, replacing existing unaesthetic uses with new homes that reflect the architectural character of the area.

3.4.2.2 Noise

CPI Property The proposed project will remove a nuisance use (nightclub) and associated source of seasonal noise. The proposed rehabilitation of the CPI Property will result in a year-round use with an inn, catering hall, restaurant and seasonal outdoor seating at the main structure. This change to a year-round use will change the character of the area, but is not expected to result in noise levels that would be a detriment to the community, as described herein.

Potential sources of noise that may be associated with the proposed development include short term construction noise and long term noise related to on-site vehicle use, additional traffic on area roadways, sound generated by events held at the catering hall, maintenance of the property (snow removal, landscape maintenance), and truck traffic (solid waste removal and deliveries).

A typical sound level for a busy commercial area is in the range of 60 dBA and a residential area is in the range of 50 dBA. It is expected that the proposed uses will generate sound levels within the range of these standards during typical waking hours of the public (i.e. between 7 AM to 10 PM). Prior to 7 AM and after 10 PM, the majority of commercial uses will be closed and therefore are not expected to generate significant levels of noise.

The rehabilitated CPI building is expected to provide facilities for catering events which in some cases could occur outdoors. Generally, outdoor activities would be expected to occur on Friday and Saturday afternoon and evenings and Sunday afternoons during the warmer seasons. It is also possible that sporadic special events/parties may occur in an outdoor setting during the week, also during warmer months. Such events may involve amplified systems for music and speeches. Consequently, it is expected that outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor seating for events associated with the catering hall could generate noise. However, impacts to neighboring receptors from such noise are not anticipated, in consideration of the following factors:

 There are no sensitive noise receptors abutting to the east, north or south; the only receptors on abutting sites are the residences to the west, and these are located a minimum of 450 feet distant, and will be separated from the outdoor seating area by fringing natural vegetation and landscaping, which would muffle noise from outdoor events.

Page 3-68 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 There are residences to the north, but these are located at least 400 feet from the Canoe Place Inn and are separated from the CPI Property by LIRR tracks on a raised embankment, which would partially shiled these receptors from site-generated noise. It is expected that the passing of trains and use of train whistles would represent the greatest potential sources of intermittent noise along this corridor.  The area for outdoor seating and/or outdoor events abuts the northern side of the structure, in the portion of this property that is as distant from the residences to the west as practicable. Additionally, this area is separated from these receptors by the cottages, which would add to the attenuation provided by distance as a function of the inverse square law and any landscaping/fencing that would further assist with attenuation.  Outdoor events would be conducted inside tents, which would further assist in the attenuation of noise in addition to factors noted above. Conducting outdoor events under a tent would tend to locate the noise-generating activities such as playing of live or recorded music, dancing, or amplified speeches under such protection, where it would be further attenuated.  The outdoor events that would occur are expected to include , for example, wedding receptions, retirement or similar parties, wedding or baby showers, and bar or bat mitzvahs. Such events are commonly associated with catering halls and do not generally generate loud, prolonged or offensive noises, and do not generally continue into the late hours of the evening.  The permanent closure of the nightclub on the CPI Property would end the generation of cumulative late-night noises that have plagued the vicinity in the past. The proposed project would replace this potential noise source with a use that has differing characteristics and numerous mechanisms for noise mitigation, resulting in a significantly lower potential for adverse noise impacts. It is further noted that Tiderunner restaurant on the east side of the canal is a noise source (and a source of complaints) that will also cease to operate as a result of the proposed project, further reducing existing or potential existing noise impacts on the community.

It is further noted that the past operation of the CPI building as a night club involved noise and neighborhood disturbance during late night and early morning hours. The proposed use of the CPI building would not involve late night hour activities. In consideration of the above, the potential for a significant improvement in the local noise environment (from the perspective of the neighbors and the Town) as a result of the proposed project is expected to be substantial.

For a receptor outdoors at the residence to the west, the passage of vehicles on the CPI Property will likely not be audible or discernible from the sound of traffic on Montauk Highway or other ambient noise in the area. This is supported by the noise monitoring data included in Appendix P which indicates several readings taken in this location (Station 1) where vehicular traffic on Montauk Highway generated levels which exceed the typical level for a slow moving passenger car on the subject property. For a receptor outdoors at the properties to the north of the site opposite the railroad, passenger car movement on the site is not expected to be discernible from the traffic on Montauk Highway as this location is over 175 feet from the travel lane or parking area and there is a grade separation that is expected to result in additional noise attenuation. Additional traffic on the site will travel at slower speeds and therefore generate less noise from tire wear and acceleration than vehicles traveling on public roads. Vehicle noise is typical for this location and thus noise related to occasional on-site vehicular movement is expected to be unobjectionable to nearby residents. While trucks generate higher sound levels than passenger cars, few truck trips are expected at the site and therefore are not expected to significantly alter

Page 3-69 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS the ambient environment. In addition, the LIRR is an intervening use between the CPI Property and residents to the north, and is a source of noise at the time when trains pass on these tracks.

There are no sensitive noise receptors to either the east or south, with the Town Park and Shinnecock Canal lying to the east, and Montauk Highway and commercial uses lie to the south. As a result, no adverse noise impacts are projected for these areas.

In the short term, noise impacts are anticipated during the construction phase of the project related to clearing, grading, excavation, and building activities. This will occur over a limited period of time; it is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise), and is not anticipated to result in a significant impact.

No significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated from the project, as the dominant noise source in the area is Montauk Highway (and periodic trains passing), and there is sufficient separation and buffering between uses on the CPI Property and neighboring residential properties. It is expected that site generated noise due to slow moving vehicles and activity on the site will be consistent with existing ambient sound levels and will not generate a perceptible increase particularly due to the separation between the proposed site use and any receptors.

Canal Property The proposed project will remove a nuisance use (restaurant/nightclub) and associated source of seasonal noise. The proposed use is residential and has only limited potential to generate noise. The anticipated sources of noise from the townhomes will be low levels primarily generated by vehicular access. The access driveways and parking area parallels the eastern property line along North Shore Road. Site access is from North Shore Road; any slow moving vehicles generally generate low volumes of noise, as sound levels from vehicles is a product of both engine noise and road noise. At low speeds (<30 mph) the exhaust system generates the primary noise source that is dependent upon the age and maintenance of the individual vehicle. Newer cars have exhaust systems that typically generate very low sound levels, which at low speeds are typically less than 60 dBA (Cowan, 2004).

From a noise impact standpoint the change in noise characteristics on the Canal Property from those mixed commercial uses to residential use will be beneficial, as the proposed action will result in the removal of two restaurant uses, a bait and tackle shop, and two apartments. One of the two restaurants includes outdoor seating and seasonal live music, a use that has in the past generated numerous public complaints related to noise. The live music is a source of late night noise; such a use potentially interferes with sleep and therefore the full utilization of the surrounding land uses, which is a criteria used for assessing nuisance complaints. The proposed residential use does not have such characteristics and the implementation of the proposal is expected to improve the quality of life as related to noise for the surrounding residents.

Conversely, residents could be impacted by traffic noise generated on the adjacent roadways. In order to mitigate such potential impacts, a solid 10-foot and 8-foot noise attenuation wall is proposed along the southern and eastern property boundaries of the Canal Property (adjacent to

Page 3-70 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Montauk Highway and North Shore Road, respectively; see Figures 1-7a through 1-7d). It is expected that the noise attenuation wall would be attractively landscaped with a mix of evergreen plantings creating a vegetated buffer between the roadways and proposed townhomes.

Eastern Property With the exception of the Nitrex™ WWTF, the Eastern Property will remain undeveloped and unoccupied. The WWTF operates within an enclosed structure, and no noise associated with its operation will occur beyond the boundaries of the property.

3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation

 Landscaping will be planted within the CPI and Canal Properties, including between and along the rehabilitated and new buildings and internal access driveway and walkways, to provide a vegetative accent to the developments respective architectural themes.  In consideration of the site layout and building design features pertinent to the character of the properties and community (i.e., the land use of the properties and in the vicinity, the prevailing land use pattern, and the visual appearances of the properties and properties in the area), mitigation is primarily related to the design of the project and future, more detailed landscape and architectural design and review.  Potential noise impacts will be mitigated by ensuring that construction and operation comply with the Town of Southampton noise code that specifies maximum permissible sound pressure levels.  It is expected that construction will occur up to 6 days a week (Sunday excepted) between 7 AM and 7 PM, as regulated by Town Code Chapter 235 (Noise), to minimize the impacts of construction noise.  Noise dampening practices will be utilized during construction to minimize the impact on surrounding areas including keeping all mechanical construction equipment maintained in good working order to minimize noise levels.  Long-term impacts related to noise will predominantly result from the seasonal outdoor activities on the CPI Property as well as the residential activities on the Canal Property that occur periodically and are a factor of any development, such as garbage removal.  A noise attenuation wall is proposed at the Canal Property to mitigate potential noise impacts associated with automobile and truck traffic on the adjacent roadways for future residents.

3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

The subject properties are located within an area identified by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as archeologically sensitive. Figure 3-6 locates the cultural and historic resources in the vicinity of the subject properties. The Reverend Paul Cuffee Gravesite is the nearest National Register-listed site to the project properties; it is located approximately 2,000 feet to the west of the CPI property.

Page 3-71 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

3.5.1.1 Archaeological Resources

CPI Property Appendix R-1 contains the Phase I (Documentary Study and Field Testing) and Phase II (Intensive Testing) prepared for the CPI Property. The following description of the site’s cultural resources has been taken from that document.

Phase I Between July 17 and October 20, 2006, Tracker Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey for the proposed Canoe Place Inn development in Hampton Bays.

The purpose of the documentary was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential of the property for the recovery of archaeological remains. The Phase IA research was implemented by a review of the original and current environmental data, archeological site files, other archival literature, maps, documents, and interviews.

The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted utilizing the resources of the New York SHPO in Waterford, New York. Various historical and/or archeological web sites were queried to review any pertinent site information.

A prehistoric site file search was conducted at SHPO and included a 1-mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded (see Table 3-16a).

Indian foot trails were recorded along or close to both Montauk Highway and Newtown Road which acted as a portage trail. Although the trails were recorded for the Contact Period, they most likely existed during the prior prehistoric period.

Table 3-16a PREHISTORIC POTENTIAL, CPI Property

Distance from NYSM Sites SHPO Sites Site Description APE* (m/ft) Canoe Place: Workshop and/ or village. Artifacts found include 110 pieces of quartz in various forms from the raw material through various stages to the A10309.000054 100 complete arrow point or knife, also pieces of broken or rejected bifaces in the process of manufacture. APC Suffolk 33: Village, burial site. Burial site in 4902 1,000+ sand bank and village. 8047 3,400+ Bayhill 1: Late Archaic 8048 3,400+ Bayhill 2. Late Archaic * APE - Area of Potential Effect.

Page 3-72 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

In our opinion, the study area has a moderate potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites, depending on the stratigraphic integrity. The type of site might be a small procurement/ processing camp to a large village from any of the prehistoric periods.

Any exposed surfaces were walked over at close quarter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was reconnoitered at approximately 15 meter intervals or less to observe for any above ground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations which might be evidence for historic or prehistoric features. Photographs were taken of the property.

Shovel tests (STs) were conducted at approximately 15 meter intervals and less. Radial shovel testing was conducted at 1 and 3 meters around positive shovel tests.

Each ST measured about 30 to 40 centimeters in diameter and the attempt was to find the underlying subsoil. All soils were screened through ¼ inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. STs were flagged in the field. All STs were mapped on the project area map at this time.

Soils stratigraphy was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes on ST stratigraphy and other information was transcribed in on a field form and in a notebook.

Conclusions and Recommendations The Phase IB field survey encountered either a prehistoric and historic site or a Contact Period site. Both prehistoric and historic artifacts were encountered together in a mottled stratigraphy indicating either a multi-component prehistoric and historic site or a Contact Period site. Since the stratigraphy appeared adversely impacted it was difficult to determine separate site occupations.

The site consists of 4 site files and 35 positive ST’s in a largely mottled stratigraphy, with a density of 1 to 11 artifacts per ST of surface find. Artifacts included a shell and a glass bead, preform, utilized flakes, scraper, fire-cracked rock, core, glazed ceramics, glass, machine cut nails, and flakes.

The purpose of the Phase I archaeological survey is to establish the presence or absence of archeological sites. If the site is to be impacted by construction or other activities, Phase II intensive testing of any discovered archeological site is then specified by the regulations of the SHPO and the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Phase II investigation methods should interpret and determine if the site is eligible for the nomination to State or National Registers of Historic Places.

We would therefore recommend Phase II intensive testing on this parcel prior to any ground breaking or construction on archaeological site. Phase II investigations would supply information needed to make this determination and would include:

1. Site integrity, including the depth and extent of undisturbed soil horizons and the presence or absence of cultural features, and the degree of natural and/or human disturbances to those features. 2. Cultural components/ affiliations and time range present. 3. Vertical and horizontal distribution of archeological remains. 4. Site interpretation, including any uniqueness/ significance, in a local or regional context, must be demonstrated.

Page 3-73 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Phase II Phase II field methods consisted of the excavation of test units (TU’s). Test units were placed primarily in areas of highest archaeological potential. To a lesser degree, TU’s were also placed in areas of lower potential. This was conducted to confirm, or not, the smaller artifact and feature potential reported during the shovel testing as well as to offer some site variability across the landscape.

A total of 11 TU’s were conducted during the Phase II intensive testing of the CPI Property.

The CPI Property probably represents a multi-component eighteenth century Contact Period Native American base camp mixed with nineteenth and twentieth century components as well as a very likely prehistoric component in a cut and filled landscape. Activities on the site appear to have included:

 Hunting as evidenced by a point and preform,  Butchering/Hide processing as evidence by bifaces, scrapers, preform and utilized flakes,  Gathering as evidenced by Groundstone. This hammerstone may have also been utilized as a pestle,  Cooking as evidenced by pottery and fire cracked rock,  Eating and drinking as evidenced by glazed ceramic kitchenware and bottle glass,  Stone tool production as evidenced by flakes representing all stages of lithic reduction, a hammerstone, and a core,  Trading as evidenced by 2 beads, 1 shell and 1 glass,  Architectural/ House making as evidenced nails and furniture,  Smoking as evidenced by kaolin pipes.

The entire project area landscape has been severely modified during later centuries. There is cultural stratigraphy and occupation levels are mixed. It therefore appears that defining activity areas becomes more guessing than science.

There is no cultural stratigraphy. There is no intact A horizon on this site. Extensive grading, and, at time, filling have adversely impacted the property and the archaeological site. Soils on site reflect the County Soil Survey interpretation as “cut and fill”. European-American eighteenth century, nineteenth century, and twentieth century artifacts are mixed with Native American artifacts in a strip and fill landscape right down to, and sometimes into, subsoil.

Three artifacts were recovered which show evidence for a eighteenth century Contact Period occupation and those are a shell bead, a glass bead, and a wine bottle fragment which was flaked into a scraper and utilized along another edge for cutting. The remainder of aboriginal artifacts are likely associated with the Contact component. However, there remains the very likely possibility that a prior prehistoric component had existed. Artifacts from the nineteenth century likely reflect activities at Canoe Place Inn during this time as well as improvements to Montauk Highway during the same period. The twentieth century rebuilding of the inn and the construction of the cottages and their associated utilities, as well as improvements in the adjacent Montauk Highway had further, and completely destroyed the integrity of the soils.

Page 3-74 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Conclusions and Recommendations The CPI Property appears to represent a multi-component eighteenth century Contact Period Native American base camp mixed with nineteenth and twentieth century components as well as a very likely prehistoric component in a cut and filled landscape.

A site is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of our history; B) Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinctions; or D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

In our opinion, the CPI Property is not eligible for the historic registers. The shell bead, glass bead, and wine glass scraper/ utilized flake indicate an occupation of the interesting but little understood Contact Period. However, these 3 artifacts are mixed in with the remaining 557 artifacts on site in a cut and fill stratigraphy encompassing the middle to early twentieth century and nineteenth century as well as a very likely prehistoric occupation. It is impossible to separate occupation levels, determine the complete array of occupations, or determine which artifacts were brought in from off-site by filling episodes. Integrity across time and space have been lost.

Comments were received from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) dated April 18, 2007, with regard to the Phase I and II archaeological report for the CPI Property (see Appendix R-2), including the following:

1. OPRHP recognized the identification of the Canoe Place Inn archaeological site and we have assigned this resource Unique Site Number A10309.000289. 2. The site has produced a number of very interesting artifacts which clearly indicate the potential for a contact period Native American presence as well as an early European presence. 3. OPRHP concurs that the surface of the site appears to have been subject to extensive landscape modification, however it is not clear if this represents primarily fill deposited on top original soils or if there was first cutting of original soils. Therefore we can not concur with the assessment that there are no intact deposits present at this time. 4. It is noted that the current Canoe Place Inn is the second structure at this location built after the original, historic structure burned. However, there is no indication that the location of the original structure was at the same location or where else it may have been on the parcel. 5. The text describing the individual loci is not clear on where specific types of artifacts were recovered (i.e. all historic ceramics lumped together instead of identifying where specific types were found). This type of detailed information is important to our interpretation of whether intact pockets of the site may remain and the level of research potential.

Therefore, OPRHP recommends that some additional investigation be undertaken to address these questions. Specifically, it would be helpful to:

Page 3-75 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

1. Have several mechanically excavated trenches to provide more detailed data on the extent of prior land modification. This testing should include areas not examined in the original survey due to current ground cover (parking areas). 2. Identify the probable location of the original structure and if feasible conduct close interval testing and/or mechanical testing in that area to determine if any foundations or shaft type feature may have survived below the level of prior disturbance. 3. Have the description of the material recovered at each locus expanded to address the specific finds at each area.

Tracker Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted additional work to address the comments and additional investigation as requested by OPRHP. An Addendum Report (Appendix R-3) was performed in July 2007 to search for intact historic features relating to the original CPI site built in the 1700’s as well as to further document land modification. The conclusions and recommendations from the report are as follows:

The Phase II monitoring of the CPI Property was conducted around the Inn itself to determine integrity of the soils and to search for any intact remains from the original Canoe Place Inn. A series of 4 trenches were originally planned, however, 8 were actually conducted during the course of the field work. The trenching has confirmed the lack of soil integrity of the topsoil. No intact A horizon exists and subsoil was encountered in all trenches. The topsoil has been graded, cut and filled and supports the conclusions of the Phase I survey and II intensive testing final report.

The remains of 2 apparent features were encountered. Feature 1 (FT 1) consisted of cut granite stone piled up in a small, restricted area. Some of the stone are very possible in situ but most were loose and collapsed when the trenches around it were opened. Individual cut stone were also encountered separately from FT 1 but near it. No intact soils were associated with it. An old sewer line was apparently put in under FT 1 at some point in the past. Feature 2 (FT 2) consisted of a single layer of black pavers, again in a small, restricted area, which apparently indicates that it, and FT 1, were largely destroyed and partially removed. No intact soils were associated with FT 2. Both features were encountered at the soil interface.

No intact A horizon exists on the current project area. Soils consist of graded soils, and cut and fill soils where the filling does not extend much more than a meter deep. The upper portions of most of the B horizon had also been impacted by cuts and intrusions of asphalt, utility lines, or other debris. No intact features relating to the original inn exist. The results verify the previous report. No further archeological work is recommended.

OPRHP reviewed the supplemental investigation and issued a letter on August 28, 2007 which indicated the following: “…it is the OPRHP’s opinion that your project will have No Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Register of Historic Places.” (see Appendix R-2).

Canal Property & Eastern Property Appendix R-4 contains the Phase I Archaeological Investigation prepared for the Canal Property and Eastern Property. The following description of the properties cultural resources has been taken from that document.

Page 3-76 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Between August 7 and 21, 2012, Tracker Archeology, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey for the Canal Property.

The project area (APE) consists of the West parcel at 4.5 acres which was mostly developed as Tide Runners Restaurant-Bar-Marina and the East parcel at 2.68 acres (undeveloped), exclusive of the steep slopes and previously developed areas. The property is bounded to the north by the Long Island Railroad and private property, to the south by Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road, to the west by the Shinnecock Canal and to the east by private properties. The project area contains two separate lots on either side of North Shore Road (CR 39).

A prehistoric site file search was conducted at SHPO and included a 1-mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded (see Table 3-16b):

Table 3-16b PREHISTORIC POTENTIAL, Canal and Eastern Properties

Distance from NYSM Sites SHPO Sites Site Description APE (m/ft) Canoe Place: Area of portage, 110 quartz debitage, with points & tools. Also: Canoe Place Inn Site: prehistoric & historic (see Cammisa et al 2007) 10309.000054 150 (46) with debitage, utilized flakes, scrapers, bifaces, point, perform, groundstone, hammerstone, FCR, glass bead, shell bead, glass scraper, square nails, wine glass, kaolin pipe, ceramic, etc. APC Suffolk 33: Village, burial site. Burial site in 316+ (96+) 4902 sand bank and village north of main road from (large circle) Reservation to Canoe Place 8047/8048 2,528 (771) Bayhill 1 & 2 sites: Late Archaic

A historic site file search was conducted at SHPO and included a 1-mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded (see Table 3-17).

Table 3-17 HISTORIC POTENTIAL, Canal and Eastern Properties

Page 3-77 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 84 ST’s across the project area. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. Modern, mid-late twentieth century, buildings were on the parcels.

Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon topographic characteristics, distance to other known prehistoric sites and an Indian trail, the property was assessed as having a higher than average potential for encountering prehistoric sites on good ground.

Based upon topographic characteristics, distance to historic map documented structures, historic sites, historic roads, and Indian trails, the property was assessed as having a higher than average potential for encountering prehistoric sites on good ground.

The field testing included the excavation of 84 ST’s on the project area. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. The West Parcel is mostly developed with mid to late twentieth century buildings. No further work is recommended.

3.5.1.2 Historic Resources

CPI Property Appendix B-2 contains the Historic Property Study prepared for the CPI Property in April 2007. The following description of the site’s historic resources has been taken from that document.

This study was undertaken by Historic Documentation Company, Inc. to identify potentially historic architectural resources that may be impacted by the construction of the proposed project. Field investigations of the project site and surrounding properties identified as being within the project’s APE were conducted on six separate occasions between 17 July 2006 and 27 March 2007. Fieldwork included exterior and interior inspection, measurements and photography of all buildings within the project APE. The findings of the research and fieldwork are compiled in the report.

Evaluation of the historic significance of a property and its potential eligibility for National Register listing is a multi-step process defined by instructions established by the National Park Service and published in the National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation [1997]. The steps for evaluating a property are: (1) categorize the property; (2) identify historic contexts; (3) determine whether the property is significant under the National Register Criteria; (4) determine whether the property retains integrity.

Property Category and Use The National Register property type and historic use classification applicable to the Canoe Place Inn is: Building; Domestic/Hotel/Inn. A Historic District is also a National Register class of historic property, the eligibility of which is ultimately determined by integrity.

Historic Contexts When the previous inn was completely destroyed, the property’s association with those historical events and context that made up its history was severed. The National Register standards address this issue from two angles: for a property to be eligible for significance under Criterion A it must have

Page 3-78 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS existed at the time of the historical events or pattern of events for which it is being associated, and, if the historic building associated with the event, pattern or person no longer exists, then property has lost its historical integrity.

Historical Significance Physical evidence of the 1950’s modernization remains, primarily the front windows of the building that were all installed at that time. It was therefore considered that within the historical context of Hotel/Inn the period of significance could encompass the 1950s and extend up to 1967, the maximum allowed by National Register standards. Important character defining features of the 1950s renovation, judging from the brochures shown in Photos B17-B21, would have to include the interior alterations such as the decorations, lighting fixtures and wall treatments. For such young alterations to be considered contributing to the historical significance of the property they would need to retain a very high degree of physical integrity, which they do not. Additionally, a strong associative link between those characteristics and events important to the development of the historical context would need to be established. The severe lack of integrity of the 1950s period characteristics and the unlikelihood of developing such associations led to the conclusion that the post-Keller period (1950- 1967) does not contribute to the property’s period of significance.

The Canoe Place Inn is an example of a work by a prominent architect that does rise to the level of importance to be eligible for the National Register merely as an example of that architects work. It is not noted by any of the authorities on Bottomley's work as important, or as a representative of a particular phase, aspect, idea or theme of his work. The reason for the omission is apparently due to the building being a re-creation of a previously existing structure that required the architect to work under many design constraints imposed by the owner. The article on the CPI that appeared in The Architectural Record at the time of its completion was not centered on the idea that the work was notable for its artistic design achievements, but rather that it was an unusual commission for a notable architect due to design constraints, and that a functionally satisfactory building design was achieved nonetheless.

Integrity Evaluation The National Register requires four steps to assess integrity in properties: (1) define the essential physical features that must be present to a high degree for a property to represent its significance; (2) determine whether the essential physical features are visibly apparent enough to convey the property’s significance; (3) determine whether the property needs to be compared with other similar properties; (4) determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if they are present.

 Essential physical features: The CPI Property cannot be significant as a site associated with Colonial period taverns and inns because the Colonial period building no longer exists. When the original CPI was totally destroyed by fire, the site lost its integrity for its association with its past use as an inn. The building of a new CPI restarted the historical clock as far as the National Register guidelines are concerned.  Visibility of essential physical features: To be listed on the National Register the non-historic materials must be removed and the underlying historic materials shown to exist and possess sufficient physical integrity to be repaired/restored in accordance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. The application of vinyl siding and wallboard has buried historic fabric of the CPI structure. It is evident in some areas that the historic materials such as windows were removed prior to the application of the overlay materials.

Page 3-79 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Comparison to similar properties: Comparing the CPI to other similar properties within the historic context of early 20th century Hotel/Inns is not necessary according to NR guidelines since the CPI possesses sufficient unique characteristics of design and setting dictated by the preceding inn building that it replaced. It was not a member of a class of properties from a particular time period or resulting from a particular event that would make a comparison of integrity meaningful, such as post offices or schools built during the Depression with Work Progress Administration funds. This step of integrity analysis is therefore not considered.  Aspects of integrity: The CPI has not been moved and retains integrity of location. The CPI retains integrity of design form, scale and proportion. The CPI does not retain integrity of design plan, style, ornamentation and materials. The CPI does not retain integrity of setting. The CPI does not retain integrity of materials. The CPI does not retain any physical evidence of workmanship and therefore it is not possible to judge if workmanship was a component of the original design. The CPI unfortunately fails the test from many vantage points and does not retain integrity of historic feeling.

Conclusion The Canoe Place Inn does not retain the necessary integrity of design, setting, materials, feeling, and association to be eligible for listing in the National/State Register of Historic Places.

Canal Property and Eastern Property There are no historic resources on or near the Canal or Eastern Properties.

3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts

3.5.2.1 Archaeological Resources

CPI Property As indicated in the Phase II Intensive Testing, no intact features relating to the original inn exist and no further archeological work was recommended. Furthermore, OPRHP’s correspondence dated August 28, 2007 concluded the following (Appendix R-2):

“…it is the OPRHP’s opinion that your project will have No Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Register of Historic Places.”

Canal Property and Eastern Property As indicated in the Phase I Archeological Investigation, no prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered and no furthered work was recommended.

3.5.2.2 Historic Resources

CPI Property Correspondence from OPRHP was received, dated April 30, 2012, stating the following (Appendix R-2):

Page 3-80 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Our office received a different project at this site but was unable to fully evaluate the potential eligibility of the buildings for listing to the State and National Registers of Historic Places due to lack of adequate photographic documentation. In order for us to make an informed decision as to the eligibility of the buildings, we are requesting photographs of the current conditions of the interior and exterior of the main building and any outbuildings, keyed to a site plan. As you may know, National Register eligibility and eventual listing could contribute to the redevelopment project by qualifying resources for historic preservation rehabilitation tax credits.

The applicant is not requesting inclusion onto the National Register for the CPI Property. The rehabilitation of the site and buildings will create an aesthetically and architecturally magnificent structure and use on the site, reminiscent of its history.

Canal Property and Eastern Property Due to the absence of historic resources on or near the properties, no adverse impacts to historic resources will occur as a result of the proposed townhomes and WWTF.

3.5.3 Mitigation Measures

General  As the Archeological Investigations on the three Properties and the Historic Property Study conducted on the CPI Property recommended that no further work be performed, and OPRHP concurred with the results of the reports, no impacts to such resources will occur, and no mitigation is necessary or proposed.

CPI Property  The rehabilitation of the CPI Property for re-use of the facility consistent with its historic site use (i.e., an inn, with guest rooms, a restaurant, bar and catering facility) provides mitigation of any potential adverse impacts associated with the alteration of this site.

Page 3-81 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 4.0

OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS

4.1 Construction-Related Impacts

It is acknowledged that construction-related impacts may occur as a result of the proposed project. However, such impacts are unavoidable; it is the type of such impacts, along with their duration, that determines the degree of construction-related impacts. Further consideration of construction-related impacts are outlined herein.

The CPI, Canal and Eastern Properties will be subject to clearing and grading including areas for internal roadways, parking areas, buildings, stormwater systems, landscaping and WWTF connections, as applicable. These areas may be subject to erosion during the construction phase, and would be the areas from which dust could arise, due to truck and equipment movement and winds. Erosion control measures are described in Section 1.4, and include, but are not limited to, use of groundcovers, drainage diversions, soil traps, water sprays and minimization of the time span that bare soil is exposed to erosive elements, to minimize the potential for impacts to sensitive on- or off-site natural or developed areas.

The combination of these activities may cause impacts; however, these are construction-related impacts that would be localized and temporary. Further, the properties are large enough to allow demolition, staging, new construction and completion of improvements to occur within the site boundaries, relying on surrounding roads for access to and from the sites.

Because the time span and geographical extent of the construction process are limited, the potential impacts that may be experienced by the site’s neighbors are likewise anticipated to be limited. Specifically, these temporary impacts would be associated with traffic, noise, dust, aesthetics and erosion. The phasing description presented in Section 1.4.1 represents the most information in regard to a construction schedule that can be provided at the current stage of the application process. Construction activities would be subject to Town regulations.

As construction equipment loading/unloading, materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking will be located within the subject parcels, no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding properties are anticipated. Construction accesses/exits on Newtown Road for the CPI Property and on North Shore Road for the Canal Property and Eastern Property in locations that will become the permanent site accesses for these properties will minimize construction phase impacts on the surrounding residential areas. Construction activities will not occur outside weekday daytime hours (7 AM to 8 PM), and will conform to applicable Town regulations regarding construction noise generation and hours.

The use of “rumble strips” (which cause truck tires to shed any mud trapped within the tire treads) at the construction entrances will reduce soil on truck tires from being tracked onto adjacent roadways, thereby minimizing the potential for dust to be raised.

Page 4-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

As noted in Section 1.3.2, approximately 3,000 CY of net cut will be required for grading on the CPI Property, approximately 18,500 CY of net cut are anticipated for the Canal Property, and an estimated 1,200 CY of cut are expected on the Eastern Property. It is proposed to reuse as much of this material on-site as practicable, in order to minimize the volume of material to be removed from the site (and the number of truck trips necessary to remove it). Additional factors that would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the area’s traffic conditions, and businesses and residents during this soil removal process include:

 use of trucks having a larger volume (so that the number of trips needed is further reduced);  limiting truck movements to hours outside of school bus and commuter hours;  use of major roadways (reducing truck use of residential streets); and  the limited length of time such operations would last.

It is not anticipated that there will be a decrease in the existing level of safety in regard to school bus operations from construction phase truck traffic, for the following reasons: 1) school bus activities occur during early morning and early afternoon hours, when only a limited number of trucks are utilizing the roads; 2) bus drivers as well as truck drivers are trained and specially licensed to operate their vehicles in a safe manner, observing appropriate traffic laws; 3) the safe and efficient site access will be established so that trucks can enter the site without causing delays on local roadways; and 4) these roads are not extensively used by pedestrians and there are other aspects which tend to slow traffic along such as the rail road bridge which requires lower speeds. As a result, short-term construction impacts may cause some temporary inconvenience, but proper site construction management and normal vehicle precautions as well as the temporary nature of the work to be completed will minimize these impacts. As noted in the introductory paragraph, any use of the site would involve construction and could result in similar conditions that would require such precautions.

Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction of the proposed project in order to minimize impacts. In accordance with the NYSDEC Phase II SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (NYSDEC Permit No. GP 0-10-001), a General Permit will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction activities. Prior to filing for coverage under the General Permit, the NYSDEC requires that an SWPPP be prepared for the parcel, including a detailed erosion and sediment control plan, to manage stormwater generated on-site during construction activities, and for post-construction stormwater management. A SWPPP will be prepared to ensure compliance with water quality and quantity requirements pursuant to Technical Guidance and GP 0-10-001 requirements. In addition, an erosion control plan incorporating the NYSDEC Technical Guidance manual and use of measures such as silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, hay bales, and good housekeeping procedures will be utilized. The drainage system will further provide permanent stormwater controls once construction is completed. The Notice of Intent requesting coverage under the General Permit will be filed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements, prior to the initiation of construction activities at the subject property.

Development of the subject properties is not anticipated to result in significant erosion/sedimentation or stormwater impacts due to the use of proper site grading procedures,

Page 4-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS implementing erosion controls and, for the long-term, use of properly-designed drainage systems.

4.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are the potential impacts of a proposed action taken in conjunction with other active or anticipated nearby development projects, where the sum may potentially result in cumulative impacts that are greater than the individual impacts from each project. An analysis of cumulative impacts is generally required within a Draft EIS when it is expected that multiple projects within the same area may result in a greater cumulative impact than is suggested by impact analyses of the individual actions.

As described in The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, 2010), cumulative impacts are:

Cumulative impacts occur when multiple actions affect the same resource(s). These impacts can occur when the incremental or increased impacts of an action, or actions, added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from a single action or from a number of individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts do not have to all be associated with one project sponsor or applicant. They may include indirect or secondary impacts, long-term impacts and synergistic effects.

Cumulative impacts are analyzed in this section, in fulfillment of SEQRA requirements. The analysis includes the following components. First, reasonably foreseeable pending projects are identified that could collectively result in cumulative impacts. Second, the various land use plans and studies that pertain to these projects are outlined in order to determine what land use controls would be expected in connection with planned development. Third, each impact category is discussed with respect to potential impacts and how these impacts could potentially be escalated as a result of some combined set of actions, or if no such cumulative impact is expected, this is so noted. The combination of these analyses provides a complete cumulative impact assessment in fulfillment of SEQRA.

The Town was contacted with respect to other reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting in a list of various projects in various stages of application or review (and some with no pending applications). Section 4.2.1 below describes each of these pending projects and their status.

4.2.1 Other Pending Projects

Nine specific projects or development sites were identified in the surrounding area for inclusion in this analysis. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the other pending projects. These are identified as follows:

1. Murphy’s Landing (aka Taqueray Deli) - Received site plan approval; underwent administrative review with conditions on 07.02.12 to legalize an existing 230 SF patio for outdoor seating.

Page 4-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2. Teresi - Received final conditional approval for a 2-lot subdivision on 12.01.06 but it expired and received re-approval on 05.12.12. 3. Beau Enterprises - Received site plan/wetland permit approval with conditions for the construction of an outdoor bar and patio on 01.15.09 but it expired and received re-approval on 05.25.11. Received site plan modification approval to change the elevations to the bar on 02.09.12. Currently in site plan administrative review for four awnings and additional seating. 4. Billfish Enterprises - Currently in site plan review for a boat yard. 5. Canal Land Corp. - Currently in site plan pre-submission review for a marina. 6. Hampton Maid - Currently in site plan re-approval review for a new motel use and site improvements. 7. Capital One Bank - Currently in pre-application review for a 2-lot subdivision. 8. 130-140 Montauk Highway - Currently in site plan pre-submission review for the construction of two office buildings. 9. Tina M. Allegretta - Currently in site plan review for a change of use from retail sales to special trade contracting.

SEQRA regulations given in 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 indicate that, for applications classified as “Type II” under SEQRA, “…are not subject to review under this part. These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from environmental review under the ECL, Article 8. The actions identified in subdivision (c) of this section apply to all agencies.” Part 617.5(c) presents a list of 37 types of action that are not subject to review under SEQRA; this list includes Item 19, which states

(19) official acts of a ministerial nature involving no exercise of discretion, including building permits and historic preservation permits where issuance is predicated solely on the applicant’s compliance or noncompliance with the relevant local building or preservation code(s);

Item 19 in the SEQRA Type II list would indicate that, of the above nine pending applications, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 9 would likely be classified as Type II applications, and so would not be subject to further review under SEQRA by the Town. Thus, these four (4) proposals are not considered to have potential significant impacts, and so will not be further considered in this cumulative impact assessment.

It is noted that the other five (5) projects are relatively minor and would not be expected to cause a significant demand for services, cause significant traffic generation1, result in the attraction of large crowds, or combine with the proposed action or themselves to cause significant adverse impacts. These remaining projects include: a boatyard, a marina, a motel where one currently exists, a 2-lot land division and two office buildings. The boatyard and marina are maritime uses that have water dependency and would likely not combine with the proposed project to cause significant adverse impacts given their contrasting use with that of the proposed project. The Hampton Maid motel currently exists, and therefore is part of the existing market and use conditions, albeit improvements may increase the intensity of use. Nevertheless, it is important that existing uses remain viable so as not to cause unoccupied, vacant or blighted conditions. A

1 It is noted that a full TIS has been prepared that considers the proposed project in combination with other pending projects that have quantifiable vehicle trip generation; this is further noted in Section 4.2.3.4.

Page 4-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

2-lot land division is a very minor project involving the creation of 2 lots where 1 exists; such an action would not be construed on its own or in combination with the other actions, to result in significant cumulative impacts. The construction of two offices buildings conforms to zoning and the Town’s comprehensive plan, and is expected to be a use that will fulfill existing demand for office space in the area. Such use is in significant contrast with the proposed action, but may provide supporting services as the proposed project is developed. The proposed action is for rehabilitation of the existing CPI, and establishment of 40 townhomes on sites that are currently occupied by structures and/or uses. The use of the Eastern Property for a WWTF will be passive once constructed as the treatment facility involves only a small building that requires periodic maintenance and subsurface leaching facilities. As a result, the combination of these projects is not expected to cause significant adverse cumulative impacts. Additional analysis of these projects in combination with the proposed action is provided below.

4.2.2 Land Use Plans and Regulations

The potential for cumulative impacts in the vicinity of the subject properties is significantly reduced by the regional land use plans and resulting development restrictions, standards and guidelines that must be followed for development of sites in the area. As required under SEQRA, the reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts of these land uses and development controls were analyzed prior to their approval and implementation. Therefore, the potential cumulative impacts of subsequent development of sites in the area, if taken place in conformance with the standards and restrictions of these controls, have already been analyzed and would not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts. A case-in-point is the Town of Southampton Comprehensive Plan Update of 1999, which was the subject of a Generic EIS (and therefore of a cumulative impact analysis); a proposed project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Update would logically presume that such a project will then be in line with Town guidance for land use and development, so that the potential for cumulative impacts has been analyzed.

The regional plans and studies that provide parameters for land use and determine the pattern of development establish thresholds and limitations to ensure appropriate and environmentally- sensitive land use. The various plans and studies and regulatory review processes that would apply to the projects listed as pending projects are identified as follows:

Town Jurisdiction  1999 Town Comprehensive Plan Update - The Town prepared this Plan Update to document its intended blueprint for development. This plan presented a number of specific goals within five overarching categories of goals that pertain to housing, seasonal activity and economic drivers of the Town.  Site Plan Review - is conducted by the Town under its regulations in order to provide for development that is safe, efficient and conducive to the public health and welfare.  Town Code Chapter 157 (Environmental Quality Review) - regulates the process under which applications, plans and regulations subject to SEQRA review are conducted by the Town.  Town Code Chapter 285 (Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control) - concerns the measures to be taken at sites under construction in order to reduce the occurrence of

Page 4-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

erosion and its associated adverse effects on those sites as well as on adjacent and downstream sites; it also provides detailed procedures and documentation requirements for the necessary erosion control plan and study.  Town Code Chapter 325 (Wetlands) - defines regulated wetlands, regulates development within a defined distance adjacent to them, and establishes procedures for that review process.  Town Code Chapter 330 (Zoning) - regulates all development in the Town by establishing geographic limits within which specific land uses are allowed as-of-right, are allowed under specific conditions, and are prohibited altogether. Additionally, the Zoning Code provides specific regulations for development within each zoning district.

Suffolk County Jurisdiction  SCSC Article 4 - regulates the supply of potable water in order to protect public health and to insure that county residents have a healthful and plentiful supply of water.  SCSC Article 6 - regulates sanitary waste discharge with respect to density of development by limiting sanitary wastewater based on lot size. Ensures groundwater protection with respect to nitrogen in deep flow recharge areas for protection of long-term water supply aquifers. Requires sewage treatment where development densities exceed allowable flow on a parcel of land. Article 6 was an outgrowth of the 208 Study, which was a regional wastewater management plan, and as a result this legislation considers aquifer protection throughout Suffolk County.  SCSC Article 7 - provides water pollution control by limiting the quantity of storage of regulated toxic and hazardous materials in deep flow recharge and water supply sensitive areas (which includes the Yaphank area).  SCSC Article 12 - regulates the design, installation and operation of any systems that store toxic or hazardous materials to ensure proper containment of stored fluids and solids.  SCDHS Sanitary System Review - regulates the design and construction of sanitary systems for development in the county.  SCDPW STP & Roadwork Reviews - regulates the design and construction (and, for STPs required under Article 6, the operation) of these systems for development in the county.  SCPC 239m Review - Under Section 239m of the NYS Town Law, this county planning entity is empowered to review certain types of development applications, to ensure conformance to engineering, health, safety and planning standards and requirements.

New York State Jurisdiction  ECL Article 11 (endangered species) - regulates procedures and review requirements associated with development where potential impacts to wildlife, including designated protected species, may occur.  ECL Article 25 (tidal wetlands) - provides review procedures and reporting/analysis requirements in cases where development or planning proposals would occur in relation to designated tidal wetlands.  SPDES Permit Review - The NYSDEC has jurisdiction over the preparation, installation, operation and maintenance of erosion-control measures taken on qualified construction sites, as well as the contents and review of the accompanying erosion control plans and documents, and permitting.  NYSDOT Roadwork Review - is conducted by this agency for state-maintained roadways where circumstances necessitate.

Page 4-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

These existing land use controls and review processes form a comprehensive means of ensuring regional environmental protection by ensuring that individual projects conform to recommendations designed with regional resource protection in mind.

4.2.3 Resource Impact Assessment

Further consideration of specific potential cumulative impacts related to the CPI, Canal and Eastern Properties in the context of the remaining five (5) planned projects is provided below. Specifically, resource categories are analyzed in the context of potential cumulative impacts.

4.2.3.1 Soils and Topography

Soils and topography are site-specific characteristics having potential limitation that would be dealt with on a site-specific basis as each development application is reviewed by Town engineering staff. Each individual site should be subject to evaluation of its soils and topography to ensure that any constraints are addressed in project design. Town engineering staff will review and must approve grading, drainage and erosion control plans as part of its site plan review; the applicant will implement these controls and thereby ensure stabilization of erodible soils and minimization of potential impacts to soils and topography. The combination of pending projects does not represent a significant loss of unique or agricultural soils or topographic features, and therefore can be evaluated and protected as needed based on specific project designs.

4.2.3.2 Water Resources

Generally, the primary sources of impact to groundwater quality are by the recharge of nitrogen in sanitary wastewater, and by the recharge of stormwater. As described and analyzed in this document, the proposed project will be served by a NitrexTM WWTF, which effectively treats and recharges wastewater having a lower concentration than could be achieved by a conventional septic system. In general, all of the projects reviewed here will be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, ensuring that no impacts to groundwater quality would occur from any one proposal, and thereby minimizing the potential for adverse cumulative impacts to groundwater from nitrogen in wastewater. All stormwater generated on these development sites will be retained on-site, to be recharged through individual drainage systems. The design and installation of these systems will be subject to the review of the Town, thereby ensuring that these systems will operate properly. In this way, the potential for adverse cumulative impacts to groundwater resources from stormwater will be minimized.

Surface water impacts of significance relate to contaminant discharge to groundwater that could flow toward surface water, and/or stormwater runoff that is improperly controlled and could impact surface water via surface flow. As discussed above, the project’s NitrexTM WWTF would operate well within applicable standards, so that its effluent would not carry within it an

Page 4-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

unacceptable level of nitrogen that could adversely impact surface water resources. In addition, the sanitary systems of the proposed project and all other pending projects will be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, which would ensure that these treatment facilities would operate well within applicable standards, and thereby minimize the potential for impact to surface water bodies. Additionally, Town engineering requirements prohibit a site design that would allow runoff from exiting a site, which is a secondary layer of protection for surface water resources.

4.2.3.3 Ecology

On a site-specific basis, each site must be subject to review of ecological resources, which would include field inspection, identification of sensitive species or habitats, contact with the Natural Heritage Program and other evaluations. Protection of these resources would therefore be ensured for each site.

4.2.3.4 Transportation

Traffic associated with the proposed project is addressed through a full TIS that considers the other identified pending projects, thus ensuring that potential traffic impacts are addressed through mitigation and improvements, if necessary (see Appendices N-1 and N-2). Similarly, the other pending projects considered in this analysis will be subject to a separate review to determine potential traffic impacts, and so will build on the analysis provided herein with respect to their cumulative impacts. Site plan review and curb cut permits from the State will provide forums for further consideration of traffic and appropriate mitigation. As a result, there is a framework for consideration of actions under site-specific review to ensure that cumulative environmental impacts would not occur.

4.2.3.5 Land Use, Zoning & Plans

All sites are subject to Town zoning regulations and review under applicable land use plans, including the Town Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition, each proposal is subject to environmental review under SEQRA. These reviews will ensure that the pending projects will be consistent with the Town’s overall goals, such that no cumulative impacts would be expected.

4.2.3.6 Community Facilities & Services

While these applications would combine to incrementally increase the demand upon local community services (e.g., fire and police protection, utilities, and solid waste handling)2, these

2 As noted in Section 4.2.1, the incremental increase is very small since the 5 projects represent a diversity of different project types and are all relatively small in size or occupy existing developed sites.

Page 4-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS services will receive an increase in funds from the tax revenues generated from these developments, which would enable these service providers to continue to fund sufficient capability to provide services. In addition, these pending projects are commercial in nature, so that there would be no impact to school district enrollments or expenditures, and all taxes allocated to the school district would be available for its discretionary use.

4.2.3.7 Community Character

Each of these projects will change the appearance of their sites. Consequently, there will be a cumulative impact on the visual resources and character of the community. However, the uses to be established on these sites will have been subject to the review and approval of appropriate Town entities, ensuring that sufficient scrutiny has been paid to potential aesthetic impacts to the community. The context of these sites in the area is regulated under the Town Zoning Code, and site plans are subject to review by the Town Planning Board. In addition, the pending projects are relatively small in scale and/or appropriate (in terms of type of use proposed, building bulk and height, etc.) to their locations and surroundings, which would tend to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the character of the community. As a result, adverse changes in community character are not expected.

4.2.3.8 Historic and Archaeological Resources

Cultural resources are a site-specific resource that would be dealt with as part of individual project review. Projects in culturally sensitive areas would be subject to Cultural Resource Assessments that would identify and protect any identified resources. The combination of pending projects does not represent a combined loss of unique cultural resources as there are no extant historic structures, historic district issues or known archaeological issues that the sites share in common.

4.2.3.9 Construction-Related Impacts

Construction impacts cause temporary increases in the potential for fugitive dust, and construction traffic and noise, but these impacts are limited in time to the construction period. These impacts will occur regardless of the type of land use of each proposal, and are not expected to occur simultaneously, as these projects will be constructed subject to individual schedules. The individual sites would be subject to construction hour limitations and construction management oversight. The above-noted impacts are temporary and unavoidable; however, proper construction management will limit impacts to the maximum extent. Such measures may include silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, hay bales, and good housekeeping procedures. Additional measures that could be considered include temporary construction fencing to provide screening for aesthetic impacts, specifying construction entrances and staging areas in the least obtrusive locations, utilizing stabilized construction

Page 4-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS entrances and washout areas to minimize the transport of sediment off-site, stabilizing soil stockpiles, using wind screens to minimize fugitive dust and sediment transport off-site.

4.2.3.10 Economic Impacts

The economic benefits resulting from proposed developments are projected to include increased tax revenues, the creation of employment opportunities in the form of construction jobs, mortgage recording taxes, and increased revenue streams throughout the community. Moreover, as spending increases, this creates additional jobs and further increases business and household income. Such beneficial economic impacts that would result from the development of the proposed project in combination with other pending projects, are most crucial during Long Island’s current economic state, and present significant opportunities for the local economy, and the significant number of persons who are unemployed throughout the region.

It is noted that these projects may not be constructed at the same time, so that their short-term construction-related economic benefits would likewise not be felt at the same time. However, long-term fiscal benefits in the form of property tax revenues are anticipated to contribute to the local tax base.

In summary, based on the necessity to conform to the various land use plans and development regulations (applied at the Town, County and State levels), the governmental scrutiny each project will undergo in order to receive approvals and permits, and in consideration of the types and extents of impacts anticipated from these projects, it is not expected that significant cumulative impacts would result.

4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided

The site and project have been characterized, and the potential impacts to the existing properties have been assessed, and mitigation measures have been described. Some adverse impacts may still exist for which no mitigation is available. Adverse impacts have been quantified and discussed; for those adverse impacts that cannot be quantified, qualitative discussions have been provided in previous sections of this document. The adverse impacts of the proposed project will be minimized where possible, but this section acknowledges those adverse impacts that may still occur, as follows:

 Grading will permanently alter the topography of the subject properties. It is noted that this grading program satisfies a goal of the project, which is to restore the historic visual appearance and character of the CPI by restoring its surface grades to its previous configuration.  Temporary increases in construction traffic and noise during the construction period.  Despite the planned mitigation measures (such as soil wetting, etc.), temporary increases in the potential for fugitive dust during the construction period may still occur.  Increase in vehicle trips generated on the site and on area roadways.  Removal of a total of 4.98 acres of forest on the overall site.

Page 4-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

 Increased potential need for emergency services of Southampton Town Police Department and Hampton Bays Fire District (offset by concomitant increase in tax revenues).  Increased demand on energy services of LIPA and National Grid (to be paid for according to rate tariffs).

4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This subsection is intended to identify those natural and human resources listed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use as a result of the proposed project. Development of the proposed project will result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The importance of this commitment of resources is not anticipated to be significant, due to the fact that these losses do not involve any resources that are in short supply, semi-precious or precious to the community or region, or are otherwise substantial.

It is difficult to quantify the exact commitment of resources; however, once the project is complete, the following losses of irreversible and irretrievable resources are expected:

 Building materials used for construction, including but not limited to: wood, asphalt, concrete, fiberglass, steel, aluminum, brick, etc.  Energy and related resources used in the construction, operation and maintenance, including fossil fuels, electricity and water.  4.98 acres of forest to be removed from the overall site.

4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects

Growth inducing aspects of a proposed development are those project characteristics which would cause or promote further development in the vicinity, either due directly to the project, or indirectly as a result of a change in the population, markets or potential for development in that community. Direct impacts might include, for example, the creation of a major employment center or institutional facility, installation or extension of infrastructure improvements or the development of a large residential project, particularly if that project were designed for a specific age group. An indirect impact would cause an increase in the potential for further development in an area, which in turn would result in direct impacts. In this sense, the proposed development projects would not cause growth in the vicinity. The proposed project is complementary to the prevailing uses in the area and the rehabilitation of CPI will restore the historic use of the site, and so, would not represent a trigger for such growth.

It is anticipated that the project would contribute to an increase in activity for local businesses. The project will increase the number of residents in an area where commercial and service- oriented businesses are available for pedestrians and by relatively short auto trips. These businesses, especially those serving the needs of family-oriented customers, would tend to

Page 4-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

experience incrementally increased activity due to the increase in their customer base; this is viewed as a benefit and does not require new facilities but supports existing ones.

The rehabilitation of CPI and construction of the townhomes of will create both short-term and long-term job opportunities. In the short-term, development will create construction jobs, and indirectly jobs may be created based on increased patronage of material suppliers. In the long- term, the proposed project will create a number of permanent operation and maintenance-related jobs. These jobs may be filled first from within the local labor pool. These job opportunities would not require relocation of specialized labor forces or influx of large businesses from outside the area to provide construction support. As a result, job-related growth-inducing aspects of the proposed project are not expected to be significant.

Redevelopment of the subject properties will result in an incrementally increased usage of utilities. Electrical and natural gas services are generally available throughout Long Island (and are presently available to the subject properties), and water mains are adjacent; therefore, significant expansions of these utilities are not expected. Because these facilities and services already exist and have the capacity to service the proposed project, no significant growth is expected to result. As the townhomes on the Canal Property will be developed at a density in excess of that allowable under Article 6 of the SCSC, on-site septic systems are not allowed, so a NitrexTM wastewater treatment facility on the Eastern Property is proposed. As this facility would only serve the Canal Property, it would not represent a growth-inducing aspect with respect to potential off-site development, as it would not be available for off-site growth. The proposed project may lead to the improvement of community services in the area as stimulated by the increased taxes generated by the project.

In summary, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant direct growth-induced impacts, though an incremental increase in indirect growth-induced impacts is expected.

4.6 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources

An increase in the consumption of energy resources would typically be expected from the intensification of land use on a site, particularly for sites which had been undeveloped or unused. The proposed development sites are already developed, so that the deteriorated CPI Property and the developed Canal Property both consume energy resources, in the forms of electricity and natural gas. Rehabilitation of the CPI structure, and removal operations followed by construction of townhomes on the Canal Property, are anticipated to result in a similar or a slightly greater level of energy use. However, the replacement of two higher-intensity restaurant uses with one lower-intensity residential use may result in a net reduction in the consumption of energy on this property. Additionally, use of new, energy-efficient building materials (e.g., insulations, windows, weather stripping, door seals, etc.) and mechanical systems, (e.g., air conditioners, heating systems, HVAC systems, water heaters, heat pumps, etc.) is anticipated, which would mitigate the usage of energy resources required. Incorporation of such energy- conserving measures is not only required by New York State and the Town of Southampton, but is a sensible business practice, particularly in light of the increasing cost of energy resources.

Page 4-12 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Thus, it is possible that the completed project will result in a similar or a slightly lesser demand for energy resources. The project will result in an overall development that includes sustainable design elements and Energy Star design/construction, in conformance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 123, Article V of the Town Code. It is expected that existing public utilities at the CPI and Canal Properties will be more than adequate to meet the expected demand; LIPA has confirmed that it can provide electrical service to the projects, and National Grid is anticipated to provide natural gas.

There may be a short-term increase in energy use during the construction phase of the proposed project. These impacts are expected to be of short duration, and the long-term energy demand is expected to remain stable or decline.

The proposed project will utilize energy efficient design standards to minimize energy consumption at the site. The townhomes will be constructed in conformance with New York State and Town building codes, which require adequate insulation as well as other design standards that would minimize energy use. Water saving fixtures will be specified for the proposed residential and commercial buildings in accordance with current building requirements and practice of the trade. Such measures will include installation of low flow lavatories, sinks, fixtures and equipment, to reduce unnecessary water loss, which would translate into conservation of the energy resources required to heat this water.

In summary, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant adverse impacts on the use and conservation of energy resources.

Page 4-13 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 5.0

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 Alternative 1: No Action - assumes that the subject properties remain in their current zonings, but that the buildings and facilities are fully utilized.  Alternative 2: Full As-of-Right Build-Out - assumes development of the project properties under their existing zonings, as follows: o CPI Property: new 49,187 SF (338 seat) restaurant. o Canal Property: new 17,176 SF (238 seat) restaurant. o Eastern Property: new 21,032 SF (160 seat) restaurant.

As of Right Zoning Yield Maps of the three properties for development under their existing zonings (i.e., for Alternative 2) are contained in pouches at the end of this document. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 provide descriptions of each alternative, and the descriptions enable qualitative comparisons to be made between these two scenarios, as well as the proposed project. Table 5- 1 lists the assumed uses, yields, and characteristics of the alternatives, along with those of the proposed project, to enable quantitative comparisons against the values of the proposed project, as well as against each other.

5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

5.1.1 CPI Property

This alternative anticipates that the proposed project is not implemented, so that the zoning of this property would remain RWB, the existing CPI buildings would remain and the existing types of usage that could be realized on the site would not change. As described in Section 1.2.1, current conditions on the CPI Property are such that the nightclub use and cottage rental operations have ceased; however, the site could re-open and recommence these uses. That is, the owner has several options to utilize this property: leaving the site as it currently exists, utilizing the existing buildings to their fullest allowable extent, or pursuing a land use application in conformance with the site’s RWB zoning. In each of these three scenarios, the subject parcel would retain the potential for redevelopment in accordance with its existing zoning (see Section 5.2.1).

Page 5-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Table 5-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Proposed Project Alternative 1 - No Action* Alternative 2 - Full As-of-Right Build-Out Parameter CPI Canal Eastern Totals CPI Canal Eastern Totals CPI Canal Eastern Totals Inn, nightclub 20 unit inn, 350-seat catering, 70- 40 townhomes, 2 restaurants, bait Vacant, NitrexTM w/rated occupancy 338-seat 238-seat 160-seat Uses & Yields seat restaurant w/20 bar seats, 120 private amenities --- shop, 2 residences, undeveloped ------WWTF of 1,857 persons, 5 restaurant restaurant restaurant outdoor seats & marina marina woodland cottages Zoning MPDD MPDD MPDD --- RWB RWB MTL --- RWB RWB MTL --- Coverages (acres): ------Forested/Natural 0 0 1.87 1.87 3.21 0.96 2.68 6.85 0 0.58 0.39 0.97 Roads, Buildings, Paved 2.43 2.32 0.04 4.79 1.13 1.69 0 2.82 3.00 0.94 1.17 5.11 Unvegetated 0 0 0 0 1.01 0.50 0 1.51 0 0 0 0 Landscaping 3.22 1.60 0.77 5.59 0.29 0.77 0 1.06 2.65 2.40 1.12 6.17 Tidal Wetlands 0 0.58 0 0.58 00.5800.58 0 0.58 0 0.58 Water Resources: ------Domestic Use (gpd) (1) 10,175 13,800 0 23,975 20,000 12,338 0 32,338 10,140 7,140 4,800 22,080 Sanitary Wastewater (gpd) (1) 6,600 13,800 0 20,400 20,000 4,928 0 24,928 3,380 2,380 1,600 7,360 Irrigation (gpd) 1,317 (2) 655(2) 01,972 119 0 0 119 544 (2) 499 (2) 229 (2) 1,272 Total Water Use (gpd) 11,494 14,445 0 25.94 20,119 12,338 0 32,457 10,684 7,639 5,029 23,352 Recharge Volume (MGY) (4) 8.04 3.52 6.39 17.95 11.41 7.95 1.33 20.69 5.77 3.61 2.59 11.97 Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) (4) 6.66 0.44 4.34 4.64 13.50 5.26 0.01 9.47 4.89 5.63 5.11 5.16 Nitrogen Recharged (lbs/day) (4) 447 13 231 691 1,284 349 0.11 1,633 235 169 110 514 Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (vph): ------Weekday AM 33 25 0 58 21 (5) 39 0 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A Weekday PM 163 28 0 191 23 (5) 131 0 154 139 171 115 425 Saturday 205 54 0 259 332 (5) 155 0 487 179 126 85 390 Miscellaneous: ------Residents 0 100 (6) 0 100 0 5 (5) 0 5 0 0 0 0 School-Age Children 0 3 (6) 0 3 0 1 (5) 0 1 0 0 0 0 Employees (FTE) 35 16 1 42 66 34 0 100 98 69 45 212 Solid Waste (lbs/day) (7) 1,375 349 0 1,724 447 2,828 0 3,275 2,028 1,428 960 4,416 Total Taxes ($/yr) 160,618 702,383 20,698 883,699 79,732 95,599 4,917 180,248 209,879 146,031 87,776 443,686 School Taxes ($/yr) 123,010 537,922 15,852 676,784 60,384 73,215 3,766 137,365 160,736 111,838 67,223 339,797 School Fiscal Impact (+/-$/yr) (8) +123,010 +504,508 +15,852 +643,370 +60,384 +62,077 +3,766 +126,227 +160,736 +111,838 +67,223 +339,797 Parking Required (spaces) 236 100 0 336 N/D N/D 0 --- 138 95 66 299 Parking Provided (spaces) 236 80 0 316 N/D N/D 0 --- 164 97 66 327 *Assumes full occupancy and previous operations. N/D-Not Determined; MGY-million gallons per year; mg/l-milligrams per liter; FTE-full time equivalents; vph-vehicles per hour. (1) Based on SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates (Hydraulic Load or Density Load), 12.01.09. (2) Assumes that landscape irrigation will be annualized assuming 5.5 inches of water are applied over the growing season, and the total landscaped area per site would be irrigated. (3) Assumes that landscape irrigation will be annualized assuming 5.5 inches of water are applied over the growing season, and that half of the total landscaped area per site will be irrigated. (4) See Appendix K. (5) See Appendix N-1. (6) Based on 2.49 capita per unit, US Census, average household size, and 0.08 school age children per unit, Long Island Housing Partnership, Town of Southampton. (7) Based on 3 lbs/day/for the inn rooms and cottages, 13 lbs/day/1,000 SF for the nightclub and bait shop, 2 lbs/meal for the restaurants (assuming 300 meals/day), and 3.5 lbs/day capita for the residences. (8) Based on $11,138/student total expenditures.

Page 5-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

This No Action scenario assumes that the existing CPI structure and cottages would be fully utilized. The main structure on the CPI Property would likely be open on a seasonal basis (though nothing would prevent off-season use) and would house a nightclub. This operation would then continue to impact the surrounding residential neighborhood, particularly during late- night and weekend hours during spring and summer months, with the potential for additional seasonal and off-season use. In addition, the CPI structure would continue to physically deteriorate, resulting in an increasing loss of historic character and building fabric, so that this community resource would become more and more of an eyesore over time. Also to be considered is that the site would lack proper on-site drainage, treatment of stormwater runoff, etc., which would tend to cause adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources.

5.1.2 Canal Property

This alternative anticipates that the proposed project would not be implemented, so that the zoning of the subject site would remain RWB. In this alternative, the existing buildings would remain and the existing site uses and conditions would not change. If the site were to remain zoned RWB, the owner would have several options which would include: leaving the site as it currently exists; utilizing the existing buildings to their fullest allowable extent of use, or pursuing a land use application in conformance with zoning. The subject site would retain the potential for redevelopment in accordance with its existing zoning (see Section 5.2.2).

This No Action scenario implies that the majority of the site would continue to be mixed commercial and residential use. The existing restaurants on the Canal Property would continue to impact the surrounding residential neighborhood, particularly during the evening and weekend hours during spring and summer months when outdoor entertainment is at its peak. Similar to the CPI Property, the Canal Property in this scenario would lack proper on-site drainage, treatment of stormwater runoff, etc., so that adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources would continue.

5.1.3 Eastern Property

This alternative anticipates that the proposed project would not be implemented, so that the zoning of the subject site would remain MTL. The Eastern Property does not contain any structures and is currently vacant woodland. As a result, the vacant condition of this site would continue; however, the subject site would retain the potential for development in accordance with its existing zoning (see Section 5.2.3).

5.1.4 Assessment of Alternative 1 Impacts

In terms of natural resources, the CPI and Canal Properties contain limited areas of vegetation that would remain. This includes the railroad embankment and limited vegetated areas around the cottages on the CPI Property and in the area immediately adjacent to the marina on the Canal

Page 5-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Property. The majority of the CPI Property involves the nightclub building and unpaved parking on the north side of the structure. The existing nightclub use would generate a large volume of sanitary waste during seasons of use, which would be discharged via the existing old sanitary systems associated with the nightclub building. The Eastern Property would remain wooded.

The nightclub use on the CPI Property as well as the retail use on the Canal Property would be pre-existing, non-conforming uses. A nightclub use requires a Special Exception in the RWB zone; however, the facility does not appear to meet the Special Exception criteria, which include separation of 500 feet from residentially-zoned property, sound insulation and a requirement to conduct all activity indoors. There are residences to the north across the LIRR, the CPI building is old and does not appear to be sound insulated, and there is an outdoor patio club area on the north side of the building. The use would continue to serve patrons of such clubs but would be underutilized for much of the year. The cottages would remain as either rental or vacant structures. Both the CPI and Canal Properties would produce limited economic value in terms of jobs and taxes and would not address the economic goals of the applicant.

Based on trip generation rates published by the ITE, this scenario would generate more weekday AM and Saturday peak hour trips than the proposed project. This implies that the potential for adverse impacts to operating conditions and safety on local roadways and at local intersections would be greater for this alternative than would be the case for the proposed project.

In regard to community services, the CPI Property’s condition would continue to be such that regular oversight on the part of police and fire protection personnel would be needed. Both properties would require services for solid waste handling, water supply and energy, all of which would be required year-round for the Canal Property; however, these services would be mostly seasonal due to the nature of the nightclub use. Finally, this alternative would maintain the existing dilapidated character of the CPI Property, which adversely impacts the aesthetic quality of the immediate area, as well as of the up-scale residential nature of the adjacent community.

In consideration of the above, it may be concluded that this alternative would not be seen as preferable on the part of the owner in view of his inability to realize an equitable return on investment in the land for the seasonal nightclub and cottage rental operations, which are the only sources of income in this scenario for the CPI Property as well as the underutilized Canal Property. This alternative may not be preferable to the Town or the neighbors, as the CPI Property would remain in a state of disrepair, and vacancy during much of the year.

5.2 Alternative 2: Full As-of-Right Build-Out

5.2.1 CPI Property

This scenario assumes that the RWB-zoned land on the CPI site remains unchanged, and that a permitted commercial use at a conforming yield is realized (see As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canoe Place). It is assumed that the CPI structure and associated cottages would be removed for the new commercial use. For this property, a maximum of 20% lot coverage is permitted.

Page 5-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Therefore, it is estimated that the site could accommodate a 49,187 SF, 338-seat restaurant which would be accessed via a single entrance on Newtown Road as well as two access driveways on Montauk Highway. A minimum of 138 parking stalls are required; the plan shows that 164 spaces could be provided. No variances would be required in this scenario. An on-site septic system under SCSC Article 6 would be utilized to treat and recharge the estimated 10,140 gpd of wastewater (of which 3,380 gpd are assumed to be sanitary wastewater) assumed for this scenario.

The plan depicting this scenario shows that the entire site would be developed surfaces, either impervious surfaces or landscaped surfaces; none of the existing natural vegetation would be retained. The assumed restaurant operation would continue to impact the surrounding residential neighborhood, particularly during late-night and weekend hours during spring and summer months with the potential for additional seasonal use.

5.2.2 Canal Property

Similar to the CPI Property, this scenario assumes that the RWB-zoned land on the Canal Property remains RWB, and that a permitted commercial use at a conforming yield is realized (see As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal West Parcel). It is assumed that the various commercial structures on this property would be removed for the new restaurant use; a maximum of 20% lot coverage is permitted. Therefore, it is estimated that the site could accommodate a 17,176 SF, 238-seat, two-story restaurant to be accessed via a single entrance on North Shore Road. A minimum of 95 parking stalls are required; the plan shows that 97 spaces could be provided. No variances would be required under the as-of-right scenario. An on-site septic system having a capacity of 7,140 gpd (2,380 gpd of sanitary wastewater) would be allowed under SCSC Article 6, and is assumed.

The plan shows that the development assumed on this property would conform to Town setback requirements for tidal wetlands; no Town wetland permit would be required.

The plan for this scenario shows that the disturbed northern portion of this property would not be redeveloped; the central and southern portions of this parcel would contain all of the redeveloped surfaces. This area is estimated to produce 0.58 acres of naturally revegetated space. Similar to the proposed project, 0.58 acres of tidal wetlands would be retained. Based on the quantities on the plan and assuming 325 SF for each parking space provided (which includes an allowance for internal parking aisles), a total of 0.94 acres of impervious surfaces would result. This leaves 2.40 acres assumed to be developed as landscaped surfaces. Similar to the existing mixed commercial use on this property, this assumed restaurant operation would continue to impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly during late-night and weekend hours during spring and summer months with the potential for additional seasonal use.

Page 5-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

5.2.3 Eastern Property

For this property, Alternative 2 would assume that this MTL-zoned site is redeveloped with a permitted commercial use, specifically, a 21,032 SF, 160-seat restaurant (see the As of Right Zoning Yield Map, Canal East Parcel). As this property is presently undeveloped and wooded, no building demolition would be necessary, though clearing of 2.29 acres of natural forest would be required. Vehicle access would be available via two entrances on North Shore Road and one access on Canoe Place Road. A minimum of 66 parking stalls are required; the plan shows that 66 spaces could be provided. No variances would be required under the as-of- right scenario. An on-site septic system having a conforming capacity of 4,800 gpd (1,600 gpd of sanitary wastewater) would be allowed under SCSC Article 6, and is assumed.

The plan for this scenario shows that the restaurant structure and some of the necessary parking would occupy the southern portion of the property, with the central portion, along the eastern side of North Shore Road, being utilized for the majority of the required parking. The eastern portions of this property, particularly in its northern part, would be retained in a naturally- vegetated state, to buffer the adjacent residences and the southern portion of Wildwood Lane. Unlike the use of this property in the proposed project, this alternative would result in a significant increase in the intensity of use of this parcel. Similar to the above-described restaurant use on the Canal-Property across North Shore Road, this assumed restaurant operation would increase the level of impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly during late-night and weekend hours during spring and summer months with the potential for additional seasonal use.

5.2.4 Assessment of Alternative 2 Impacts

This scenario assumes that all three of the subject properties would be developed. As a result, based on the values listed in Table 5-1, this alternative would not retain a significant amount of natural vegetation (0.97 acres, as opposed to 1.87 acres in the proposed project). The areas of natural forest to remain would be found in small, scattered strips along the boundaries of the three project sites, and would not, in total, represent a significant amount of habitat. This scenario would also result in a high percentage (39.8%) of impervious surfaces, for buildings and parking. The three restaurants would generate a slightly smaller amount of overall wastewater than the proposed project, but a much smaller volume of sanitary wastewater. However, as this volume would conform to SCSC Article 6 requirements, on-site septic systems would be allowed. As no NitrexTM WWTF would be provided in this scenario, the impact of this scenario on groundwater quality would be greater than that of the proposed project. The amount of recharge generated in this scenario would be 11.97 MGY would be less than that of the proposed project (17.95 MGY), at a calculated nitrogen concentration of 5.16 mg/l, which is within the state drinking water standard, though higher than that of the proposed project (4.64 mg/l).

In terms of land use and zoning, the restaurants would conform to the pattern of land use in the vicinity (this use had been represented on both the CPI and Canal Properties previously), as well as to the zoning pattern. The restaurants would produce economic value in terms of jobs and

Page 5-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS taxes, but would not address the economic goals of the applicant. In addition, the goals of the Town and community would not be realized, most notably as the CPI would be removed.

Based on trip generation rates published by the ITE and in comparison to the proposed project, the three restaurants in this scenario would generate minimal numbers of vehicle trips in the weekday AM peak hour, but would cause significantly higher trips in the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours than the proposed project. As a result, it is expected that the potential for adverse impacts to operating conditions and safety on local roadways and at local intersections would be greater for this alternative than would be the case for the proposed project.

In regard to community services, the restaurants would require that regular oversight on the part of police and fire protection personnel would be needed. All three facilities would require services for solid waste handling, water supply and energy, all of which would be required year- round. Finally, this alternative would eliminate the dilapidated character of the buildings on the CPI and Canal Properties, which adversely impacts the aesthetic quality of the immediate area, as well as of the up-scale residential nature of the adjacent community.

Based on the above discussion, the applicant, Town and community would not likely prefer this scenario. An equitable return on investment is not expected from development of three restaurants, and such a use (particularly the amount of it in a small locality), the loss of a desired land use (CPI), and impacts associated with traffic would not be acceptable to the Town or community.

5.3 Impact Comparison

In terms of natural resources, Alternative 1 would retain the greatest acreage of natural lands of all three scenarios evaluated here. The proposed project would retain the next-largest acreage of natural lands, and Alternative 2 would retain the least natural land, primarily because it assumes that all three properties are developed. However, it should be noted that that the existing natural areas on the CPI and Canal Properties are degraded and do not represent quality habitat. With respect to water resources, Table 5-1 indicates that Alternative 1 would consume a quantity of water that exceeds those of either the proposed project or Alternative 2. With respect to recharge, Alternative 1 would generate the greatest volume of recharge, but would contain the greatest amount and the greatest concentration of nitrogen. Recharge generated by the proposed project would contain the next-largest amount of nitrogen but, due to its greater volume of recharge than Alternative 2, would contain the lowest concentration of nitrogen in that recharge volume.

In regard to land use and zoning, retaining the nightclub use on the CPI Property as well as the retail use on the Canal Property (i.e., Alternative 1) would continue these pre-existing, nonconforming uses, which are not desirable to the community. However, a nightclub use requires a Special Exception in the RWB zone, which the existing CPI facility does not appear to meet. Specifically, the Special Exception criteria include separation of 500 feet from residentially- zoned property, sound insulation and a requirement to conduct all activity indoors. There are

Page 5-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS residences to the north across the LIRR, the CPI building is old and is not acoustically insulated, and there is an outdoor patio club area on the north side of the building. Thus, long-term continuation of this facility is problematic, suggesting that this alternative may not be certain. Finally, the nightclub would be underutilized for much of the year and both the CPI and Canal Properties would produce limited economic value in terms of jobs and taxes; these factors would tend to not address the economic goals of the applicant. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would conform to the zoning pattern of the properties and the area. However, the intensity of these restaurant uses, as well as their proximity to not only each other but to the residences in the vicinity, may prove to be an unattractive option for the community. The proposed project represents a decrease in the intensity of land uses in the area, provides for the permanent retention of a natural forest area in proximity to residences, and provides a substantial quality residential component where the potential for success is high.

Based on anticipated vehicle trip generation rates, Alternative2 would generate more trips than the proposed project during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, while Alternative 1 would generate more trips than the proposed project during the Saturday peak hour. This implies that the potential for adverse impacts to operating conditions and safety on local roadways and at local intersections would be less for the proposed project than would be the case for either of these two alternatives.

Regardless of which scenario is involved, the subject properties will remain liable to regular oversight on the part of police and fire protection services; the only differences would be associated with the nature of the specific emergency services that may be required.

Alternative 1 would maintain the visual character of all three project properties, while the proposed project would enhance the appearance of the CPI Property, change the appearance of the Canal Property, and maintain much of the Eastern Property’s character. Alternative 2 would change the appearance of all three properties. Of these properties, only the wooded Eastern Property can presently be considered aesthetically attractive, as the CPI Property is dilapidated in appearance, and the buildings on the Canal Property are in need of visual improvements. Both the proposed project and Alternative 2 would involve removal of the structures on the CPI and Canal Properties, and development on the Eastern Property as well (though that of the proposed project would be limited to clearing of only a portion, followed by revegetation). Thus, these latter two scenarios would have the ability to provide development on these properties that would be attractive, appropriate and more in keeping with the surrounding community character than currently exists on them.

Because the proposed project is the only scenario that contains a residential component, it is the only scenario that would result in a residential population, and the only scenario that would include school-age children (which would represent potential incremental enrollment and expenditure impacts for the Hampton Bays UFSD if those children were to attend district schools). However, as the taxes anticipated for the proposed project would be substantially in excess of the cost to the school district of the few new students generated, and the second-home nature of the townhouses is such that school-age children would not be present during the school

Page 5-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS year, all three scenarios would result in net fiscal benefits to the Hampton Bays UFSD (though that of the proposed project would be most substantial).

With respect to employment, as-of-right development would provide for the greatest number of jobs (212), while the proposed project would generate the fewest positions (42).

The amount of solid waste generated would be greatest for Alternative 2, with lesser volumes for Alternative 1, followed by the proposed project. Based on the types of land uses involved, none of these three scenarios are expected to generate any toxic or hazardous wastes, or wastes that would require special handling or disposal measures.

The proposed project would generate the greatest amount of property taxes, school district taxes, and net fiscal benefit to the Hampton Bays UFSD. The as-of-right alternative would provide the next-largest set of these impacts, leaving the No Action alternative to generate the least property taxes, school district taxes and net fiscal school benefit.

After review of the quantities presented in Table 5-1, it is apparent that Alternative 1 would involve the least land disturbance of the three scenarios, and would retain the greatest amount of natural vegetation and result in the least developed surfaces. It would also generate the most recharge. However, this alternative would also use the most water, generate the most wastewater, recharge the most nitrogen in its recharge (and so have the greatest adverse impact on groundwater quality), and result in the lowest amount of taxes. Alternative 2 would demand the least water, generate the least sanitary wastewater, recharge the least nitrogen, and include no residents or school-age children (and so not impact school district enrollments). Finally, the proposed project would feature the lowest concentration of nitrogen in its recharge, generate the fewest vehicle trips (for all three peak hours evaluated, and so would have the lowest potential to impact traffic conditions), generate the least solid wastes, and would generate the greatest amount of taxes, with the greatest net fiscal benefit to the Hampton Bays UFSD.

Alternative designs for the Canal Property were considered in arriving at the proposed project density and design. The Canal Property is currently occupied by a number of uses, and much of the site is in a deteriorated state. Active uses include several restaurants and a bait and tackle shop, with other structures present on the site. Much of the site consists of unstabilized sand and gravel surfaces and disturbed areas that are prone to erosion, sheet runoff and sedimentation to Shinnecock Canal. The shoreline consists of bulkhead and an old rip-rap revetment; however, part of the revetment on the southern part of the site is in disrepair and promotes gully erosion to the waterway. A restaurant and decks for the restaurant and constructed up to the bulkhead directly adjacent to Shinnecock Canal. The site is also served by existing on-site sanitary systems. These factors present an opportunity for appropriate re-development. The applicant proposes a carefully planned project to construct 40 townhomes on the site, while stabilizing the shoreline and upland surfaces, containing all runoff on-site in conformance with Town engineering requirements, and conveying sanitary waste off-site to a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility. The re-development also facilitates the rehabilitation of the CPI site. The proposed project and potential impacts are discussed throughout this DEIS, and this section compares several as-of-right alternatives and the no-action. Changes to the Canal Property

Page 5-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS proposed development are not in keeping with the goals and objectives of the project sponsor, which is to create an environmentally sound development plan to rehabilitate the CPI site and achieve an economically feasible project on the Canal Property in combination with the objectives for the CPI site. Changes to the proposed Canal Property development could jeopardize this concept, particularly if there are less units which would translate to less offsetting economic value that helps to drive the other goals with respect to the CPI site.

In summary, a lower number of residences would also result in a number of undesirable impacts to the applicant, the Town and the community, including:

1. inability to fund the CPI rehabilitation program; 2. inability to provide a contribution to the Town for open space preservation; 3. reduced property tax generation from the site; 4. reduced property tax allocations to the service providers; and 5. elimination of the need for the NitrexTM WWTF, with an associated increase in impact to groundwater quality from use of septic systems.

The above brief discussion makes it clear that, changes in the proposed project resulting in reduction in the number of residences would cause unwanted effects for all stakeholders.

Finally, as noted in the introductory paragraph to this section, SEQRA requires that “Alternatives should represent reasonable and feasible land use, technology and other options to the proposed project that would achieve the applicant’s objectives and remain within the applicant’s capabilities.” The above analysis supports a conclusion that such project changes would not be feasible, as they would render the project unacceptable to the applicant. Additionally, such changes would not be acceptable to the Town or the community, as such changes would not provide the benefits that are the goal of the proposed project.

Taken together with the qualitative discussion above, it is apparent that the proposed project would provide features beneficial to the community that are not apparent in the quantities in Table 5-1. These benefits include, but are not limited to, rehabilitation of a structure and operation that has become part of the fabric of the community; provision of a substantial monetary contribution for Town open space preservation; provision of land for and construction of a boardwalk along the Shinnecock Canal; aesthetic improvement of the site; lower intensity of usage; retention of most of a naturally-forested site; and improved groundwater protection. Finally, the proposed project is consistent with the property owner’s business goal of realizing an equitable profit from investment in the sites that comprise the proposed project.

Page 5-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

SECTION 6.0

REFERENCES

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

6.0 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994, Washington, D.C.

American Planning Association, A Glossary of Zoning, Development and Planning Terms, PAS Report Number 491/492, 1999

Andrle, R.E. and J.R. Carroll, 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Arendt, Randall, 1999. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances, Island Press.

Behler, J.L. and F.W. King, 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred Knopf, N.Y.

Bent, A. C., 1946. Life Histories of North American Jays, Crows, and Titmice. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1953. Life Histories of North American Wood Warblers, Part I. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1953. Life Histories of North American Wood Warblers, Part II. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey, Part I. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1963. Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1964. Life Histories of North American Flycatchers Larks, Swallows, and their Allies. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1964. Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and their Allies. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1964. Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1964. Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds and their Allies, Part II. Dover Publications, New York.

Page 6-1 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Bent, A. C., 1965. Life Histories of North American Wagtails, Shrikes, Vireos, and their Allies. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1964. Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds and their Allies, Part I. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1965. Life Histories of North American Blackbirds, Orioles, Tanagers and Allies. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1968. Life Histories of North American Cardinals, Grosbeaks, Buntings, Towhees, Finches, Sparrows and Allies, Part I. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1968. Life Histories of North American Cardinals, Grosbeaks, Buntings, Towhees, Finches, Sparrows and Allies, Part II. Dover Publications, New York.

Bent, A. C., 1968. Life Histories of North American Cardinals, Grosbeaks, Buntings, Towhees, Finches, Sparrows, and Allies, Part III. Dover Publications, New York.

Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of Salamanders. The Salamanders of the United States, Canada, and of Lower California. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, New York.

Brown, Robert, 1991, Unpublished Manuscript Containing Meteorological Data Compiled at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY. Data supplied by Robert Brown, Meteorologist, Revision Date, February 21, 1991, BNL, Upton, New York.

Bull, J. and Farrand, J., 1977, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Burchell, R. W., D. Listokin, and W. R. Dolphin, 1985. The New Practitioners Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.

Burt, William H. and Grossenheider, Richard P., 1976, A Field Guide to the Mammals of America North of Mexico, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Busciolano, Ronald., Jack Monti, Jr., and Anthony Chu., (1997). Water-Table and Potentiometric-Surface Altitudes of the Upper Glacial, Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers on Long Island, New York, in March-April, 1997, with a Summary of Hydrogeologic Conditions. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 98-4019, United States Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Coram, NY.

Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer, 1982, Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, Economics. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Page 6-2 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Cohen, Philip, O.L. Frank, and B. L. Foxworthy, 1968. An Atlas of Long Island Water Resources, New York Water Resources Commission Bulletin 62, USGS in cooperation with the New York State Water Resources Commission, Published by the State of New York.

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Peterson Field Guide Series, Number 12. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Ma.

Connor, Paul F., 1971, The Mammals of Long Island, New York, Albany, New York: New York State Museum & Science Service.

Council On Environmental Quality (CEQ), undated. Natural Habitats of Suffolk County, Hauppauge, New York.

Cryan, John F., 1984, The Status of the Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) on Long Island, NY, New York, New York.

Cryan, John F. and Robert Dirig, 1977, The Moths of Autumn. Pine Bush Historical Preservation Project, Inc. Occasional Publication No. 1. Albany, NY. 16 pp.

CUPR [Center for Urban Policy Research], Rutgers University, 1994.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/seow/seow.htm (Version 12DEC2003).

Doriski, T.P., 1986. Potentiometric Surface of the Water Table, Magothy and Lloyd Aquifers on Long Island, New York, in 1984. Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4189. USGS, Washington D.C.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Farrand, John, 1997, National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds, Eastern Region, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Page 6-3 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Farrand, J. ed. 1983. The Audubon Society Master Guide to Birding Vols. 1, 2 and 3. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, N.Y. 447 pp.

Fernald, M. L, 1970. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp.

Forbush, E.H. 1912, The History of the Game Birds, Wildfowl, and Shore Birds of Massachusetts and Adjacent States. Wright and Potter Printing, Massachusetts.

Fowler, Murray E., 1993, Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine, Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Freeze, Allan R. and Cherry, John A., 1979. Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fuller, Myron L., 1914. The Geology of Long Island, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 82, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Gerrard, Michael B., Esq, et al. Environmental Impact Review in New York, updated August 2008. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.

Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist, 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden. 910 pp.

Godin, Alfred J., 1983, Wild Mammals of New England. The Globe Pequot Press, Chester, Connecticut.

Godin, Alfred J., 1977, Wild Mammals of New England. The Globe Pequot Press, Chester, Connecticut.

Hughes, Henry B.F.; Pacenka, Steve; Snowdon, Elizabeth, 1985. Thornthwaite and Mather's Climatic Water Budget Method: An Implementation using the Lotus 1-2-3 (TM) Spreadsheet Program, Draft, April 1985, Cornell University, Center for Environmental Research, Ithaca, New York.

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Hunter, M.L., A. Calhoun, and M. McCollough. 1999. Maine Amphibians and Reptiles. The University of Maine Press, Orono.

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), 1993. Lighting Handbook, Reference and Application, 8th Edition, New York, NY.

Page 6-4 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997, Highway Capacity Manual. Washington D.C. ITE Technical Council Committee 6A-32.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Washington D.C. ITE Technical Council Committee 6A-32.

Jensen, H.M. and Julian Soren, 1974. Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Koppelman, Lee., 1978. 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management, Hauppauge, New York: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.

Leahy, C., 1982, The Birdwatcher’s Companion, Gramercy Books, New York, New York.

LIPA, 2007, Long Island Population Survey, 2006, Long Island Power Authority, Hicksville, New York.

Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982. Historical Population of Long Island Communities. LIRPB, Hauppauge, New York.

Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. LIRPB, Hauppauge, New York.

Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984. Non-point Source Management Handbook. LIRPB, Hauppauge, New York.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979, Wastewater Engineering: Disposal Reuse, Second Edition., McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Morreale, Stephen J., 1992, The Status and Population Ecology of the Diamondback Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin, in New York. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, Inc., Hampton Bays, NY.

Nagle, Constance M., 1975, Climatology of Brookhaven National Laboratory: 1949 through 1973. Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York.

Navarra, John G., 1979, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate: An Introduction to Meteorology, Commack, New York.

Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, Ma.

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), 2008. NYNHP Conservation Guide – Short- eared Owl (Asio flammeus). Albany, NY. Last updated February 6, 2008.

Page 6-5 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

New York State, 1987, (revised January 1996) State Environmental Quality Review, 6 NYCRR Part 617, Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301(1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8-0113, Albany, NY

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), 1975. NYS Environmental Conservation Law, New York.

NYSDEC, 1986. Long Island Groundwater Management Program. NYSDEC Division of Water.

NYSDEC, 1987, Well Permit Data Base, list of Suffolk County Well permits, NYSDEC, SUNY @ Stony Brook, New York.

NYSDEC, 1988, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map, Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, NY, Photo # 76-1033-83, Coastal Erosion Management Program, Albany, NY.

NYSDEC, 1998 Conserving Open Space in New York State: State Open Space Plan and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Albany, New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Center for Watershed Protection, 2008, New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, Albany, New York.

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), 2008, SPDES General Permit For Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities, Permit No. GP-0-08-001. New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Endangered Species Unity, 2003. Short-eared owl fact sheet. Last updated March 21, 2003. Available at http://www/dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife.endspec/pefafs/html. Accessed February 12, 2008.

NYSDEC, 2004. 2003 Annual Air Quality Report, Ambient Air Monitoring System, Division of Air Resources.

NYSDEC. 2007. List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish & Wildlife Species of New York State, NYS DEC Endangered Species Unit, Albany, N.Y.

NYSDEC. 2007. NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, 2000-2005. http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/bba/. Accessed January 8, 2008.

NYSDEC, July 15, 2009, Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, Office of Air, Energy, and Climate

Page 6-6 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

NYSDEC, Undated, Water Quality Regulations -Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards, New York State Codes, Rules, and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700- 705, Section 703.5 Classes and Quality Standards for Groundwater, NYSDEC, Albany, New York.

New York State Department of Education, The State of Learning: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, July 2004, The University of the State of New York, Albany, NY, July 2004

NYSDOS (New York State Department of State), 2005, Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form: Hempstead Harbor, modified October 15, 2005.

NYSDOT, Section 1.A; NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, October 1995. NYSDOT Environmental Analysis Bureau, Air Quality Section.

NYSDOT, Environmental Analysis Bureau, August 1998 Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 3.1, Noise Analysis Procedures, Project Environmental Guidelines.

Obst, F.J. 1988. Turtles, Tortoises, and Terrapins. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Pesek, L., 1998, Zoontic Diseases, Winged Wisdom Magazine, June 1998.

Peterson, Roger Tory, 1980, A Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rau, John G., Wooten, David C., 1980, Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, McGraw- Hill, Inc.

Ramsay/Sleeper, Architectural Graphic Standards, Ninth edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1994

Real Property Tax Service Agency, Subscriber Map Album, County of Suffolk, 1997.

Reschke C., 1990, Ecological Communities of New York State, New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, New York.

Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 2001. Birds of North America. St. Martin’s Press. New York, NY.

Rossi, Frank, 2005. Lawn Care without Pesticides. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Information Bulletin 248. Ithaca, NY. 16 pp.

Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers, Estimates of the Occupants of New Housing, New York, Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., David Listokin, Ph.D., William Dolphin, MA, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, June 2006

Page 6-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Salvato, Joseph, 1982, Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, 3rd Edition, A Wiley- Interscience Publication, New York.

Seinfeld, John H., 1975. Air Pollution, Physical and Chemical Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Shepherd, M.D., 2005. Species Profile: Erynnis persius persius. In Shepherd, M.D., D.M. Vaughan, and S.H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

SCDHS, 1984, Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single- Family Residences, Revised March 5, 1984, Established pursuant to Article VB, Section 2c of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Division of Environmental Quality, Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1985-1, Suffolk County Sanitary Code-Article 7 Groundwater Management Zones & Water Supply Sensitive Areas, Map: Scale 1"=2 miles, Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1985-2, Suffolk County Sanitary Code-Article 7 Water Pollution Control, May, 1985, Code of Administrative Regulations, Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1987-1, Suffolk County Sanitary Code-Article 6 Realty Subdivisions, Development and Other Construction Projects, Amended March 4, 1987, Code of Administrative Regulations, Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1987-2, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Volume 1, Division of Environmental Health, SCDHS; Dvirka and Bartilucci; and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1997, Contour Map of the Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk County, New York, 1997, Division of Environmental Health Services, Hauppauge, New York.

SCDHS, 1998, Data Base, Well Network Database for Suffolk County Well Data, 225 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, New York. Hauppauge, New York.

SCPC, Retail Commercial Development, Suffolk County, New York, February 5, 1997

SCPC, January 2009, Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook, Policies and Guidelines for the Referral of Proposed Municipal Subdivision and Zoning Actions, Suffolk County Department of Planning, Suffolk County, New York

Smolensky, D.A., H.T. Buxton and P.K. Shernoff, 1989, Hydrologic Framework of Long Island, New York, Hydrologic Investigation Atlas, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Page 6-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

Spinello, A.G., J.H. Makao, and R.B. Winowitch, 1992, Water Resources Data, New York Water Year 1991, Volume 2. Long Island, United States Geological Survey Water Data Report NY- 89-2, Syosset, New York.

Sutter, Russel, M.A. deLaguna and Perlmutter, 1949, Mapping of Geologic Formations and Aquifers of Long Island, New York Bulletin GW-18, State of New York Department of Conservation, Water Power and Control Commission, Albany, New York.

Sutton, Ann and Myron, 1925, Eastern Forests, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

University of the State of New York, State Education Department. "The New York State School Report Card, June 2004 Report to the Governor and the Legislature

US Department of the Navy, 1979. Solid Waste Disposal; Civil Engineering Design Manual, 5.10. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA.

US Department of Transportation, 1973, Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Report No. FHWA- HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1974, Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise - Noise Barrier Design and Example Abatement Measures, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Transportation, 1976. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. Federal Highway Administration, Report No: FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1. Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1976, Noise Barrier Design Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Report No. FHWA-RD-76-58, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1980, Highway Noise, Prepared for the U. S. Department of Transportation by Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, A reprint of: The Audible Landscape: A Manual For Highway Noise and Land Use, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1980, Highway Noise Fundamentals - Noise Fundamentals Training Document, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1980-1, Highway Noise Fundamentals. Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1980-2, Highway Traffic Noise Sources. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Page 6-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

US Department of Transportation, 1990, Noise Barrier Design Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C.

US Department of Transportation, 1995, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Guidance. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, Washington, D.C.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 1981, Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA Report Number 550/9-82-106. Washington, D.C.

US Geological Survey, 2002, Water-Resources Investigations Report, US Dept. of the Interior, Denver, Colorado/Weston, Virginia.

Warner, J.W., W.E. Hanna, R.J. Landry, J.P. Wulforst, J.A. Neeley, R.L. Holmes, C.E. Rice., 1975, Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Cornell Agriculture Experiment Station, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Welsch, David J., and David L. Smart, James N. Boyer, Paul Minkin, Howard C. Smith, Tamara L. McCandless, 1995, Forested Wetlands Functions, Benefits and the Use of Best Management Practices, NA-PR-01-95, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Radnor, PA.

Whitaker, J.O. 1996. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y., N.Y.

White, Frederick A., 1975, Our Acoustic Environment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wright, A.H. and A.A. Wright, 1949. Handbook of Frogs & Toads. Comstock Pub. Assoc., Ithaca, NY.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright, 1957. Handbook of Snakes V1. Comstock Pub. Assoc., Ithaca, NY.

Page 6-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

FIGURES

CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Draft EIS

APPENDICES