(FEIS) Canoe Place Inn (CPI), Canal & Eastern Properties

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

Canoe Place Inn (CPI), Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application

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 (631) 414-8400

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

Prepared by: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747 Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP; Managing Partner (631) 427-5665

Accepted October 2014

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

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, Managing Partner 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) 287-6000

Prepared by: (Environmental Analysis and Planning) Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Contact: Charles J. Voorhis; CEP, AICP Phil Malicki, CEP; AICP, LEED® AP (631) 427-5665

(Attorney) Germano & Cahill, P.C. 4250 Veterans Memorial Highway Holbrook, New York 11741 Contact: Guy W. Germano, Esq. (631) 588-8778

(Architect) Arrowstreet 10 Post Office Square, Suite 700N Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Contact: Scott Pollack, Principal (617) 623-5555

Page i

(Landscape Architect) Araiys Design LA, P.C. 38 Nugent Street, Suite B Southampton, New York 11968 Contact: Tim Rumph, president (631) 283-1131

(Site Engineer) Sidney B. Bowne & Son LLC 235 East Jericho Turnpike Mineola, New York 11501 Contact: Charles J. Bartha, PE Larry Kuo, PE (516) 746-2350

(Traffic Engineer) Nelson and Pope, LLP 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Contact: Osman Barrie, PE (631) 427-5665

(Sanitary Engineer) Lombardo Associates, Inc. 188 Church Street Newton, Massachusetts 02467 Contact: Pio Lombardo, PE (617) 332-5477

(Acoustic Engineer) Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. 327F Boston Post Road Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776-3027 Contact: Andrew C. Carballeira (978) 443-7871

This document, together with the Draft EIS concerning this proposal, represents a Final EIS. Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the Final EIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record and considered in the Findings Statement.

Date Final EIS Accepted: ______

Page ii

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page COVERSHEET i

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document 1-1 1.2 Organization of this Document 1-2 1.3 The Revised Plan 1-3 1.3.1 Description of Plan Changes and Features 1-3 1.3.2 Revised Density Exchange 1-7 1.3.3 PBenefits of the Revised Plan 1-9 1.3.4 Overall Site Layout 1-13 1.3.5 Grading and Drainage 1-18 1.3.6 Access, Road System and Parking 1-21 1.3.7 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply 1-22 1.3.8 Site Lighting and Landscaping 1-27 1.3.9 Open Space and Noise Attenuation 1-28 1.3.10 Construction and Operations 1-29 1.3.11 Permits and Approvals Required 1-32 1.4 Comparative Impact Analysis 1-32 1.4.1 Soils and Topography 1-33 1.4.2 Water Resources 1-33 1.4.3 Ecology 1-34 1.4.4 Transportation 1-34 1.4.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 1-34 1.4.6 Community Facilities and Services 1-38 1.4.7 Community Character 1-38 1.4.8 Historic and Archaeological Resources 1-38 1.4.9 Construction-Related Impacts 1-38 1.4.10 Economic Impacts 1-39 1.4.11 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 1-39 1.4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 1-40 1.4.13 Growth-Inducing Aspects 1-40 1.4.14 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources 1-41 1.4.15 Summary and Conclusions 1-42

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-1 2.1 Opposed to proposed project 2-1 2.2 Support for proposed project 2-1 2.3 Concerns about noise from outdoor events at CPI 2-1 2.4 Future NitrexTM system operation, maintenance and use/occupancy of Eastern Property 2-2 2.5 Consider NitrexTM system on CPI Property 2-3 2.6 Density of units/noise wall will ruin sightlines, community

Page iii

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

character & aesthetics on Canal Property; 40 units on Canal Property excessive, and will impact the character of the canal 2-5 2.7 Fire Department comments received? 2-7 2.8 Concern over loss of public access/commercial use on Canal Property; prefer development at existing zoning 2-7 2.9 Concerns re: financial future and what if units don’t sell? 2-8 2.10 Suggests alternative design, including swapping uses on CPI & Canal Properties and fewer units on Canal Property, with sewage treatment there 2-8 2.11 Insufficient “foot traffic” generated by rehabilitated CPI 2-8 2.12 Concern re: NitrexTM system effluent on waterways 2-9 2.13 Archaeological Study in DEIS was insufficient 2-9 2.14 Considered CPF purchase? 2-10 2.15 Concerns about odors from NitrexTM system and potential for spills 2-10 2.16 Positive tax & economic/property values 2-10 2.17 Concerns re: impacts on private wells from NitrexTM effluent recharge? 2-11 2.18 “Costs” to public of project not considered, or project benefits insufficient to offset these costs 2-11 2.19 Rehabilitated CPI will not look like prior CPI 2-11 2.20 Provide promenade recommended in “Shinnecock Canal Public Access Plan” 2-12 2.21 $250,000 open space donation not enough 2-12 2.22 Hampton Bays Water District impact 2-13 2.23 Adequate public access to east bank of Canal already exists 2-13 2.24 Non-conformance to Master Plan, et al 2-14 2.25 Fiscal/financial aspects of project questioned 2-17 2.26 Safety concerns 2-19 2.27 Use & maintenance of local private roadways 2-19 2.28 Was “grandfathered” flow approved by SCDHS? 2-19 2.29 Contingency plans for NitrexTM system? 2-20 2.30 Relocate project to a more appropriate site, nearer downtown Hampton Bays 2-21 2.31 Public STP allowed under existing RWB zoning of Eastern Property 2-21 2.32 Preference for Open Space on Eastern Property 2-22 2.33 Opposed to “threat” of as-of-right development on Canal Property 2-22 2.34 Questioning purpose of Radius Study in DEIS 2-22 2.35 Parking on Canal Property may be insufficient 2-23 2.36 Traffic will be “excessive”, and will adversely impact local roadways 2-23 2.37 Rezonings of CPI and Canal Properties should be separated, not combined into an MPDD 2-23 2.38 Subdivision inappropriate 2-24 2.39 Demolish and rebuilt, not “rehabilitate” the CPI 2-24 2.40 Need for additional housing in the area not established 2-24 2.41 Maintenance of CPI Property 2-25 2.42 Noise & sightlines unattractive for potential homebuyers 2-25 2.43 Year-round occupancy and school enrollment impacts 2-26 2.44 Compare impacts of as-of-right vs. proposed sanitary flows 2-27

Page iv

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

2.45 Property insurance and potential impacts of flooding 2-29 2.46 Town review 2-29 2.47 Comparison of taxes generated by as-of-right vs. proposed development 2-30 2.48 School-age children and year-round occupancy 2-31 2.49 CPI and Canal Properties should be self-sustaining 2-31 2.50 Recusal of realtor 2-32 2.51 Ground elevations of buildings on CPI Property 2-32 2.52 Construction-phase impacts and scheduling, and maintenance activities 2-32

3.0 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-1 3.1 Town Conservation Board 3-1 3.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 3-24 3.3 Hampton Bays Union Free School District 3-34 3.4 Town Planning Board 3-33 3.5 Town Department of Land Management 3-39 3.6 Town Department of Municipal Works 3-74 3.7 Town Highway Department 3-76 3.8 Hampton Bays Fire District, Board of Fire Commissioners 3-77

Tables 1-1 Comparison of Project Uses and Yields, Proposed Project (Draft EIS) & Revised Plan (Final EIS) 1-6 1-2 Comparison of Values, Public Benefits vs. Increase in Yield 1-8 1-3 Summary of Key Fiscal Findings 1-10 1-4 Summary of Key Economic Findings 1-11 1-5 Site and Project Characteristics, Proposed Project (Draft EIS) & Revised Plan (Final EIS) 1-14 1-6a Design and Sanitary Wastewater Generation, CPI Property 1-24 1-6b Design and Sanitary Wastewater Generation, Canal Property 1-25 1-7 Permits and Approvals Required, Revised Plan 1-32 3-1a Table of Dimensional Standards, CPI Property 3-40 3-1b Table of Dimensional Standards, Canal & Eastern Properties 3-41

Figures (following Section 3.0) 1-1 Preliminary Schematic Layout of Septic System & Nitrex™ PRB, CPI Property 1-2 Revised Nitrex™ System Layout, Canal & Eastern Properties 3-1 Land Use Map, Shinnecock Canal Corridor 3-2a Average Nitrate Concentration - Upper Glacial Aquifer, 2005 3-2b Average Nitrate Concentration - Magothy Aquifer, 2005

APPENDICES: A SEQRA Notice of Complete DEIS, Town Board, June 25, 2013 B Transcript of Public Hearing, Town Board, August 13, 2013

Page v

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

C Transcript of Public Hearing, Town Board, September 10, 2013 D Transcript of Public Hearing, Town Board, October 22, 2013 E Transcript of Public Hearing, Town Board, December 10, 2013 F Written Public Comments G Written Agency Comments H Petitions in Opposition I Petitions in Support J Appraisals J-1 Impact Study of Proposed Public Access Walkway, Canal Property, Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc., March 21, 2014 J-2 Valuation Report of Paumanok Trail Easement, Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc., March 1, 2014 J-3 Impact Report of Nitrex System, Eastern Property, Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc., March 1, 2014 J-4 Preliminary Feasibility Report, Canal Property, Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc., March 1, 2014 J-5 Seasonal Rental, Yearly Rental and Fractional Interest Analysis, Canal Property, Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc., March 1, 2014 J-6 Applicant’s Appraiser’s Response to Town Appraiser Review, CPI Property, Goodman-Marks Associates, Inc., March 13, 2014 K Surplus County Land and Roadway Improvements K-1 Engineer’s Cost Estimates for Roadway Improvements K-2 Roadway Improvements in Surplus County Land, CPI Property K-3 Comparison of Photo-Simulations, Prior vs. Revised Plans, Canal Property, Arrowstreet, 19 June 2014 K-4 Roadway Improvements in Surplus County Land, Canal Property L SONIR Computer Model Documents, Revised Plan L-1 SONIR Model User’s Guide L-2 CPI Property, Revised Plan L-3 Canal Property, Revised Plan L-4 Eastern Property, Revised Plan (assuming 3 mg/l WWTF effluent) L-5 CPI Property, Existing Conditions (assumed not operational) M Wastewater Management System & Nitrex™ PRB Nitrogen Removal Documents M-1 Master Plan Report, Wastewater Management System & Nitrex™ PRB Nitrogen Removal, Canoe Place Inn, Lombardo Associates, Inc., October 8, 2014 M-2 Additional Information on Nitrex™ PRB Nitrogen Removal, Canoe Place Inn, Lombardo Associates, Inc. N Final Master Plan Report, Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal System, Canal - Eastern Properties, Lombardo Associates, Inc., August 20, 2014 O Traffic-Related Documents O-1 TIS Addendum, N&P, LLP, May 2, 2014 O-2 Letter Responses to Town Traffic Consultant Comments, N&P, LLC, August 25, 2014 and September 12, 2014 P Noise-Related Documents, CPI Property P-1 Retaining Wall Elevation, CPI Property, Arrowstreet P-2 Outdoor Music Venue Acoustic Review, CPI Property, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc., March 26, 2014

Page vi

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

Q Materials in Support of Discussion on “Grandfathered Flow”, SCDHS R Correspondence Regarding Hampton Bays Water District Capacity In pouches at the back of this document: Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Concept Grading & Drainage Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Conceptual Planting Plan, Canal Properties, Araiys Design LA, P.C., revised 5/1/14 Concept Site Lighting Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Concept Site Lighting Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Cut and Fill Plan, Canoe Place Inn, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14 Cut and Fill Plan, Canal Properties, Bowne AE&T Group, revised 4/8/14

Page vii

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

SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of this Document

This document is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for a proposed change of zone from the Southampton Town Board on three separate parcels of land. The three properties include the Canoe Place Inn (hereafter, “the CPI Property”), a boat basin/floating dock/restaurant/residential parcel along the east of the Shinnecock Canal and north of Montauk Highway (County Route [CR] 80; hereafter, “the Canal Property”), and a vacant wooded parcel located east of North Shore Road (CR 39) north of Montauk Highway (hereafter, “the Eastern Property”). The previously proposed project, as described in the Draft EIS, consisted of rehabilitation of the former CPI, development of 40 townhouses on the Canal Property, and use of the Eastern Property for a Nitrex™ wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to serve the townhome development (hereafter, “the Prior Plan”).

It is noteworthy that the responses in this Final EIS are based not on the Prior Plan, but on a revised project plan (hereafter, the “Revised Plan”) that has been prepared to address comments on the Draft EIS. The reason for this change is that the applicant seeks to fully address Town Planning Department staff and community comments that were provided on the Draft EIS and accompanying plan, and as a result has prepared a mitigated plan that is responsive to key comments, which will be described as the Revised Plan in this section of the Final EIS. The uses and yields for the CPI Property have not changed from those described for the Prior Plan, though some modifications have been made including the addition of a Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) for nitrogen removal. The density of the Canal Property has been reduced by approximately 20%, including a decrease in the number of townhouse units, total number of buildings, decrease in unit size and decrease in building footprint. The decrease in building area is equivalent to approximately eight (8) units in the Previous Plan. The unit yield has been reduced by 7.5%, to 37 units. The design and location of vehicle access for the Nitrex™ WWTF on the Eastern Property has been revised; it has been relocated to Canoe Place Road. Of particular note, the Revised Plan includes two proposed transfers of small areas of Suffolk County-owned right-of-way land that abut the CPI and Canal properties, to enable improved operations at nearby intersections and enhanced landscape and public access to the Shinnecock Canal within these two parcels (see Section 1.3.6). However, the discussions with the County are on-going at the present time, and so these transfers are not certain. Therefore, as these two land additions are not certain, this document will, where appropriate, provide additional responses in case the transfers do not occur. It should be pointed out that the site layouts for the CPI and Canal properties would be only slightly different for development with and without the additional county lands.

Section 1.3.1 includes a list of all plan changes, and its impacts (compared to those of the Prior Plan as presented in the Draft EIS) are discussed in Section 1.4. In this way, the lead agency has the necessary information to determine the potential impacts of the Revised Plan and ensure that the comments on the Draft EIS and Prior Plan are addressed. The Town Board may consider the Revised Plan when issuing a Findings Statement and decision on the change of zone.

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

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. 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. The Draft EIS described the proposed project, catalogued site and area resources, discussed potential environmental impacts of the project, presented measures to mitigate adverse impacts, and examined alternatives to the project.

The Draft EIS was initially submitted to the Town Board in November 2012 and, after a series of reviews and revisions, the Draft EIS was accepted as complete by that agency (as lead agency under SEQRA) on June 25, 2013. Upon acceptance, the Town Board scheduled public hearings on the Draft EIS and change of zone application (see Appendix A). Public notice of these two actions was published in the July 10, 2013 issue of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Environmental Notices Bulletin. The public hearings were held on August 13, 2013, September 10, 2013, and December 10, 2013, and the lead agency accepted written public and agency comments through January 9, 2014. As required by SEQRA, this document addresses all substantive comments provided by the public and agencies during the hearing and comment period.

This Final EIS represents the penultimate step in the SEQRA environmental review process, which provides the public and governmental review agencies with information regarding the proposal under review, as well as analyses of its potential environmental effects. This Final EIS incorporates the Draft EIS by reference, so that the combination of these two documents constitutes the entire EIS. According to the SEQR regulations, after acceptance of the Final EIS by the lead agency, there must be a minimum 10-day period of consideration prior to the preparation and adoption of a Findings Statement. In the case of the subject Maritime PDD application, the Town Board will hold public hearings on the zone change legislation prior to the preparation and adoption of findings and final decision.

1.2 Organization of this Document

Comments were provided in two forms: verbally during the four public hearings, and written during and after the public hearings. Appendices B, C, D and E contain the transcripts of the August, September, October and December public hearings respectively, and Appendices F and G contain the written comments received by the lead agency from the public and from governmental agencies/public entities, respectively.

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

Each substantive comment in the six appendices has been identified and numbered sequentially. This numbering system includes a letter code that indicates the appendix in which the comment is located, followed by a number that is assigned to each comment within that appendix (e.g., B- 5, C-17, etc.). Also provided is the subsection of this document where the response will be found (e.g., Sec. 2.3, Sec. 3.62, etc.). In this way, a reciprocal relationship is created between the comments and the responses: the comment can be located (if one wishes to match the response to the comment that generated it), or if one is reviewing the comments (and wishes to match it against its response). The comment numbers to which the response refers are listed in each subsection of Sections 2.0 and 3.0, so that the reader may refer back to the appropriate appendix to review the comments in their original form.

There were a total of 495 separate comments; Appendix B contains comments B-1 through B- 28, Appendix C contains comments C-1 through C-65, Appendix D contains comments D-1 through D-22, Appendix E contains comments E-1 through E-31, Appendix F contains comments F-1 through F-221, and Appendix G contains comments G-1 through G-128.

Because a number of the 367 public comments in Appendices B, C, D, E & F are similar to, closely related to and/or duplicate other public comments, these comments are grouped together, so that only one response is necessary for each grouping. Each subsection of Section 2.0 repeats the public comment verbatim (if it is an individual comment), or a paraphrased comment (if representing a group of related comments), with the appropriate response for the purpose of this Final EIS.

The 128 comments provided by governmental agencies/public entities (see Appendix G) do not generally duplicate each other, so that each such comment will be addressed individually. Each subsection of Section 3.0 repeats the agency comment verbatim, with the applicant’s response.

Appendices H and I contain petitions and/or form letters form e-mails from the public expressing opposition to or support for the proposed project, respectively. Finally, Appendices J through R contain documents supporting various responses.

Each response provides the information necessary for the Lead Agency (the Southampton Town Board) and other involved agencies to make informed decisions on the specific impacts of the project. This document fulfills the obligation of the Lead Agency in completing a Final EIS based on 6 NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(8).

1.3 The Revised Plan

1.3.1 Description of Plan Changes and Features

This sub-section specifies the changes to the plans for each of the component properties of the project. As indicated above, the SEQRA process anticipates that changes to the project may occur in response to comments and community input as the review process proceeds, or as updated information on site design, tenants, building configuration and architecture, and/or

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

related evolutionary changes in the project are made. The applicant appreciates the public’s interest in this project and takes all of the comments seriously, whether from the public, interested or involved agencies, the Town Board or town staff. Based upon the full range of inputs gathered, the applicant has modified the plan provided in the Draft EIS in order to be responsive to key comments and concerns. The stated goal of the applicant and the intent of the Town’s Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) law is to create a project that will be successful and an asset to the community. This goal reflects the nature of the changes that have occurred to the proposed project since the Draft EIS was accepted. The basic concept of the Revised Plan remains the same as that of the Prior Plan; it is a comprehensively-planned mixed- use MPDD, featuring housing units, a rehabilitated commercial use, and a public space, with use of innovative sanitary treatment technology. Changes between the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan are noted as follows:

CPI Property • An estimated 0.32 acres of land likely to be acquired or incorporated as surplus from Suffolk County, currently used for right-of-way at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road, are included in the southeastern portion of the CPI Property in consideration for applicant- funded and -constructed public roadway improvements, as requested by Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) in order to address existing traffic safety concerns at this intersection. • The roadway improvements include: o removing the ramp from southbound Newtown Road to westbound Montauk Highway; o regrading this area to more smoothly transition the land surface between the CPI and Montauk Highway; o landscaping and beautifying the intersection; o construct a southbound to westbound acceleration lane on Montauk Highway; o construct a deceleration lane at the new site access on Montauk Highway; o these improvements will cost an estimated $480,000, to be paid by the applicant (see Section 1.3.6 for a breakdown of individual improvements costs). • Changes to the location of the outdoor tent area as recommended by the noise consultants retained by the applicant to study the noise concerns identified in the DEIS comments. The tent area has been relocated from the north side of the building to the west lawn, thereby maximizing the separation from the nearest Eleanor Street neighbors as well as using topography and new landscaping features for fixed, permanent acoustic shielding. A fixed position and orientation for musical events is described such that noise is directed toward the southeast and away from the neighbors to the north and west. • A new, on-site septic tank/leaching pool system will be installed to treat the wastewater generated on the CPI site. The design flow of this new system will be 67% less than the grandfathered flow recognized for CPI, providing a further reduction in nitrogen in nitrogen recharged to groundwater beneath this site. • A PRB will be installed along portions of the downgradient (southern and eastern) borders of the property (see Figure 1-1). This feature will remove nitrogen from the new on-site sanitary system as well as non-project wastewater such as stormwater, and will also remove nitrogen in groundwater emanating from off-site, upgradient locations as it passes beneath the site and through the PRB. In this way, the quality of groundwater that outflows to Shinnecock Canal and Shinnecock Bay will be improved over existing conditions, thus a positive benefit on the quality of marine surface waters.

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

Under these design conditions, the project is expected to remove 1,197 lbs. per year of nitrogen in addition to removing all of the nitrogen associated with the entire CPI project. The applicant has indicated that this additional nitrogen removal is the wastewater nitrogen discharged from approximately 35 homes.

Canal Property • The number of townhouses has been reduced from 40 to 37 units and the average size of the units has been reduced by approximately 10% (see Table 1-1). This reduction, which decreases the total proposed building area by 20% and the site coverage by more than 22%, will then reduce many other impacts including fewer residents, fewer vehicle trips, less water used and less wastewater to be treated at the WWTF, less taxes paid, less school taxes generated, etc. • The floor area of the resident’s clubhouse has been reduced from 6,000 square feet (SF) to ±1,900 SF. It is expected to contain men’s and women’s rooms (with toilets and showers), a small, catering-type kitchen, a self-serve bar and a small fitness room as well as all of the pool equipment. • The number of townhouse buildings has been reduced, from nine in the Prior Plan to seven in the Revised Plan, and the buildings have been redistributed around the site so that they no longer overlap to allow for two significantly wider view corridors between buildings from North Shore Road to the Shinnecock Canal. As a result, observers to the east will have wider views between structures across the site to and beyond the Shinnecock Canal, to the west. • The amount of regrading on the site has been reduced by changing the elevations of the proposed buildings to better reflect the existing grades. This will also allow the noise wall to be eliminated entirely from the Revised Plan. • The waterfront boardwalk has been replaced by an access path and public viewing platform in the site’s southwestern corner, allowing visual and physical access to Shinnecock Canal. • A public parking area and path to the canal, accessed from North Shore Road near its intersection with Montauk Highway, has been located to provide easy public access to the canal. • A 25-foot naturally vegetated non-disturbance and non-fertilization wetland buffer will be established upland of the wetlands in the area south of the bulkheaded areas of the site. The proposed buildings have been shifted landward to respect the proposed 25-foot natural buffer, and buildings have been relocated to be placed outside of the area of NYSDEC tidal wetlands jurisdiction. • The proposed buildings on the north part of the site have either been placed landward of previously bulkheaded areas recognized by NYSDEC as the limit of jurisdiction, or beyond the crest of the bluff for areas landward of the boat basin/floating dock basin. • An estimated 0.59 acres of land likely to be acquired or incorporated as surplus land fromSuffolk County, currently used for right-of-way at the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road, are included in the southeastern portion of the Canal Property in consideration for applicant-funded and -constructed public roadway improvements, as requested by the SCDPW to address existing traffic safety concerns at this intersection.

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

Table 1-1 COMPARISON OF PROJECT USES AND YIELDS Prior Plan (Draft EIS) & Revised Plan (Final EIS)

Prior Plan, per Revised Plan, per Component Draft EIS Final EIS CPI Property: ------Cottages 5 units 5 units Inn 20 units 20 units Restaurant 70 seats 70 seats Bar 20 seats 20 seats Catering Facility 350 seats 350 seats Outdoor Seating 120 seats 120 seats Parking 236 spaces 236 spaces Canal Property: ------40 units @ 2,200 37 units @ 1,978 Townhouses SF each SF each Boat basin/floating dock 17 boats (est.) 17 boats (est.) Parking, resident 80 spaces 98 1 spaces Parking, public 0 5 spaces Eastern Property: ------Nitrex™ WWTF 15,000 gpd (est.) 15,000 gpd (est.) (1) Includes 79 stalls (of which five are for public use for the proposed viewing platform) and 19 landbanked stalls.

• The roadway improvements include: o removing the ramp from southbound North Shore Road to westbound Montauk Highway; o regrading this area to more smoothly transition the land surface between the Canal Property and North Shore Road; o landscaping and installation of a public parking area and walkway to the proposed viewing platform; o realigning North Shore Road from roughly mid-point of the Canal Property’s frontage on Newtown Road to Montauk Highway, to provide a “T”- intersection on Montauk Highway; o make minor roadway improvements on Montauk Highway east and west of the T- intersection, and removing the now-isolated ramp of westbound Montauk Highway to northbound North Shore Road; o these improvements would cost an estimated $1.07 million, to be paid by the applicant (see Section 1.3.6 for a breakdown of individual improvements costs). • The Town’s parking requirement will be met including the construction of 79 parking stalls (including four accessible spaces), 19 landbanked stalls located in the surplus right-of-way area, and five spaces for the public to access the proposed viewing platform.

Eastern Property • In response to concerns of the neighbors along Wildwood Lane, the vehicle access to the Nitrex™ system building has been relocated to Canoe Place Road to eliminate any maintenance traffic from the existing neighborhood roads. • The Nitrex™ system lab/maintenance building has been shifted to conform to all applicable setbacks as regulated by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS; see Figure

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

1-2). The Town Board will have to consider the impacts associated with the revised option and may require a third alternative. • The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded in the Revised Plan. The applicant will provide an easement for public access to this part of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the Paumanok Path, to the Town. The applicant affirms his commitment to provide appropriate bicycle- and pedestrian-related amenities for the use and enjoyment of the public. More specifically and in addition to the public viewing/fishing platform on the Canal Property, the applicant will provide sidewalks along the project property frontages of CR 80 (for the CPI Property and the Canal Property), Newtown Road (for the CPI Property), and North Shore Road (for the Canal Property) to link to the intersection of Canoe Place Road. It is noted that the project is limited to providing an easement on the Eastern Property for public access to the Paumanok Path; the connection itself will be designed, constructed and maintained by the Town. It is expected that the details of the project’s public bicycle- and pedestrian-related amenities and Canal Park improvements will be determined as part of the public hearing process and specified in the Findings Statement and local law.

1.3.2 Revised Density Exchange

Similar to what is proposed in the Draft EIS, the density exchange for the Revised Plan 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. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, requests more residential units 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 achieve an increase through use of Community Benefits as per NYS Town Law §261-b. 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. This process was detailed in the Draft EIS, Section 1.3.1. Updating that analysis for the Revised Plan finds that the number of units in the Revised Plan exceeds the number of units being transferred to the Canal Property by 8 units. As a result, the Revised Plan will require provision of Community Benefits to compensate for the increase. As shown in Table 1-2, the Revised Plan 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). in The applicant has provided the following Table 1-2, indicating that these 8 units would have a value of $587,200, which is $13.448 million less than the value of the Revised Plan’s Public Benefits. As a result, the benefits of the revised Plan greatly exceed the requested increase in yield over existing and as- of-right conditions.

Page 1-7 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Table 1-2 COMPARISON OF VALUES Public Benefits vs. Increase in Yield

Public Benefits of Revised Plan (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 Viewing Platform (3) $538,000 Roadway Modification Improvements (4) $1.55 million Paumanok Path Easement (5) $47,500 Permeable Reactive Barrier at CPI Property (6) $330,000 Total Value of Community Benefits $6.835 million Property Tax Revenue Over 10 Years $7.200 million Total Value of Proposed Public Benefits $14.035 million Potential Yields of Three Properties Used for Density Parameter CPI Canal Existing and Potential Yield (54 Total units) 29 25 Proposed Yield (62 Total units) 25 37 Difference in Yield, Proposed vs. Existing (units) 8 Value of Yield Difference (7) $587,200 Excess Value of Public Benefits, Proposed vs. PBCs $13.448 million (1) Value to community of a fully rehabilitated and operating CPI INCALCULABLE. (3) Includes construction cost and impact of impaired value of platform on project value. See Appendix J-1. (4) Engineers estimate of roadway improvement costs, see Appendix K-1. (5) See Appendix J-2. (6) Per applicant; See Appendix M-1. (7) Expressed in value of PBCs, estimated at $73,400/credit, as of 12/31/12. This value represents the costs of the Community Benefits that the Revised Plan would have to provide to compensate for the requested yield increase.

The applicant includes the total cost of construction for the CPI as a public benefit, where land costs and construction costs for a commercial enterprise are typically not part of the public benefit calculation. In this case, the CPI rehabilitation is considered a public benefit and therefore the value of this will be considered in the public benefit package, apart from any perceived loss in revenue for other potential projects. The project does not propose the use of transfer of development rights or Pine Barrens Credits to offset the increased density,but instead utilizes a comparison method as provided for in § 330-248 that indicates that the value of the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn, construction of the proposed public viewing/fishing platform and associated parking, roadway modifications, Paumanok Path easement and contribution toward open space purchase exceeds the current market value of Pine Barren Credit or TDR purchase. . A description of proposed Public Benefits is provided below, in Section 1.3.3.

The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, 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, blighted and underutilized condition that now exists on the CPI Property.

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

1.3.3 Benefits of the Revised Plan

In addition to the Community Benefits noted above (rehabilitation of the CPI facility, a monetary contribution for open space preservation, funding and construction ofa public viewing/fishing platform in the southwestern corner of the Canal Propertyon the Shinnecock Canal, area roadway improvements, public access easement for Paumanok Path connectivity and installation and use of a PRB on the CPI Property for nitrogen removal), the anticipated benefits of this proposal to the community include: beneficial re-use of the properties, improved aesthetic conditions, rehabilitation 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 Maritime PDD ordinances, conformance to recommendations of the pertinent land use plans, substantial economic benefits, and increased tax revenue benefits.

Beneficial Re-Use and Improved Aesthetic Conditions The 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 disrepair making it an attractive nuisance requiring private security (even though not in operation). Given the prominent location and its historic ties to the community, rehabilitation of the structure for a use consistent with its historic use is sought for the property. This would result in a positive asset to the community and would again incorporate its architectural and historic character into the fabric of the community. Additionally, the proposal would satisfy a well-established community objective to rehabilitate the CPI, as seen in the petition drive of the Hampton Bays Historical Society, newspaper articles and op-ed pieces, and public meetings.

Economic Benefits Like the Prior Plan, the Revised Plan will result in substantial investments in the CPI and Canal Properties that will substantially upgrade each, as well as the immediate vicinity, and will enhance surrounding property values. Furthermore, each of the three project properties will be well-planned for their respective specific uses, and will include adequate parking, recreation area, building 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.

Economic benefits for the Revised Plan are significant. The proposed development will boost the local economy by adding and/or retaining jobs and salaries, and increasing the tax revenues to the State of New York, County of Suffolk and the Town of Southampton. Summaries of key fiscal and economic findings are provided in Tables 1-3 and 1-4, respectively.

The concept behind a PDD is such that any increase in density is offset by Community Benefits. The requested MPDD proposes six 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. The Town Board will have to determine if the public benefits offered satisfy the intent and requirement of the Planned Development District. As noted above, the Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, 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 value of the Community Benefits offered.

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

Table 1-3 SUMMARY OF KEY FISCAL FINDINGS Revised Plan

Canal Eastern Fiscal Parameter CPI Property Totals Property Property Existing Tax Revenue Generation $79,732 $95,599 $4,917 $180,249 Total Residents 0 97 0 97 School-Aged Children 0 3 0 3 Total Estimated Assessed Valuation $11,167,216 $41,178,231 $1,377,200 $53,722,647 Projected Total Tax Revenue $167,832 $618,868 $20,698 $807,398 Hampton Bay UFSD $128,535 $473,961 $15,852 $618,348 Library District $5,528 $20,383 $682 $26,593 Suffolk County $2,245 $8,277 $277 $10,798 Town of Southampton $15,612 $57,567 $1,925 $75,104 Hampton Bay Fire District $8,364 $30,842 $1,032 $40,238 Other Local & Special Taxing Jurisdictions $7,549 $27,836 $931 $36,317 Source: Project data provided by R Squared Development LLC; Analysis by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC.

Based on the proposed benefits analysis, the public would receive approximately $14.035 million in benefits as a result of this MPDD, in the form of the rehabilitation of CPI, construction of a viewing platform (with access and parking) on the Canal Property, area roadway improvements, public access easement for Paumanok Path on the Eastern Property, installation and use of a PRB on the CPI Property for nitrogen removal, 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. These features would provide a substantial benefit to the community, and is a primary aspect of the MPDD concept for the Revised Plan. 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 Revised Plan.

Overall Public Benefits of the Revised Plan The anticipated qualitative benefits of the Revised Plan to the community also include conformance with key elements of 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 benefits (Community and Public) are anticipated to result from the Revised Plan:

1. Proposed Community Benefit: Rehabilitation of the CPI Property as a public use (inn, catering facility, and restaurant) and retaining historic features and fabric to the extent practicable, resulting in improved aesthetics on the site and retention of a structure that is important to community character. 2. Proposed Community Benefit: The new public viewing/fishing platform along the Shinnecock Canal on the Canal Property.

Page 1-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Table 1-4 SUMMARY OF KEY ECONOMIC FINDINGS Revised Plan

Employment Economic Impact Output (Number of Labor Income (Wages) Parameter (Revenue) Jobs) 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 $5,464,544 35.9 $2,686,079 Economic Impact of Construction: Canal Property Direct Impact $13,814,330 71.0 $6,907,165 Indirect Impact $4,211,715 29.2 $1,660,456 Induced Impact $6,792,361 47.9 $2,340,286 Total Impact: $24,818,406 148.1 $10,907,907 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 $1,785,241 44.0 $689,530 Economic Impact of Construction: Total, All Properties Direct Impact $17,864,330 129.0 $9,127,165 Indirect Impact $5,309,386 36.3 $2,091,791 Induced Impact $8,894,474 62.7 $3,064,560 Total Impact: All Properties $32,068,191 228.0 $14,283,516 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 $9,110,229 54.1 $1,889,406 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: Canal Property Direct Impact $203,100 14.0 $754,216 Indirect Impact $100,764 0.6 $31,624 Induced Impact $618,189 4.2 $214,438 Total Impact $922,052 18.8 $1,000,278 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 $33,469 1.2 $54,165 Economic Impact of Annual Operations: All Properties Direct Impact $6,183,836 50.0 $1,658,877 Indirect Impact $2,060,276 11.8 $653,103 Induced Impact $1,821,639 12.4 $631,869 Total Impact: All Properties $10,065,750 74.1 $2,943,849 Project data by R Squared Development LLC; Analysis by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, via IMPLAN software.

Page 1-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3. Community Benefit: A $250,000 contribution towards open space purchases. 4. Community Benefit: Provision of funding totaling $1.55 million for roadway improvements on Montauk Highway at Newtown Road and North Shore Road. 5. Community Benefit: Easement to the Town for public access to be used for passive recreation in connection with the Paumanok Path on the Eastern Property. 6. Community Benefit: Installation and use of a PRB along portions of the downgradient borders of the CPI Property to remove nitrogen from the new on-site sanitary system as well as non-project wastewater such as stormwater and off-site, upgradient locations. 7. Public Benefit: The increase in taxes generated on the subject properties amortized over 10 years ($7.200 million) for a total Public Benefit associated with the proposed project of $14.035 million. 8. Public Benefit: The substantial investment in the subject CPI Property will substantially upgrade the site and immediate vicinity and enhance surrounding property values. 9. Public Benefit: Rehabilitation of the CPI building will create an aesthetically and architecturally appealing structure and use on the site, reminiscent of its history. 10. Public Benefit: Rehabilitation of the CPI Property is proposed to include a new septic tank/leaching pool system for its sanitary wastewater, and use of a PRB, which are expected to, in combination, capture and treat more nitrogen beneath this site than is contained in the sanitary wastewater generated on the site. That is, this system would not only treat the wastewater generated at the CPI, but would also remove nitrogen in recharge generated in areas to the north and west as it passes beneath the site. As a result, the quality of groundwater seeping into the Shinnecock Canal will be improved, and thereby incrementally improve the quality of marine surface waters. 11. Public Benefit: The creation of an attractive public gateway into Hampton Bay. 12. Public Benefit: Generation of substantial annual tax revenue (estimated at $807,398) compared to $180,249 under existing conditions. 13. Public Benefit: 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. 14. Public Benefit: The proposed project will bring high-spending vacation residents to the Hampton Bay area resulting in direct sales, sales tax and related “ripple effect” economic benefits to the community, Town and County. 15. Public Benefit: 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 $14.035 million (see Table 1-2). As previously mentioned, the Revised Plan 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.

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

1.3.4 Overall Site Layout

The Revised Plan has been developed as a means of balancing the economic goals of the applicant with the environmental protection, and land use and planning goals of the Town and community. It assumes redevelopment of the three component properties similar to those of the Prior Plan, though the majority of the changes are located on the Canal Property, where fewer residences, in fewer buildings are proposed. Nevertheless, significant and beneficial changes are proposed on the CPI and Eastern Properties as well (see Section 1.3.1 and Table 1-5). Section 1.3.3 includes a summary of the fiscal and economic benefits of the project.

Thus, the Revised Plan would not only mitigate the potential impacts of the Prior Plan, but would introduce additional mitigation measures and beneficial development features that would not have been provided by the Prior Plan.

The proposed application involves the rehabilitation of the former Canoe Place Inn, and development of 37 townhouses on the Canal Property. The Eastern Property is located north of Montauk Highway and east of North Shore Road; a portion of it would be occupied by the Nitrex™ WWTF to serve the townhome development on the Canal Property.

CPI Property The full-scale Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn for the Revised Plan for the CPI Property is provided in a pouch at the end of this document.

The Revised Plan assumes the same rehabilitation program for the CPI structure that was described in the Draft EIS.

In response to public concerns regarding noise impacts from outdoor events (typically, such as weddings, wedding receptions, bar or bat mitzvahs, etc.), the applicant retained a noted noise consultant and pursuant to their recommendations has moved the location of the tent area (where outdoor events will be held) from the northern side of the CPI to the western side, to maximize the separation from the nearest receptors, which are the homes on Eleanor Street. Other noise- mitigating features include using a fixed position and orientation for musical events (so that noise is directed toward the southeast and away from receptors), and grading for the tent area that includes tiered retaining walls and screening vegetation so that topography would shield receptors to the north and west.

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

Table 1-5 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Prior Plan (per Draft EIS) & Revised Plan (per Final EIS)

Parameter Prior Plan (per Draft EIS) Revised Plan (per Final EIS) CPI Property Canal Property Eastern Property Totals CPI Property Canal Property Eastern Property Totals Inn (20 units), catering (350 40 townhomes, private TM Inn (20 units), catering (350 Nitrex 37 townhomes, private Uses & Yields seats), restaurant (70 seats, 20 bar amenities & boat --- seats), restaurant (70 seats, 20 NitrexTM WWTF --- WWTF amenities & boat basin seats & 120 outdoor seats) basin/floating dock bar seats & 120 outdoor seats) --- Off-site Nitrex™ Wastewater Treatment On-site septic Off-site Nitrex™ WWTF n/a On-Site septic & PRB n/a --- WWTF Coverages (acres): ------Forested/Natural 0 0 1.87 1.87 0 0 1.07 1.07 Roads, Buildings, Paved 2.43 2.32 0.04 4.79 2.43 2.70 0.04 5.17 Unvegetated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscaping (total/native) (7) 3.22/1.50 1.60/0.70 0.77/0.77 5.59/2.97 3.54/1.77 1.86/0.93 1.57/1.57 6.17/4.27 Tidal Wetlands 0 0.07 0 0.07 0 0.02 0 0.02 Surface Water 0 0.51 0 0.51 0 0.51 0 0.51 Totals 5.65 4.50 2.68 12.83 5.97 (1) 5.09 (2) 2.68 13.74 Water Resources: ------Domestic Use (gpd) (3) 10,175 13,800 0 23,975 10,175 11,670 0 21,845 Sanitary Wastewater (gpd) (3) 6,600 13,800 0 20,400 6,600 11,670 0 18,270 Irrigation (gpd) 1,317 655 0 1,972 724 381 0 1,105 Total Water Use (gpd) 11,492 14,455 0 25,947 10,899 12,051 0 22,226 Recharge Volume (MGY) 8.04 3.52 6.39 17.95 10.26 (4) 3.82 (4) 5.62 (4) 19.70 Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) 6.66 0.44 4.34 n/a 0 (4) 1.12 (4) 2.05 (4) n/a Nitrogen Recharged (lbs/year) 447 13 231 691 -35.2 (4) 35.77 (4) 96.10 (4) 96.67 Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (vph): ------Weekday AM 33 25 0 58 33 23 0 56 Weekday PM 163 28 0 191 163 26 0 189 Saturday Midday 205 54 0 259 205 50 0 255 Miscellaneous: ------Residents (5) 0 100 0 100 0 93 0 93 School-Age Children (5) 0 3 (5) 0 3 0 3 0 3 Employees (FTE) 35 16 1 42 35 15 1 51 Solid Waste (lbs/day) (5) 1,375 349 0 1,724 1,375 326 0 1,701 Total Taxes ($/yr) $160,618 $702,383 $20,698 $883,699 $167,832 $618,868 $20,698 $807,398 School Taxes ($/yr) $123,010 $537,922 $15,852 $676,784 $128,535 $473,961 $15,852 $618,348 School Fiscal Impact (+/-$/yr) (6) +$123,010 +$504,508 +$15,852 +$643,370 +$128,535 +$440,547 +$15,852 +$584,934 Parking Required (spaces) 236 100 0 336 236 93 0 329 Parking Provided (spaces) 236 80 0 316 236 98 0 334 (1) Includes 0.32± acres of surplus Suffolk County land. (2) Includes 0.59± acres of surplus Suffolk County land. (3) Based on SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates (Hydraulic Load or Density Load), 12.01.09. (4) See Appendices L-2 through L-4. SONIR estimates 7.52 mg/l for Revised Plan; however, installation of the PRB removes nitrogen from the CPI Property & area groundwater resulting in a 103% reduction in nitrogen load (see Appendices M-1 and M-2). (5) Based on 2.49 capita/unit (US Census), 0.08 school-age children/unit (Long Island Housing Partnership, Town), 3 lbs/day/for inn & cottages, 13 lbs/day/1,000 SF for nightclub & bait shop, 2 lbs/meal for restaurants (300 meals/day), & 3.5 lbs/day/capita for residences. (6) Based on $11,138/student total general education expenditures. (7) Difference between “total” and “native” represents fertilized landscaped acreage.

Page 1-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

As noted earlier, the CPI Property will be increased by approximately 0.32 acres (to 5.97 acres), by the acquisition or incorporation of surplus land from Suffolk County along the site’s southeastern portion (see Appendix K-2). An estimated 0.32 acres of land owned by Suffolk County and used for right-of-way at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road is proposed to be added to the southeastern portion of the CPI Property.

The applicant will re-grade the land surface in this area, and will construct public roadway improvements in this area. These improvements conceptually include removing the ramp from southbound Newtown Road to westbound Montauk Highway, and making minor lane improvements westerly from the intersection of Newtown Road at Montauk Highway. Final design of the roadway improvements will be made with SCDPW input during the permitting process. These improvements would cost an estimated $480,000 (see Section 1.3.6 for a breakdown of individual improvements costs).

If the county land transfer does not happen, the CPI Property would remain 5.65 acres in size, the public roadway improvements noted above would not be provided, and the grading and landscaping proposed in the site’s front yard would be revised downward accordingly. The area of land to be graded would be reduced, the volume of soil excavated for fill or removal would be reduced, and the proposed drainage system would be revised to relocate drainage facilities outside of this area. However, there would be no changes in the proposed building rehabilitation program, nor would there be any changes in the outdoor improvements program of the Revised Plan. Of particular note is that the existing traffic safety issues at the intersection of CR80 and Newtown Road would not be addressed.

The wastewater generated on this site will be handled by use of a new, on-site septic tank/leaching pool system; in addition, in order to provide further nitrogen reduction in groundwater beneath this site, a PRB is proposed to be installed along a portion of the downgradient (southern and eastern) borders of this property. This feature will remove nitrogen from the new on-site sanitary system and stormwater, and will also remove nitrogen in groundwater emanating from upgradient off-site locations as it passes beneath the site and through the PRB. In this way, the quality of groundwater that outflows to Shinnecock Canal and Shinnecock Bay will be improved, thus benefiting the quality of marine surface waters.

The proposed PRB will be installed below the ground surface, located in groundwater (see Appendix M-2 for detailed information on the design of the PRB system). The area below the ground surface but above groundwater is referred to as the vadose or unsaturated zone. At the CPI Property, groundwater in the area of the PRB is located approximately 10 feet below the ground surface. Existing and proposed landscape vegetation grows in the vadose/unsaturated zone and would not survive if the roots were in groundwater. Landscape vegetation receives its needed nutrients and water for growth from atmospheric deposition (rain and wet and dry deposition of nutrients) and irrigation/fertilizers. The PRB removes only nutrients from water that passes through it, and water that passes through the PRB is not reachable by landscape vegetation. Consequently, the vegetation on land above the PRB will not be affected by the PRB.

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

Canal Property The full-scale Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties for the Revised Plan for the Canal and Eastern Properties is provided in a pouch at the end of this document.

The number of townhouses has been reduced to 37 units (see Table 1-1). This reduction will then reduce a number of other impacts, such as fewer residents, fewer vehicle trips, less water used and less wastewater to be treated at the WWTF, less taxes paid, less school taxes generated, etc.

The proposed buildings have been shifted landward to address the Town Conservation Board’s concerns regarding tidal wetlands; a 25-foot natural buffer is proposed, and all buildings in the southern portion of the site (where the buffer exists) are outside the buffer and are setback more than 25 feet from the wetland line. The amount of grading has been reduced by utilizing existing grades to the extent possible by lowering the elevation of the larger resident’s parking area relative to North Shore Road. The noise wall has been eliminated from the Revised Plan. These changes will also reduce impacts to observers of the canal. Appendix K-3 contains six photo- simulated views of the Canal Property: three assuming the Prior Plan and three assuming the Revised Plan. There are two views toward the northeast from the CR 80 bridge, two views eastward from Newtown Road, and two views northwesterly from the CR 80/North Shore Road intersection. These simulations depict the differences in the appearance of this property between the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan, particularly the reduction in the density of development and decrease in building bulk in the latter scenario.

The number of townhouse buildings has been reduced, from nine in the Prior Plan to seven in the Revised Plan, and the buildings have been sited so that they no longer overlap (to allow for wider separations between buildings). As a result, observers to the east will have wider views between structures across the site to and beyond the Shinnecock Canal, to the west. The residential structures are proposed to be two and three-story and the applicant requests the MPDD be zoned to the same 35-foot maximum height requirement for the existing RWB district. The Town Board will consider as part of the deliberation if the 35 ft. commercial height standard is appropriate or if the MPDD requirements for the townhouse will be the 32 ft. maximum residential standard. The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 37 townhouses, all of which would contain three bedrooms, with a ±1,900 SF clubhouse area, pool and private boat basin/floating dock. The waterfront boardwalk has been replaced by an access path and public viewing platform in the site’s southwestern corner, allowing visual and physical access to Shinnecock Canal. A parking area for the public to use when visiting the public viewing platform has been added. It is expected that the platform will include features such as benches and appropriate signage. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.4 of the Draft EIS, there are Town- regulated tidal wetlands in the area, so that Town Planning Board approval of a tidal wetlands permit for this feature may be required.

The Revised Plan fits better on this site in terms of, massing and scale and the architectural design and other site features will continue to be worked out through the local law process. For example, the buildings would not project over the treeline in the rear of (i.e., to the east of) this property. It is acknowledged that observers from the southeast will see the buildings obscuring

Page 1-16 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

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 project’s architectural character and building material color will be required to 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 clubhouse has been reduced in size to approximately 1,900 SF and will be located in the basement level in a portion of Building 2. The clubhouse is expected to contain men’s and women’s rooms (with toilets and showers), a small, catering-type kitchen, a self-serve bar and a small fitness room. The townhomes will be accessed via a driveway and parking area in the northern portion of the site (serving Building 1) and a larger, divided driveway in the central portion of the site serving the remaining buildings connecting to a third driveway which will access the parking area at the southern end for the public viewing platform.

All existing buildings and uses on the Canal Property would be eliminated as a result of the redevelopment. Seven separate buildings, each housing four, six or seven townhouse units will be located throughout the Canal Property;the pool and deck area will be located in the central portion of the site near the canal. The boat basin and floating dock will be privately used by residents of the proposed residential development; however, the applicant proposes to provide land in the southwestern portion for, as well as fund construction of, a public canal access path and viewing/fishing platform. The private boat basin has space for approximately 17 boats, which will be available for sale to residents of the townhomes on a first-come, first-served basis. The floating dock will be available for temporary boat docking for residents and their visitors for pick-up and discharge of passengers. Annual maintenance fees will be collected from any residents who purchase a slip. Water and electric service will be provided for the boat basin; however, gasoline and pump-out facilities are not planned or necessary as boat basin/floating dock support services are abundant in close proximity to the Canal Property. Off-street parking will be provided throughout this property (98 spaces including 79 constructed stalls [including five spaces for public use for the viewing platform], and 19 landbanked stalls).

An estimated 0.59 acres of surplus Suffolk County-owned land currently used for right-of-way at the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road would be incorporated through purchase or easement into the southeastern portion of the Canal Property, in consideration for applicant-funded and -constructed public roadway improvements in this area as requested by SCDPW (see Appendix K-4). The roadway improvements conceptually include removing the ramp from southbound North Shore Road to westbound Montauk Highway, regrading the area between the existing Canal Property and North Shore Road to more smoothly transition the land surface in this area (see Appendix K-3), landscaping and installation of a public parking area and walkway to the proposed viewing platform, realigning North Shore Road from roughly mid- point of the Canal Property’s frontage on North Shore Road to Montauk Highway, to provide a “T”- intersection on Montauk Highway, make minor roadway improvements on Montauk Highway east and west of the T-intersection, and removing the now-isolated ramp of westbound

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

Montauk Highway to northbound North Shore Road. Final design of the improvements will be made with SCDPW input during the permitting process. These improvements would cost an estimated $1.07 million (see Section 1.3.6 for a breakdown of individual improvements costs).

If the county land transfer does not happen, the Canal Property would remain 4.50 acres in size, the public roadway improvements noted above would not be provided, and the grading and landscaping proposed in the southern and southeastern portions would be revised accordingly. The acreage graded would be reduced, the volume of soil excavated for fill or removal would be reduced, and the proposed drainage system would be revised to relocate drainage facilities outside of this area. The public viewing/fishing platform and associated public parking area would not be constructed and an alternative public access along the property frontage of the Shinnecock Canal would instead be provided. However, there would be no other changes in the proposed yield or layout of this site. Of particular note is that the existing traffic safety issues at the intersection of CR80 and North Shore Road would not be addressed.

Eastern Property The Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties for the Revised Plan for the Canal and Eastern Properties is provided in a pouch at the end of this document. In response to a number of public comments expressing concern that maintenance traffic would impact the homes along Wildwood Lane, the vehicle access for the WWTF has been moved to Canoe Place Road. Nevertheless, the Eastern Property will remain mostly naturally-vegetated. The Nitrex™ system lab/maintenance building has been shifted to conform to all applicable setbacks as regulated by the SCDHS (see Figure 1-2).

The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded. The applicant will provide an easement for public access to this part of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the Paumanok Path, to the Town. The applicant affirms his commitment to provide appropriate bicycle-and pedestrian-related amenities for the use and enjoyment of the public. More specifically and in addition to the public viewing platform on the Canal Property, the applicant will provide sidewalks along the project property frontages of CR 80 (for the CPI Property and the Canal Property) to link to the intersection of Canoe Place Road, Newtown Road (for the CPI Property), and North Shore Road (for the Canal Property). It is noted that the project is limited to providing an easement on the Eastern Property for public access to the Paumanok Path; the connection itself will be designed, constructed and maintained by the Town. It is expected that the details of the project’s public bicycle- and pedestrian-related amenities will be determined as part of the public hearing process, and specified in the Findings Statement and local law.

1.3.5 Grading and Drainage

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

performance. The exact number, local and schedule for testing of these wells will be determined by the Planning Board in consultation with a hydrologist during the site plan review process.

CPI Property With only minor exceptions associated with the additional surplus right-of-way (ROW) land from the county, the grading program anticipated for the CPI Property under the Revised Plan is similar to that for the Prior Plan (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canoe Place Inn). Therefore, the amount of earthwork (i.e., the volumes of soil to be cut and the amount to be retained elsewhere within the property as fill; commonly, “cut and fill”) would also be similar to that of the Prior Plan. However, in response to public concerns regarding noise impacts from outdoor events, the location of the tent area (where outdoor events will be held) has been relocated from the northern side of the CPI to the western side, to maximize the separation from the nearest receptors and grading for the tent area that includes tiered retaining walls (four-feet in height; see Appendix P-1) and screening vegetation so that topography would shield receptors to the north and west, is proposed.

The design of the drainage system for the Revised Plan is similar to that of the Prior Plan: groups of leaching pools will be placed on the northeast, north, south and southwest of the CPI building. The entire system has been designed to accommodate the minimum two (2) inches of storage, and if found to mitigate impacts, will be designed to have a capacity in excess of the minimum required.

As discussed in Section 1.3.4, the proposed PRB will be installed underground in groundwater, so that it will intercept groundwater that is flowing horizontally eastward within the saturated zone toward and into the Shinnecock Canal. This intercepted groundwater includes not only water recharged on the CPI Property but also groundwater that was recharged on other properties to the west. The PRB will remove nitrogen in groundwater flow before it reaches the canal, so that this source of adverse impact to surface water quality will be reduced, and surface water quality will be incrementally improved. This means of improving surface water quality was not included in the Prior Plan.

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). Along the eastern property line, the grade is to be relatively flat to allow for the construction of parking lots along this frontage. This area will range in elevation from approximately 22 feet asl (in the north) to approximately 16 feet asl near the center of the site’s frontage, then rising again to an estimated 20 feet asl in the south. Westerly from the parking areas, the land will be graded downward at a low slope to the proposed buildings. The clubhouse will be located in a walk-out basement in a portion of Building 2.

At the rear of Building 1 and the corner of Building 2, 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

Page 1-19 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS same (approximately elevation 4.0 feet). The vegetation of the small bluff above the boat basin will remain intact, and the Town will require that decks/setbacks be increased so as not to encroach on this area. The open area partially enclosed by Buildings 4, 5, 6 & 7 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 10 feet asl, and the bottom is about 9 feet asl.

An estimated 11,899 cubic yards (CY) of soil are anticipated to be cut on the Canal Property during grading activities and excavations for the drainage system, pool and building foundations (see Cut and Fill Plan, Canal Properties). The project will retain an estimated 4,485 CY (after compaction), 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 remaining 7,414 CY of soil would be removed from the site, for use as fill elsewhere, or disposal in an approved landfill.

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 minimum design standards. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft EIS, this system will significantly improve drainage conditions on this property as compared to existing conditions. 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 of the Draft EIS) 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 of the Draft EIS 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. 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 are expected to groundwater, surface water or the Shinnecock Bay ecosystem.

Page 1-20 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

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.

Eastern Property With the shift of the maintenance building, leaching field and vehicle access, the grading program anticipated for the Eastern Property under the Revised Plan (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties) would place this system in the property’s southwestern portion, to maximize the distance between the facility and the nearest neighbors, while conforming to required setbacks. However, these changes necessitate excavation of this area to form a suitable flat area in which to construct the facility. Excavations of up to 10 feet in depth are necessary (see Cut and Fill Plan, Canal Properties), with an estimated 8,300 CY of soil disturbed. An estimated 230 CY of this material would be reused on-site, leaving over 8,000 CY of excess soil to be removed for disposal or reuse as fill elsewhere. A 5.5-foot (maximum) high retaining wall in the southwest corner of the property would be necessary.

1.3.6 Access, Road System and Parking

CPI Property The site’s vehicle entrances will be located off Newtown Road as well as Montauk Highway. The site will be served by internal roads that connect the buildings and parking areas. Public road improvements to be provided as part of the Revised Plan conceptually include:

• removing the ramp from southbound Newtown Road to westbound Montauk Highway ($50,000); • regrading this area to more smoothly transition the land surface between the CPI and Montauk Highway ($40,000); • landscaping and beautifying the intersection ($25,000); • construct a southbound to westbound acceleration lane on Montauk Highway ($145,000); and • construct westbound deceleration/acceleration lanes at the new site access on Montauk Highway ($140,000). • With “soft costs” (i.e., mapping, permitting, survey, inspection services) of $80,000, the total cost of these improvements is estimated by the applicant to be $480,000.

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 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.

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

Canal Property The townhomes will be accessed via a driveway and parking area in the northern portion of the site (serving Building 1) and a larger, divided driveway in the central portion of the site serving the remaining Buildings connecting to a third driveway which will access the parking area at the southern end for the public viewing platform. A series of sidewalks will connect the parking areas to the townhomes. No individual driveways or garages are proposed.

Public road improvements to be provided as part of the Revised Plan conceptually include:

• removing the ramp from southbound North Shore Road to westbound Montauk Highway ($80,000); • regrading this area to more smoothly transition the land surface between the Canal Property and Montauk Highway ($30,000); • landscaping ($40,000)and installation of a public parking area and walkway to the proposed viewing platform; • realigning North Shore Road to create a “T”- intersection with Montauk Highway ($580,000); and • make minor improvements to Montauk Highway and remove the westbound Montauk Highway to northbound North Shore Road ($170,000); • With “soft costs” (i.e., mapping, permitting, survey, inspection services) of $170,000, the applicant estimates the total cost of these improvements at $1.07 million.

Based on the Town Parking Code a minimum of 2.5 spaces/unit should be provided, or at least 93 spaces. As shown on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, 74 parking spaces will be constructed for the proposed 37 townhouse units (including four accessible spaces), as well as 19 lanbanked stalls and five spaces for the public to access the viewing platform at the Canal. The total number of parking stalls constructed is provided at a rate of 2.51 parking spaces per unit. 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 37 townhouse units will be 57 parking spaces. It is therefore expected that the 74 parking spaces constructed will be adequate to meet the peak parking demand for these townhouses.

Eastern Property No development is proposed on the Eastern Property with the exception of the Nitrex™ WWTF and associated pump station and maintenance building. A service driveway will be provided to the proposed wastewater treatment facility from Canoe Place Road.

1.3.7 Sanitary Wastewater Disposal and Water Supply

Sanitary Wastewater Disposal CPI Property - As discussed in Section 1.3.5.1 of the Draft EIS, the Population Density Equivalent on the CPI Property is 3,582 gpd (based on 5.97 acres x 600 gpd/acre). However, the

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

Draft EIS identifies the grandfathered flow for the property as 20,000 gpd based on the previous uses. Because the Revised Plan is anticipated to generate a total of 10,175 gpd of hydraulic flow (see Table 1-6a), this is significantly less than the grandfathered flow, therefore, a new Suffolk County-approved conventional subsurface sewage disposal system is proposed.

Appendix M-1 contains the Master Plan Report for the proposed sanitary system for the CPI Property. That document concludes as follows:

In response to public comment to be responsive to environmental impact concerns, and as the site conditions are favorable for this option, the project proposes to install a passive Nitrex™ denitrification system which consists of a conventional septic tank-leach pool/drainfield system and a nitrate-nitrogen removing permeable reactive barrier (PRB) on the [CPI] site, with a preliminary layout illustrated on Figure 1-1. Based on actual field conditions, the PRB will be located so as to intercept the effluent plume of the septic tank-leach pool system and remove the nitrate-nitrogen that exists in the plume, along with removing groundwater nitrate-nitrogen traversing the site, which would come predominately from CPI Property fertilizer practices and upgradient properties TN [total nitrogen] discharges. Consequently the PRB location and sizing may be altered from the preliminary layout of Figure 1-1. Previous Suffolk County studies have determined that nitrogen removal of 50% is achieved in a typical septic tank-leach pool system on Long Island. The remaining nitrogen is comprised predominately of nitrate-nitrogen and a minor amount of organic and ammonia-nitrogen, combined referred to as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). The Nitrex™ PRB removes nitrate-nitrogen from groundwater by creating an environment in which the nitrate-nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas, which then escapes to the atmosphere – in the same manner as the active Nitrex™ denitrification system on the Eastern Property. The passive Nitrex™ system, through the use of a septic tank-leach pool system and the Nitrex™ PRB is expected that 98% of project wastewater nitrogen will be removed. However, very importantly, the Nitrex™ PRB will also remove groundwater nitrate nitrogen that is derived from non-project wastewater such as project stormwater/fertilizer nitrate and from wastewater/fertilizer/atmospheric deposition from the contributing watershed to the PRB. With the existing data and the preliminary design, LAI [Lombardo Associates, Inc.] has prepared a preliminary estimate on Table 1-3 [of Appendix M-1] of the amount of nitrogen that will be removed by the CPI Property passive Nitrex™ nitrogen removal system. The PRB is more permeable than the native subsoils, so groundwater will preferentially pass through it. The figure [on page 11 of Appendix M-1] illustrates the nitrogen removal occurring below the PRB (the rectangular area in the cross-section). In fact the zone of influence of the PRB will be much greater than its depth, as measured during field installations and analytically determined. No credit for this additional nitrogen removal has been factored into the analysis.

Probable Useful Life of the passive Nitrex™ PRB system, based upon field and laboratory studies, is 40± years. Replacement would consist of in-situ replacement with the same equipment used to install the PRB and would be the responsibility of the property owner. This responsibility would be required by the Town as part of a legal agreement (covenant) made in connection with the rezoning action.

According to the Town of Southampton groundwater travel time maps, as presented by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, groundwater travel times are significantly faster than the conservatively-assumed 0.5 feet/day in Table 1-3 [of Appendix M-1]. Based upon extrapolation of the information on the Groundwater Travel Time map for the CPI site, groundwater travel rates of up to 2.8 feet/day are estimated. At this groundwater travel time, the Nitrex™ treatment systems would remove an estimated 150% of Total Project Nitrogen Discharges. In other words, under these design conditions, the project is expected to remove 1,197 lbs. per year of nitrogen in addition to removing

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

all of the nitrogen associated with the entire CPI project. This additional nitrogen removal is the wastewater nitrogen discharged from approximately 35 homes. Assuming a minimum cost of $30,000 per property to achieve this level of additional nitrogen removal via a wastewater treatment system, with sewering being ≈$75,000/property, the additional community benefits are $1,000,000 - $2,000,000+.

Table 1-4 [of Appendix M-1] presents the as-of-right and proposed nitrogen discharge of the CPI Property, the Canal & Eastern Properties for wastewater only, and the entire project nitrogen discharges and shows that 103% of CPI Property TN and 105% of CPI wastewater discharge will be removed.

Table 1-5 [of Appendix M-1] presents the details for the Table 1-4 summary tables. Figure 1-6 [of Appendix M-1] presents a schematic of a Nitrex™ PRB and Figure 1-7 [of Appendix M-1] illustrates the dramatic positive impact the Nitrex™ PRB had on Waquoit Bay on Cape Cod. Depending on site testing results and Nitrex™ PRB final design, the entire project, including the Canal-Eastern Properties, may have no net nitrogen discharge, that is, 100+% nitrogen reduction.

It is noted that NYSDEC has designated Shinnecock Bay as an impaired water body due to nitrogen discharges and therefore there is a need for nitrogen discharge reductions from historical levels. The Peconic Estuary has a TMDL requirement for nitrogen and is also impaired.

The project’s design in response to nitrogen management must be sensitive to the impaired water quality of Shinnecock Bay and the Peconic Estuary and the Town Board seeks to have the project remove more nitrogen than it discharges, i.e., 100+% nitrogen reduction. If it operates at the optimal design, the project would not be contributing to the Shinnecock and Peconic Bays water quality impairment. Rather the project would be an innovative step toward sustainable land use design solving the nitrogen induced water quality problems. In order to achieve the 100% nitrogen reduction goal, either an active or passive alternative sewage treatment system will be chosen by the Town Board as part of the CPI component of the MPDD development. If the passive PRB option with conventional subsurface sanitary system is chosen, a monitoring protocol of the Nitrogen output may be required by the Town Board to both study and determine the long term effectiveness of this approach. Performance information on the Waquoit Bay Nitrex™ PRB is presented in Figure 1-7 [of Appendix M-1], as independently monitored by the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.

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

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

Page 1-24 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Canal Property - Despite the decrease in the number of proposed townhouse units, the development 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 (see Figure 1-2). 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 seasonal conditions. Breakdowns of design and sanitary wastewater generation for the Canal Property are provided in Table 1-6b.

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

Use Quantity County Design Flow Standard * Design Flow Townhomes 37 300 gpd/unit 11,100 Clubhouse ±1,900 SF 0.30 gpd/SF 570 TOTAL ------11,670 * Per SCDHS Project Density Loading Rates & Design Sewage Flow Rates, 12.01.09

Eastern Property - Appendix K of the Draft EIS presents manufacturer’s information on the performance of this treatment technology; refer to these documents for detailed engineering and performance information on this system. Appendix N contains the Master Plan Report for the proposed sanitary system for the Eastern Property. The following has been taken from that document:

This Report describes the Nitrex™ wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system and nitrogen removal techniques proposed to serve the Canal - Eastern Properties development. The collection system will have septic tanks serving the Canal buildings with the effluent pumped to the Eastern Property for purification by the Nitrex™ treatment system and then disposal via leaching pools. The proposed Nitrex™ treatment system is the most advanced state-of-the-art wastewater nitrogen removal system achieving 94+% wastewater nitrogen removal with an effluent Total Nitrogen (TN) of 3 mg/l, which is considered by the US EPA as the limit of technology. With the proposed Nitrex™ treatment system for the Canal - Eastern Properties development, there will be an 89% reduction of existing/grandfathered/as-of-right wastewater nitrogen discharges and an 85% reduction of total site nitrogen discharges.

As the Canal - Eastern Properties development is part of a package that includes the Canoe Place Inn Property development, this Report’s analysis includes consideration of the CPI Property development. The below table illustrates the nitrogen reductions the combined project will achieve with the proposed active Nitrex™ Wastewater Treatment system at the Canal - Eastern Properties and the passive Nitrex™ PRB system at the CPI Property.

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

undeveloped and in pristine condition. The below table illustrates that essentially 100% of total project and 103% of wastewater grandfathered/existing/as-of-right nitrogen discharges will be removed with the proposed development. This Report and the CPI Property companion Report [Appendix M-1] provide the basis for these representations. As documented in the CPI Property Report [Appendix M-1], it is not unreasonable for significantly greater than 100% project nitrogen removal to occur with the project’s implementation [emphasis in original].

Project Wastewater Only Nitrogen Discharge (lbs All Sources of N Discharge (lbs N/year) N/year) Property Grandfathered Reduction Reduction Grandfathered Reduction Reduction Proposed Proposed & Existing (lbs) (%) & Existing (lbs) (%) CPI Property 1,218 (55) 1,274 105 1,219 (35) 1,254 103 Canal - Eastern 849 96 753 89 856 107 749 88 Properties Totals 2,068 41 2,027 98.0 2,075 72 2,003 96.5

Note that the 21,845 gpd combined wastewater flow of the Revised Plan is less than the combination of grandfathered flow for CPI as reported in the Draft EIS 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.

Water Supply Potable water is provided in the area by the Hampton Bay Water District (HBWD) 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:

• 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. The applicant has submitted a letter to the HBWD to confirm that the district has sufficient capacity to adequately supply the CPI and Canal Properties (see Appendix R). As of the date of this FEIS, the water district’s consultant, H2M is preparing a model to gauge the impact the proposed Canoe Place and Canal Properties developments will have upon the existing water system and plan accordingly. The Town received the report dated October 10, 2014 (see Appendix R) outlining the options for improvements, and concludes that a new a second water main must be installed crossing the Shinnecock Canal from west to east. Any necessary connections, meters, easements and installations will be provided to ensure adequate water supply from the existing distribution system. It is noted that the nitrate concentration in potable water to be supplied to the proposed project is 2.04 mg/l, reflective of conditions in the Magothy Aquifer, from which the HBWD draws. The corresponding value for the Upper Glacial Aquifer, into which all treated wastewater will be conveyed, is estimated to average about 3.5 mg/l.

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

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 11,670 gpd of sewage flow and domestic water usage (see Tables 1-6). The total volume of water anticipated to be used by the project is anticipated to be 10,899 gpd for the CPI Property (including 724 gpd for irrigation, using a rate of 5.5 inches over the growing season) and 12,051 gpd for the Canal Property (including 381 gpd for irrigation, using a rate of 5.5 inches over the growing season).

1.3.8 Site Lighting and Landscaping

Site Lighting Both the CPI and Canal Properties will provide lighting that complies with Town Code requirements of Town Zoning Code Article XXIX (Outdoor Lighting). The proposed lighting 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, the parking areas and building exteriors on both the CPI and Canal Properties will be illuminated (only one outdoor light is proposed on the Eastern Property access road). The Plans note that “Luminaires shall be shielded to prevent the source of light from being seen from adjacent roadways and properties.” 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 property. The need and type of lighting for the Eastern property will be part of the local law and considered by the Planning Board. 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 Land Management, along with Planning Board approval prior to implementation.

Page 1-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Landscaping Generally, 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/parking areas, shrub and groundcover landscaping will be provided in and around parking and lawn 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. For estimation purposes, the areas of fertilizer-dependent landscaping are assumed to be irrigated and fertilized. Rates of 5.5 inches annually for irrigation and 1.80 lbs of nitrogen/1,000 SF of landscaping are assumed for fertilization.

The Revised Plan will include a total of 3.54 acres of landscaping (59.3% of the site) on the CPI Property. Assuming that roughly 50% of the CPI Property will be fertilized landscaping (as was the case for the Prior Plan), approximately 1.77 acres (29.6% of the total site area) will consist of fertilizer-dependent species.

On the Canal Property, an estimated 1.86 acres of landscaping (46.5% of the site) will be provided. Assuming that roughly 20% of the Canal Property will be fertilized landscaping (as was the case for the Prior Plan), approximately 0.93 acres (18.3% of the total site area) will consist of fertilizer-dependent species. As previously described in Section 1.3.5, a drainage reserve area will be provided on the Canal Property in the vicinity of Buildings 4-7 to capture and recharge stormwater runoff such that the tree plantings around its circumference and native grass mixture planted in it will treat stormwater runoff prior to infiltration. The Conceptual Planting Plan, Canal Properties shows that, in addition to the street tree plantings within the site, a number of tree will be planted along the west side of North Shore Road and around the 5- space public parking area, to mitigate potential visual impacts for observers to the east. .

The Conceptual Planting Plan, Canal Properties also depicts the area proposed for disturbance of the Eastern Property due to the grading necessary for the WWTF installation to be restored with native grasses and groundcovers, as necessary. For the portions of the cleared area abutting Canoe Place Road and North Shore Road, 1.57 acres of native evergreen plantings will be provided to screen the WWTF leaching area, lab building and retaining wall. Unlike the CPI or Canal Properties however, none of the landscaped area will not be fertilized or irrigated.

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’s Planning Department, along with Town Planning Board approval prior to implementation.

1.3.9 Open Space and Noise Attenuation

Although clearing will be necessary for installation of the Nitrex™ WWTF on the Eastern Property, approximately 1.07 acres of natural area (39.9% of the site) will be retained. The Town’s Paumanok Path walking trail traverses the area, a portion of which runs along the south

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

side of the Canal Property (i.e., along the north side of Montauk Highway), and passes opposite the east side of the CPI Property, along the east side of Newtown Road. However, the Community Preservation Project Plan recommends (see Section 3.2.2.3 of the Draft EIS) that a portion of the Eastern Property be used for a linkage of this trail. The northern part of the Eastern Property is not proposed to be altered and will remain vacant and wooded. An easement for public access to this part of the site will be provided to the Town, to be used for Paumanok Path connectivity.

As part of the change of zone to MPDD being requested for the subject properties, a $250,000 contribution is offered by the applicant that is intended to be used for open space preservation or to further other relevant community planning goals for Hampton Bays; to be allocated by the Town Board as they deem appropriate. This action represents the third of the project’s three proposed Community Benefits.

Under the Revised Plan, the noise attenuation wall on the Canal Property has been eliminated. It is expected that a four-foot high wooden fence, to be landscaped, would be used in the vicinity of the proposed central and southern parking area of the Canal Property which will reduce the potential impact to site residents and visitors from noise generated by passing vehicle traffic.

1.3.10 Construction and Operations

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. The existing buildings and parking areas on the Canal Property will require demolition. The owner and all associated contractors 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 and/or SCDHS. Upon approval of the re-development 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.

For each of the three properties, the construction process 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 designated cleared/graded areas, to minimize the potential for eroded soils to impact tidal wetlands or

Page 1-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

neighboring properties. 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.

In order to minimize the time span that denuded soil in the developed area of each property 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. 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 building construction is underway.

Section 1.3.1 lists the off-site roadway improvements (associated with the land likely acquired or incorporated as surplus from Suffolk County). While detailed roadway construction plans have not been prepared as yet, the following presents general construction-related measures expected to be taken for these improvements:

• Temporary roadway surfaces will be installed simultaneous with proper signage, lane markings, construction barriers, clearing limits, erosion-control measures and equipment staging areas, so that the roadways can continue to operate during the construction period. • Existing vegetated areas will be cleared and graded for roadway base installation, curbing and drainage system connections, while existing roadway areas will be cleared and graded for landscaping. • Roadways will be installed and striped while new landscaped areas will be vegetated. • The temporary roadways, signs, construction barriers, etc. will be removed.

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 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. Under this program, a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (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.

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

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 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.

Newtown 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).

Operations 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 boat basin, floating dock and WWTF. The planned recreational

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

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 portion of the public access determined for the subject property and any associated maintenance responsibilities will be determined as part of the findings and local law process.

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 boat basin/floating dock use will be charged to any resident who purchases a slip at the private boat basin/floating dock on the Canal Property.

1.3.11 Permits and Approvals Required

As the Revised Plan includes the same uses as that of the Prior Plan, it is expected that it would also require the same permits and approvals; see Table 1-7.

Table 1-7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED Revised Plan

Issuing/Permitting Entity Type of Permit/Approval Town Board Change of Zone Approval (MPDD) Site Plan approvals Town Planning Board Tidal Wetland Permit (with Variance for southern portion of Canal Property) 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 * Suffolk County Planning Commission. ** Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

1.4 Comparative Impact Analysis

In comparison to those of the Prior Plan (as discussed in the Draft EIS and quantified in Table 1- 5), it is anticipated that the Revised Plan would have the following impacts:

Page 1-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

1.4.1 Soils and Topography

Reference to Table 1-5 and Table 1-5 of the Draft EIS indicates that a total of 10.37 acres would be cleared for the Prior Plan, and that 11.17 acres would be cleared for the Revised Plan. The difference between these two acreages is that, due to the revised WWTF layout, there would be an additional clearing of 0.80 acres of natural vegetation on the Eastern Property.

With respect to volumes of soil excavated for development, the Draft EIS indicated a total of 22,700 CY of cut for the Prior Plan, while the Revised Plan would disturb 23,199 CY. Specifically, the CPI Property would experience about the same volume of cut under either scenario (3,000 CY), while the Canal Property would undergo excavation of 18,500 CY under the Prior Plan, but 11,899 CY under the Revised Plan. This 35.7% reduction is due to the applicant’s response to reduce earthwork on this property. For the Eastern Property, there would be an increase in soil excavation, as the Nitrex™ system has been shifter onto a more steeply- sloped portion of that property, necessitating increased grading for this facility. The shift in the WWTF is the applicant’s response to community concerns about odors from the Nitrex™ WWTF.

As was the case for the Prior Plan, as much of the cut material as possible will be retained and reused as fill on the property from it was excavated, but it is expected that much of this material will have to be removed and disposed of as fill (for use elsewhere), or landfilled in an approved facility.

1.4.2 Water Resources

The amount of water used by the Revised Plan for domestic use (21,845 gpd) would be less than that of the Prior Plan (23,975 gpd), as a result of the proposed reduction of three townhouses in the former. As the amount of water used for landscape irrigation is also less for the Revised Plan (1,105 gpd versus 1,972 gpd), total water usage for the Revised Plan (22,226 gpd) is less than that of the Prior Plan (25,947 gpd).

The same Nitrex™ system and septic system will be used on the Eastern Property and CPI Property, respectively, for either the Revised or Prior Plan, and similar stormwater systems are proposed for all three properties in either the Revised or Prior Plan. However, the Revised Plan includes two areas of surplus land to potentially be acquired or incorporated from Suffolk County that were not a part of the Prior Plan. These two areas contribute stormwater runoff to overall site recharge values, so that the Revised Plan will recharge more water to the Upper Glacial Aquifer (19.70 MGY) than the Prior Plan (17.95 MGY).

The Revised Plan includes a PRB on the CPI Property as a supplement to the septic system there, so that more nitrogen will be removed from groundwater in the Revised Plan than for the Prior Plan. As a result, the amount of nitrogen load to groundwater would be higher in the Prior Plan (691 lbs) than for the Revised Plan (71.69 lbs). Thus, impacts to groundwater quality would be reduced in the Revised Plan.

Page 1-33 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

1.4.3 Ecology

The Revised Plan would involve removal of an estimated 5.78 acres of natural vegetation, while the Prior Plan would remove 4.98 acres, a 0.80 acre difference. It is noted that all of the natural vegetation on both the CPI and the Canal Property would be removed in either scenario, with the difference being 0.81 acres of natural vegetation on the Eastern Property (Prior Plan) as opposed to 1.61 acres of natural vegetation clearing on the Eastern Property.

In response to Town input after the Draft EIS was adopted, the Revised Plan will re-vegetate the portion of the canal bank south of the existing bulkhead, to a depth of 25 feet from the established tidal wetland line. This area will be planted with appropriate tidal wetland species after the conclusion of the construction process.

1.4.4 Transportation

The Revised Plan would generate slightly fewer vehicle trips during peak traffic hours than the Prior Plan because of the elimination of three townhouses on the Canal Property. The TIS indicated that the Prior Plan would not adversely impact local traffic conditions; therefore, it is expected that the Revised Plan would likewise have a smaller potential for such an impact. In addition, the TIS had indicated that no roadway mitigation would be necessary for the Prior Plan, so that the Revised Plan would also not require such mitigation. Nevertheless, the applicant is seeking to acquire or incorporate two small areas of surplus Suffolk County-owned land so that road and intersections improvements can be made at the intersections of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road (CPI Property) and Montauk Highway at North Shore Road (Canal Property). As analyzed in Appendix O-1, these improvements would enhance the flow of traffic at these locations by improving traffic safety and reducing traffic friction.

In a letter dated August 14, 2014, the Town’s traffic engineering consultant, Cashin Associates, provided a number of comments on the Revised Plan. The applicant’s response letter addressing these comments (forwarded to the Town on August 26, 2014) is presented in Appendix O-2.

1.4.5 Land Use, Zoning and Plans

Land Use - The proposed redevelopment of the CPI Property is the same for the Prior and Revised Plans, and includes the rehabilitation of the CPI building in a similar use and configuration as its historic conditions. The intended use of this site is consistent with the land use plans (see below). Rehabilitation of the CPI building and cottages will be in a similar, if not exact footprint as current conditions. Rehabilitation and the continued 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.

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

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 via consumer spending (patronage of businesses, sales taxes, economic ripple effect) and tax revenues, 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.

The boat basin and floating dock will be privately used by residents of the proposed townhouses. The private boat basin has space for approximately 17 boats that will be available for sale to residents of the townhomes on a first-come, first-served basis. Annual maintenance fees will be collected for this amenity. Water and electric service will be provided; however, gasoline and pump-out facilities are not planned, as marina support services are abundant in close proximity to the Canal Property.

The primary land use effect of either the Prior or Revised Plan will be to generate an additional seasonal multi-family housing development where it did not occur previously, and removal of a seasonal water-enhanced use (Tiderunners) and associated transient boat slips available for patrons of the restaurant. The rehabilitated CPI, although not directly on the water, will serve as the new water enhanced use and community amenity. The Eastern Property will remain substantially in a natural state, and will be used for the Nitrex™ WWTF to be constructed to serve the proposed townhouse units.

Zoning - As the Revised Plan and the Prior Plan involve the same change in zone to MPDD for all three component properties, as well as the same level of conformance to applicable Town zoning requirements for this district, there are no differences between these two scenarios with respect to zoning impacts.

The Revised Plan’s conformance to the proposed standards for the proposed MPDD district are presented in Response, Section 3.5.1.

Land Use Plans - As the Revised Plan and the Prior Plan are not significantly different in terms of use and yield, it is expected that their levels of conformance to the recommendations and/or goals of the following land use plans evaluated in the Draft EIS are the same as well:

Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District (1997) Neither the Prior Plan nor the Revised Plan complies 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, both the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan achieve partial if not substantial compliance, by rehabilitating the CPI as a catering facility that will be available for conferences as well as include a restaurant and bar use.

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

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. The proposed public access viewing/fishing platform at the Canal property will also enable the public to access the Canal and is proposed as a public benefit but is conditioned upon the applicant obtaining title to surplus County property. The Town Board will consider public access along the Canal property’s frontage in some capacity and require that the applicant contribute to upgrading the Town of Southampton Parkland adjacent to CPI that directly abuts the Shinnecock Canal as part of the public benefits package.

Town Comprehensive Plan Update (1999) The Prior and Revised Plans comply 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 a commercial use open to the public.

The Prior and Revised Plans will enhance an underutilized area near the Shinnecock Canal waterfront. Rehabilitation of the 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 make the most of 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. Rehabilitating the historic Canoe Place Inn and retaining as much of the historic fabric as practicable will aid in continuing to achieve attracting this type of tourism.

Cumulatively, the Prior and Revised Plans 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.

Much of the Eastern Property (1.07 acres, or 39.9% 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 numerous specific recommendations of this plan were grouped into a number of general recommendation types. The following lists the five types of recommendations that apply to either the project properties or the type of project represented by either the Prior or Revised Plan:

• Improve and Maintain Water Quality • Protect and Restore Living Resources of the Reserve • Expand Public Use and Enjoyment of the Estuary

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

• Sustain and Expand the Estuary-Related Economy • Increase Education, Outreach and Stewardship

The analysis presented in Section 3.2.1 of the Draft EIS indicates that the Prior Plan would conform to the applicable recommendations of this Plan. As the Revised plan is very similar in terms of uses and yields to the prior Plan, it is expected that the Revised Plan would provide the same level of conformance to the applicable recommendations of this plan.

Town of Southampton Community Preservation Project Plan (April 2005) The CPI Property includes five cottages 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 [Prior and Revised Plans] maintain the existing cottages and increases public access through the 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 [Prior and Revised Plans] 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).

Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (Revised July 2010) and Draft GEIS The [Prior and Revised Plans are] consistent with the recommendations of this Plan pertaining to the CPI Property. The [Prior and Revised Plans are] 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 [Prior and Revised Plans], which is to rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn, which would not otherwise be possible.

This Final EIS includes reviews and conformance analyses for a number of other land use plans not required for the Draft EIS (and so were not reviewed in that document), but were requested by public and/or agency comments on the Draft EIS The following identifies these plans and provides the location in this Final EIS where a detailed discussion of the Revised Plan’s conformance to the applicable recommendations and/or goals are presented.

Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan See Response, Section 3.1.4

Long Island’s South Shore Bayway - Strategic Implementation and Marketing Plan Final Report See Response, Section 3.1.18

NYS Coastal Management Program See Response, Section 3.2.7

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

Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Draft Update 2014) See Response, Section 3.5.26

1.4.6 Community Facilities and Services

It is anticipated that the usages of public utilities (water supply and energy) would be lower for the Revised Plan than for the Prior Plan, due to the reduction in townhouses. Additionally, solid waste generation would be expected to be lower for the Revised Plan than for the Prior Plan (1,701 lbs/day versus 1,724 lbs/day), as there would be fewer residents (93 capita versus 100 capita, respectively) to generate such wastes. As for services, there would be little difference in the potential need for emergency services such as police and fire protection despite the lower number of townhouses in the Revised Plan. With respect to schools, while either scenario would generate an estimated three (3) school-aged children, the nature of the townhouse ownership would minimize the probability that these children would attend Hampton Bays UFSD schools, as these children would not reside on the site on a year-round basis. Thus, the potential enrollment and fiscal impacts on the school district for either scenario would be the same.

1.4.7 Community Character

The Revised Plan includes a number of site plan changes for the Canal Property that were made in response to public comments that concern aesthetic-related aspects of the Prior Plan. These changes include a revised grading plan (so that the apparent building heights would be lowered), a reduced yield and reduced building count (to reduce the intensity and density of use), an enhanced natural wetland re-vegetation program (to enhance natural appearance and function), and the elimination of the noise barrier along North Shore Road. Together, these revisions will significantly reduce the potential for adverse impacts on the visual appearance of the Canal Property and on the character of the Shinnecock Canal Corridor

1.4.8 Historic and Archaeological Resources

Similar to the Prior Plan, impacts to archaeological resources would not be expected from the Revised Plan, as no such resources have been indentified on the site.

1.4.9 Construction-Related Impacts

Similar to the discussion and analysis of potential construction-related impacts associated with the Prior Plan (see Section 4.1 of the Draft EIS), the Revised Plan is likewise expected to result in impacts to the neighborhood. However, that prior analysis concluded that 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.

Page 1-38 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

1.4.10 Economic Impacts

While the estimated taxes generated on the CPI Property would be greater than those of the Prior Plan (as well as the school district taxes and net fiscal benefit to the school district), the decrease of three townhouses on the Canal Property would reduce these three values for the Revised Plan from those of the Prior Plan ($807,398/year, $618,348/year, and +$584,934/year versus $883,699, $676,764/year and +$643,370/year, respectively). Thus, overall, the taxes generated, the school district taxes generated, and the net fiscal benefit to the Hampton Bays UFSD would all be greater for the Prior Plan.

1.4.11 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided

For the Draft EIS, the site’s conditions were characterized and the potential impacts to those conditions were assessed. In the same manner as for the Prior Plan, some impacts may exist with respect to the Revised Plan for which no mitigation is available. These impacts will be minimized where possible, but this section acknowledges those adverse impacts that may still occur, as follows:

• Compared to the existing condition, regrading for the Revised Plan will permanently alter the topography of the majority of the CPI and Canal Properties, and a portion of the Eastern Property. . Should the project be approved, the Town Board will select the alternative for the Eastern property that minimizes the extent of clearing and regarding needed. • 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 for both the Prior and revised Plans. • Equally for the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan, temporary increases in construction traffic and noise during the construction period will occur. • Compared to the existing condition, the Prior Plan would increase the nitrogen load recharged over the overall site, to 691 lbs. The Revised Plan would decrease the nitrogen load to 71.69 lbs. • The Prior Plan would removal a total of 4.98 acres of natural vegetation on the overall site, while the Revised Plan would remove 5.78 acres. Should the project be approved, the Town Board will select the alternative for the Eastern property that minimizes the extent of clearing and regarding needed, therefore the overall acreage of clearing may be reduced. • Both the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase vehicle trips generated on the sites and on area roadways over existing conditions. However, because the yield of townhouses is less in the Revised Plan than the Prior Plan, the amount of the increased trips is less for the Revised Plan. Thus, the potential for impact on local roadways and intersections would be less as well. • The planned roadway improvements for the Revised Plan would increase traffic safety and traffic flow on Montauk Highway at/North Shore Road and at Newtown Road. The Prior Plan did not include such improvements. • Both the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase total water consumption on the project properties, to 25,947 gpd for the Prior Plan (of which wastewater generation is 23,975 gpd), and to 22,226 gpd for the Revised Plan (of which 21,845 gpd is sanitary wastewater).

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

• Both the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase the intensity of land use on the site (over current site conditions), though the Revised Plan will produce a lesser increase, due to its lower yield as compared to the Prior Plan. • Both the Prior and Revised Plan will increase the total amount of solid wastes generated on the project sites, though the Revised Plan will produce a lesser increase, due to its lower yield. • It is expected that the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase the potential need for emergency services of the Southampton Town Police Department and the Hampton Bays Fire District, though the Revised Plan would generate less offsetting tax allocations to these services than the Prior Plan. • The Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase demand on energy services of PSE&G and National Grid, though the Revised Plan would have a relatively lower demand on these services than the Prior Plan (37 vs. 40 townhomes). • The Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase demand on water and will require the installation of a second water main from west to east. This main will not only enable the Water District to better service to the proposed development but will provide a level of redundancy to the east side of the canal in the event that the existing crossing along Sunrise Highway is lost.

1.4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This subsection is intended to identify those natural and human resources that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use as a result of the Revised Plan. Like the Prior Plan, the Revised Plan will result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, as follows:

• Material used for construction on the site, including but not limited to: wood, asphalt, concrete, fiberglass, steel, aluminum, etc. • 5.78 acres of natural vegetation on the overall site. • Energy used in the construction, operation and maintenance of this project, including fossil fuels (i.e., oil and natural gas). • Potable water to be consumed on a daily basis, for the operation of the Revised Plan, totaling an estimated 22,226 gpd, of which 21,845 gpd represents domestic consumption.

However, the impact of this commitment of resources is not anticipated to be significant, as the magnitude of these losses is not substantial.

1.4.13 Growth-Inducing Aspects

The growth-inducing aspects of the Prior Plan were defined and discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIS. In that document, it was determined that the Prior Plan was not expected to result in significant direct growth-induced impacts, though an incremental increase in indirect growth- induced impacts would be expected.

It should be noted that the Revised Plan is similar to the Prior Plan, so that its growth-inducing aspects would be similar as well. The following discusses these aspects of the Revised Plan

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

• 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 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 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), therefore, significant expansions of this utility is not expected. The Prior Plan and the Revised Plan will increase demand on water and will require the installation of a second water main from west to east. This main will not only enable the Water District to better service to the proposed development but will provide a level of redundancy to the east side of the canal in the event that the existing crossing along Sunrise Highway is lost. Because these facilities and services already exist and have the capacity to service the proposed project, no significant growth is expected to result. • The Town Board may consider LEED or equivalent certification or additional sustainability features or energy standards to be built into the design. As the townhomes on the Canal Property will be developed at a density in excess of that allowable under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (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, like the Prior Plan, the Revised Plan is not expected to result in significant direct growth-induced impacts, though an incremental increase in indirect growth-induced impacts is expected.

1.4.14 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources

The proposed project will contain a number of sustainable and energy-efficient measures in the design and construction of these structures. On both the CPI and Canal Properties, the existing site drainage and treatment of runoff will be significantly better than the existing conditions and meet and/or exceed the applicable Town requirements for new construction.

Page 1-41 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

At the Canoe Place Inn, the existing building has, due to its age, no energy- or water-savings measures installed. Where appropriate within the context of maintaining as much of the historic structure as possible, insulation will be added to reduce both heating and cooling energy use. An entirely new, energy-efficient heating and cooling system will be provided and all new plumbing fixtures will be low-flow, dual flush and water-efficient. All new appliances and equipment will meet Energy Star requirements, where such equipment is available.

At the Canal Property, the individual units will be designed to meet Energy Star requirements, including highly insulated building envelopes, high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment and low-flow dual-flush plumbing fixtures. The buildings have been oriented in a north-south direction to minimize solar gain in the summer months, and balconies and/or deeply inset windows have been provided along the western facades to provide passive cooling in the summer and passive heating in the winter. The Town Board may consider LEED or equivalent certification or additional sustainability features or energy standards to be built into the design as part of the local law.

1.4.15 Summary and Conclusion

Based on the comparative impact analysis above, the Revised Plan would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the site and area’s natural and human resources to a higher degree than would occur for the Prior Plan. It would address a number of Town and community concerns related to aesthetics and character, public recreational spaces, flooding and wetland protection, while satisfying the goals, capabilities and fiscal motivations of the applicant. As such, the Revised Plan represents a realistic and attractive option for redevelopment of the subject site.

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

SECTION 2.0

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2.1 Opposed to proposed project

Comments B-1, B-6, C-1, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-16, C-21, C-27, C-33, C-35, C-43, C-48, C-51, D-1, D-2, D-4, D-5, D-9, D-15, E-4, E-30, F-10, F-11, F-17, F-26, F-28, F-30, F-33, F-35, F-38, F-44, F-54, F-56, F-60, F-73, F-91, F-94, F-95, F-108, F-109, F-121, F-125, F-127, F-133, F- 136, F-145, F-151, F-160, F-161, F-163, F-168, F-171, F-177, F-182, F-188, F-194, F-195, F- 200, F-204, F-207 & F-211 : These comments indicate opposition to the proposed project, based upon a range of factors including: treatment of sanitary wastewater from the Canal Property on the Eastern Property; potential odor and/or noise impacts to residents close to the Nitrex™ system; and potential for lowered property values of homes near the Nitrex™ system.

Response: The proposed wastewater treatment system is a proven technology that is commonly used in residential communities. Pumps and equipment are enclosed therefore ensuring noise control. Processes and tanks and are enclosed thereby limiting odors. The purpose of proper siting and design of such facilities is also to ensure that no impacts occur to surrounding areas. SCDHS establishes setbacks, and conformance to such setbacks provides adequate protection. The proposed system will be located well over 200 feet from the nearest habitable structure, which ensures that no impacts will occur to the proposed or existing community. There is no evidence to support a finding that the proposed installation will lower property values of homes nearby. See also Response, Section 2.4.

2.2 Support for proposed project

Comments B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-19, C-24, C-25, C-53, C-58, C-65, E-1, E-7, E-8, E-17, E-24, E-25, E-26, E-27, E-29, E-31, F-63, F-64, F-75, F-81, F-89, F-117, F-118, F-119, F-201 & F- 202: These comments indicate support for the proposed project, based on a range of factors including: rehabilitation of CPI; increased taxes; and minimal increase in school enrollments.

Response: Comments acknowledged.

2.3 Concerns about noise from outdoor events at CPI

Comments B-10, B-11, B-13, C-26, D-22, E-13, F-45, F-52, F-213 & F-219: These comments express concerns that noise generated by outdoor events, particularly late-night events, held at the rehabilitated CPI will adversely impact the residents of adjacent and nearby properties.

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

Response: The design of the proposed CPI site has been specifically modified based on a detailed study and recommendations, in order to ensure that activity associated with this concern on the CPI site will not adversely impact residents of adjacent and nearby properties. Appendix P-2 contains a study of the potential for noise impacts arising from outdoor events held at the CPI Property. The study indicated that without mitigation, such potential impacts could occur; however, the potential impacts could be significantly mitigated by specific layout changes. The applicant has undertaken these changes (see Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn). The following describes these plan changes:

In response to public concerns regarding noise impacts from outdoor events (typically, such as weddings, wedding receptions, bar or bat mitzvahs, etc.), the applicant has moved the location of the tent structure (where outdoor events will be held) from the northern side of the CPI to the western side, to maximize the separation from the nearest receptors, which are the homes on Eleanor Street. Other noise-mitigating features include using a fixed position and orientation for musical events (so that noise is directed toward the southeast and away from receptors), and grading for the tent area so that topography would shield receptors to the north and west. A small screen wall has been added on the top of the western retaining wall, so that the top of this wall would be twelve (12) feet above the tent floor.

2.4 Future Nitrex™ system operation, maintenance and use/occupancy of Eastern Property

Comments B-12, C-28, C-50, F-16, F-61, F-165, F-167, F-179, F-205 & F-214: These comments indicate public concerns that the operation and maintenance of the proposed sanitary system on the Eastern Property will adversely impact adjacent and nearby residential properties and property values.

Response: See Response, Section 2.1. The operation and maintenance of proposed sanitary system is not expected to cause a significant adverse impact to any site or nearby residences. Such treatment facilities are designed to be located within and near residential communities and are subject to design, enclosures and setback requirements to ensure that no impact will occur.

Appendix N contains the Master Plan Report for the Nitrex™ system proposed on the Eastern Property. As stated in that document:

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

existing/grandfathered/as-of-right wastewater nitrogen discharges and an 85% reduction of total site nitrogen discharges.

Depending on CPI Property site testing results and Nitrex™ PRB final design, the entire development of the CPI Property and Canal - Eastern Properties is projected to have no net nitrogen discharge, that is, essentially 100% project nitrogen reduction. In other words, this means that the CPI Property and the Canal - Eastern Properties development are projected to remove more nitrogen discharging into Shinnecock Bay and the Peconic Estuary than if the sites were undeveloped and in pristine condition. The below table illustrates that essentially 100% of total project and 103% of wastewater grandfathered/existing/as-of-right nitrogen discharges will be removed with the proposed development. This Report and the CPI Property companion Report [Appendix M-1] provide the basis for these representations. As documented in the CPI Property Report [Appendix M-1], it is not unreasonable for significantly greater than 100% project nitrogen removal to occur with the project’s implementation [emphasis in original]. In order to achieve the 100% nitrogen reduction goal, either an active or passive alternative sewage treatment system will be chosen by the Town Board as part of the CPI component of the MPDD development. If the passive PRB option with conventional subsurface sanitary system is chosen, a monitoring protocol of the Nitrogen output may be required by the Town Board to both study and determine the long term effectiveness of this approach.

Appendix J-3 contains an Impact Report of Nitrex System which includes a valuation study with the purpose of measuring any impact caused by the installation of an onsite underground Nitrex style sanitation system on the Eastern Property. The study compares realty market data of residential sales in close proximity to existing developments where there are onsite wastewater treatment facilities. The comparable properties that were examined are both located within the Town of Southampton and include Eagles Walk at East Quogue and Courtyard at Southampton. The study shows that the existing onsite wastewater facilities had no negative impacts on the surrounding properties or those properties nearby them.

2.5 Consider Nitrex™ system on CPI Property

Comments B-14, B-18, C-10, C-38, C-40, C-60, E-22, F-8, F-46, F-67, F-70, F-77 & F-221: These comments request that the CPI be served by a Nitrex™ system located on that property, in lieu of a simple septic tank/leaching pool system.

Response: Comments acknowledged. Although the property has a grandfathered flow which exceeds the proposed flow, the applicant has re-designed the proposed CPI site to ensure that nitrogen loading from the site use as well as existing nitrogen in groundwater passing beneath the site will be mitigated and will actually reduce nitrogen as compared to current conditions. In lieu of a

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

Nitrex™ WWTF on the CPI Property, the applicant will install a new septic tank/leaching pool system, which conforms to SCDHS requirements, and will provide supplemental nitrogen removal by use of an installed Permeable Reactive Barrier near the south property line to remove nitrogen in groundwater. The modified design is described in Section 1.3.7 and a summary of key features is provided below:

In response to public comment to be responsive to environmental impact concerns, and as the site conditions are favorable for this option, the project proposes to install a passive Nitrex™ denitrification system which consists of a conventional septic tank-leach pool/drainfield system and a nitrate-nitrogen removing permeable reactive barrier (PRB) on the [CPI] site, with a preliminary layout illustrated on Figure 1-1. Based on actual field conditions, the PRB will be located so as to intercept the effluent plume of the septic tank-leach pool system and remove the nitrate-nitrogen that exists in the plume, along with removing groundwater nitrate-nitrogen traversing the site, which would come predominately from CPI Property fertilizer practices and upgradient properties TN [total nitrogen] discharges. Consequently the PRB location and sizing may be altered from the preliminary layout of Figure 1-1. Previous Suffolk County studies have determined that nitrogen removal of 50% is achieved in a typical septic tank-leach pool system on Long Island. The remaining nitrogen is comprised predominately of nitrate-nitrogen and a minor amount of organic and ammonia-nitrogen, combined referred to as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). The Nitrex™ PRB removes nitrate-nitrogen from groundwater by creating an environment in which the nitrate-nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas, which then escapes to the atmosphere – in the same manner as the active Nitrex™ denitrification system on the Eastern Property. The passive Nitrex™ system, through the use of a septic tank-leach pool system and the Nitrex™ PRB is expected that 98% of project wastewater nitrogen will be removed. However, very importantly, the Nitrex™ PRB will also remove groundwater nitrate nitrogen that is derived from non-project wastewater such as project stormwater/fertilizer nitrate and from wastewater/fertilizer/atmospheric deposition from the contributing watershed to the PRB. With the existing data and the preliminary design, LAI [Lombardo Associates, Inc.] has prepared a preliminary estimate on Table 1-3 [of Appendix M-1] of the amount of nitrogen that will be removed by the CPI Property passive Nitrex™ nitrogen removal system. The PRB is more permeable than the native subsoils, so groundwater will preferentially pass through it. The figure [on page 11 of Appendix M-1] illustrates the nitrogen removal occurring below the PRB (the rectangular area in the the cross-section). In fact the zone of influence of the PRB will be much greater than its depth, as measured during field installations and analytically determined. No credit for this additional nitrogen removal has been factored into the analysis.

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

wastewater nitrogen discharged from approximately 35 homes. Assuming a minimum cost of $30,000 per property to achieve this level of additional nitrogen removal via a wastewater treatment system, with sewering being ≈$75,000/property, the applicant estimates that the additional community benefits are $1,000,000 - $2,000,000+.

Performance information on the Waquoit Bay Nitrex™ PRB is presented in Figure 1-7 [of Appendix M-1], as independently monitored by the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.

As a result of the installation of a new sanitary system and through the use of the installed PRB, nitrogen from the CPI is fully mitigated and reduced below existing conditions, existing conditions with operation of the grandfathered flow from CPI, and any potential use of the site under existing zoning.

2.6 Density of units/noise wall will ruin sightlines, community character & aesthetics on Canal Property; 40 units on Canal Property excessive, and will impact the character of the canal

Comments B-20, B-23, C-4, C-31, C-55, C-61, E-9, E-10, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-21, F-47, F-53, F-78, F-80, F-83, F-92, F-93, F-106, F-110, F-111, F-156 & F-187:

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

These comments express concerns that the number of townhouses proposed on the Canal Property is excessive for the small size of that site, so that the density would not match that of the area and so would impact community character. In addition, the noise wall would adversely the visual appearance of the site and area, by eliminating views from the east across the property to the canal.

Response: In response to this comment, the proposed yield on the Canal Property has been reduced from that described in the Prior Plan, and the layout has been redesigned. Consequently, the proposed grading program has been modified such that the proposed buildings have been shifted landward (i.e., easterly, toward North Shore Road) to address the Town Conservation Board’s concerns regarding proximity to tidal wetlands and the incorporation of a buffer zone. The amount of grading has been reduced by utilizing existing grades to the extent possible (thereby reducing earthwork and keeping the buildings at a somewhat higher elevation than in the Prior Plan), and by lowering the elevation of the larger resident’s parking area relative to North Shore Road. The revised grading also enables elimination of the noise wall from the Revised Plan. These changes reduce the potential for adverse impacts to views of the Shinnecock Canal and areas to the west for observers to the east. These plan changes also increase groundwater quality protection, by increasing the vertical separation between the ground surface and water table by up to 6 feet. The density has been reduced by three (3) units (7.5%), unit size has been reduced and the buildings have been reconfigured to provide greater separation from wetlands and improved visual access through and across the site. The changes described herein, which directly address the expressed concerns, are addressed in more detail herein.

The Revised Plan will reduce the numerical and physical densities of the site from those described in the Draft EIS, which would result in an overall reduction of density related impacts as well as reduced potential adverse impacts on views of the Shinnecock Canal, and on community character and site aesthetics. Specifically, the density of the Canal Property has been reduced by approximately 20%, including a decrease in the number of townhouse units, total number of buildings, decrease in unit size, and decrease in building footprint, and the unit yield has been reduced by 7.5%. The decrease in area is equivalent to approximately eight (8) units from the Prior Plan. Further, the Revised Plan shows that the residential structures on the Canal Property will be separated to a greater degree than those of the Prior Plan, meaning that sightlines between the buildings toward the canal will be more spacious than those of the Prior Plan. As a result, observers from the east would have greater views of the canal through these building spaces than would have occurred for the Prior Plan; observers from the west, across the Shinnecock Canal, would have greater breadth of views of the vegetated area east of the Canal Property as a result of the changes depicted in the Revised Plan.

Additionally, as described in Section 1.3.5, the Revised Plan includes a grading program for the Canal Property that would utilize existing topography of the site to a greater extent. This overall grading modification assists with improved aesthetics, and assists with the elimination of the noise attenuation wall. The overall changes address the comment and reduce potential impacts of the project as compared with the Prior Plan.

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

2.7 Fire Department comments received?

Comment B-21: “There are preliminary concerns by the fire commissioners about the height, the density, the occupancy. They haven’t yet commented as an involved agency, but that’s what I’m hearing.”

Response: Written comments prepared by the Board of Fire Commissioner’s, Hampton Bays Fire District have been received. They are dated August 23, 2013, and can be found in Appendix G. Responses to those comments are contained in Section 3.8.

2.8 Concern over loss of public access/commercial use on Canal Property; prefer development at existing zoning

Comments B-22, C-9, C-17, C-18, C-20, C-49, C-54, D-3, D-8, D-12, D-13, D-16, E-3, E-5, F-9, F-12, F-18, F-20, F-25, F-27, F-39, F-40, F-43, F-55, F-62, F-72, F-76, F-79, F-82, F-84, F-87, F-90, F-104, F-105, F-112, F-116, F-122, F-124, F-134, F-137, F-138, F-139, F-143, F-144, F- 147, F-149, F-152, F-153, F-155, F-181, F-208, F-209 & F-210 : These comments indicate opposition to redevelopment of the Canal Property with a private residential community, which would eliminate public use of the site as a commercial property. Additionally, these comments express support for continued commercial/waterfront development on this site.

Response: Non-residential re-development of the Canal Property is not considered feasible from the applicant’s standpoint, as the size of the property would not allow for a yield that would generate sufficient revenues to fund the cost of CPI rehabilitation. Further, such a small yield would not necessitate a Nitrex™ system, so the Eastern Property would likely be developed at its existing zoning, using an on-site septic system; an on-site septic system would also be installed on the Canal Property. However, these systems operate significantly less efficiently than a Nitrex™ system, so that groundwater impacts would be greater than that of the proposed project.

Commercial use on the Canal Property would potentially allow for greater public access to the canal, but this would also result in more traffic on local roadways, in proximity to the residences in the area, which would increase noise, air pollution and safety concerns of these residents. It is expected that these impacts would be greater than those of the proposed townhouses, as trip generation of commercial use is greater than that of the townhouses.

Finally, as shown in Figure 3-1, there remain a number of commercial properties along the eastern and western banks of the Shinnecock Canal, so that the change of use of the Canal Property will reduce, but will not foreclose, commercial use along this feature.

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

2.9 Concerns re: financial future and what if units don’t sell?

Comments B-24, C-19 & F-123: These comments indicate concerns that the units would not sell, so that the developer would choose an alternative occupant for the units, to the detriment of the area.

Response: The applicant has extensive experience in high-end residential development and, based on that experience supplemented by its proprietary analysis, fully expects to sell all of the units constructed. In addition, Appendix D-2 of the Draft includes a residential market analysis for 40 townhome units which concluded there was significant demand for the project due to area demographics, market area conditions, and the unique attributes of the project. The project has been revised to 37 units, which provides less units and a greater expected demand for these units.

2.10 Suggests alternative design, including swapping uses on CPI & Canal Properties and fewer units on Canal Property, with sewage treatment there

Comments B-25, B-26, C-7, C-8, C-32, C-56, C-57, C-62, C-63, D-17, D-21, E-6, E-18, E-21, E- 28, F-32, F-51, F-58, F-59, F-86, F-88, F-103, F-107, F-113, F-114, F-140, F-148, F-184, F-189 & F-190: These comments indicate opposition to the proposed project, with suggestions as to alternative designs, yields or locations of the components of the proposed project.

Response: Comments acknowledged. As required by the final scoping document for the Draft EIS (which was prepared by the Town Board), the applicant analyzed the realistic and feasible alternatives in the Draft EIS. Those scenarios did not include a mixed-use alternative for the Canal Property, as such a combination would not have conformed to the applicant’s vision for that property, is not a land use type that the applicant deals in, and which, in any case, is not large enough to accommodate both commercial space and a number of residences necessary to generate sufficient revenues to fund the CPI rehabilitation program.

The depth to groundwater on the Canal Property is too low to accommodate the recharge sub- system of a Nitrex™ WWTF, and the Canal Property is simply too small and not shaped in a way that could accommodate the setbacks required by the SCDHS.

2.11 Insufficient “foot traffic” generated by rehabilitated CPI

Comments B-27: “But my concern is, yes, we need things that will develop more foot traffic for the everyday person. To be tagging it on a catering hall, especially in these difficult economic times, which are not going away in three years, that catering hall may not have the yield that is being hoped for as being an economic engine for redevelopment.

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

So I’m asking as far as the redevelopment of this area, it would be wonderful if it created more foot traffic and have it really be a go-to destination.”

Response: The CPI is planned to also have a restaurant and taproom (water enhanced uses consistent with the RWB and Maritime PDD zone) in addition to the catering business. In accordance with the recommendations of the Hampton Bays GEIS and Comprehensive Plan Update for a unified and consistent approach toward making the commercial areas accessible and pedestrian-friendly, both sides of the Shinnecock Canal will be developed in such a way as to provide sidewalks, public access at the Shinnecock Canal and potentially steps from Montauk Highway so as to interconnect the Canal Property with CPI and the Town Park as well as provide the critical sidewalk connections to access the RWB areas to the South of Canoe Place Rd.

2.12 Concern re: Nitrex™ system effluent on waterways

Comments B-28, C-59, F-71, F-97 & F-115: These comments indicate concerns that the treated effluent discharged from the Nitrex™ system on the eastern Property into the ground will adversely impact local surface water bodies, particularly the Shinnecock Canal and Peconic Bay.

Response: The analyses contained in the Draft EIS established that the treated effluent of the Nitrex™ system would not result in any significant adverse impact on local groundwater or surface water quality. Further, the installation and operation of this system will be subject to detailed engineering review and approval of the SCDHS and on-going sampling and testing, which provides added assurance that no such impacts would occur.

2.13 Archaeological Study in Draft EIS was insufficient

Comments C-2 & F-65: These comments question the thoroughness of the Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation conducted for the proposed project, on the project sites.

Response: Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS contained a detailed and thorough investigation of the potential for cultural (i.e., pre-historic and historic era) cultural resources on the three properties comprising the subject site. On the CPI Property, a number of pre-historic and historic resources were discovered in the Phase 1b analysis. Subsequent analyses were required by the State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP), which ultimately determined that “…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.”

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

For the Canal and Eastern Properties, similar studies were prepared, which ultimately determined that no pre-historic or historic cultural resources were present on these sites, and that no impacts to cultural resources would occur. Consequently, the studies provided in the Draft EIS are sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources.

2.14 Considered CPF purchase?

Comments C-3 & F-66: These comments request information on whether the subject sites were considered for public purchase under the Community Preservation Fund.

Response: As of the date of preparation of the Draft EIS, the applicant has received no offer from the Town regarding purchase of any of the three component properties, whether using CPF monies or not. Additionally, the applicant has not been contacted by any such entity regarding discussions of public purchase.

2.15 Concerns about odors from Nitrex™ system and potential for spills

Comments B-2, B-15, B-17, F-96 & F-166: These comments show concern regarding the potential for local odor impacts from operation of the Nitrex™ system, and of the potential for spills of sewage associated with that facility.

Response: The NitrexTM system includes proactive odor treatment systems consisting of design features to minimize odor generation and a positive ventilation system that withdraws foul air and removes odor generating compounds via an odor filter. This approach has been used on all comparable sized NitrexTM systems including those close to high end retail establishments and restaurants – at which there have been no odor complaints. The wastewater treatment system is underground, enclosed and contained within tanks to prevent spills of sewage. The wastewater is treated, and treated effluent is recharged using suitable wastewater leaching facilities. Any sludge removal only occurs on the Canal Property and is performed using hose connections to prevent spillage. Consequently, the issue of sewage spills is not expected to occur at the facility.

2.16 Positive tax & economic/property values

Comments B-8, B-9, C-22, C-23, D-19 & E-23: These comments note that beneficial tax impacts would occur from the proposed project, with associated positive impacts on local property values and business sales.

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

Response: Comments acknowledged; Table 1-5 indicates that the Revised Plan will generate an estimated $807,398 annually in property taxes, to be disbursed to the various public taxing districts. It is noted that the Hampton Bays UFSD, the largest single recipient of taxes, will receive an estimated $518,348 annually from these taxes, which represents a $480,983 increase in school taxes from the existing subject sites.

2.17 Concerns re: impacts on private wells from Nitrex™ effluent recharge?

Comment B-16 & F-175: These comments request information on potential adverse impacts on the quality of water pumped from nearby private water supply wells, from operation of the Nitrex™ system.

Response: We are not aware of any private water supply wells in the area of the NitrexTM system. Regardless of this situation, the purified water from the NitrexTM system will flow due west under CR 39 and the Canal Property prior to entering the Shinnecock Canal. There are no water supply wells along the flow path of the NitrexTM system’s purified water.

2.18 “Costs” to public of project not considered, or project benefits insufficient to offset these costs

Comments C-5, C-6, C-15, C-29, C-42, C-44, C-45, D-7, D-20, E-19, F-13, F-22, F-31, F-157, F-183, F-185 & F-191 These comments indicate the conclusion that the benefits of the proposed project are not sufficient to offset the “costs” to the public of the changes to the sites or to the area.

Response: Section 1.1.4 of the Draft EIS presented a detailed discussion and analysis of the public benefits to accrue from the Prior Plan, and Section 1.3.2 updates the proposed public benefits based on the Revised Plan. That analysis provides substantial evidence that, on both qualitative and quantitative bases, the proposed project will offer a greater amount of benefits to the area than it would “cost” the area.

2.19 Rehabilitated CPI will not look like prior CPI

Comment C-47: “And secondly, the most important thing is, the new building bears no resemblance to any Canoe Place Inn that has ever existed in any history. So I don’t buy this ides that it has any resemblance to history and what the old building stood for.”

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

Response: As discussed in the Draft EIS, the applicant proposes to rehabilitate the CPI structure. No new building is proposed. As outlined in Appendix I (Historic Evaluation of the Canoe Place Inn) of the Draft EIS, all of the modifications proposed are possible without serious disturbance to the significant fabric of the building. The proposed rehabilitation is intended to bring the building back to its originally-designed use. The Draft EIS includes extensive documentation of the architectural strategy for rehabilitation of the Inn, in a manner that is in keeping with its historic tradition. The Town Board will include requirements in the local law to ensure that the rehabilitation is done to preserve as much of the historic fabric as practicable and require oversight by a local architectural preservation consultant qualified by the Planning Board.

2.20 Provide promenade recommended in “Shinnecock Canal Public Access Plan”

Comments F-135: “And don’t believe the proposal which claims to be providing public access. A closer look shows a short boardwalk with access via a few steps down from Montauk Highway. And how do I get there, where do I park? Doesn’t seem like a reasonable tradeoff to me.”

Response: The Revised Plan shows that the boardwalk proposed for the proposed plan has been replaced by a public viewing platform in the southernmost portion of the Canal Property. A public parking area for this amenity has also been added, to be located in the surplus ROW area. The Town Board will consider whether this alternative adequately addresses the public access issue in lieu of the public promenade along the Canal that is recommended in the Town’s planning documents. The Town Board may require additional upgrades to the existing public access on the western side of the Canal at the Parkland adjacent to the CPI.

2.21 $250,000 open space donation not enough

Comment E-11: “There’s been talk, certainly, about compensation, that 250,000 is certainly not adequate.”

Response: The $250,000 contribution made by the applicant is intended to further the goals of the Hampton Bays community, to be allocated by the Town Board as they deem appropriate. It is just one of a number of public benefits to accrue as a result of the project. This is part of a “package” of public benefits the total value of which exceeds the potential increase in density resulting from the project and is thus in keeping with the intent of the MPDD code.

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

2.22 Hampton Bays Water District impact

Comments E-14 & F-7: These comments indicate a concern that the Hampton Bays Water District (HBWD) would not levy fees on the proposed project adequate to that facility, so that the local community would be forced to “subsidize” the proposed project through increased fees levied on them by the HBWD.

Response: The comments indicate that residents of Hampton Bays should not subsidize the water connection charges for the proposed project. The comments further indicate that connection charges “were” very low and that they “were geared toward single-family homes and not to larger projects.” Hampton Bays includes both single-family homes and a downtown area with a variety of businesses and department stores. The development will pay connection charges as determined by the HBWD at the time of connection. Generally, water supply is available as a result of the existing water main distribution system, and appropriate connection charges will be levied at the time the development is approved and ready to connect to the existing distribution system. The Hampton Bays Water District has provided a letter, dated April 10, 2014 (see Appendix R), which indicates that although there are water mains in proximity to the proposed development, that water pressure is reduced east of Shinnecock Canal, and water system improvements may be needed to ensure adequate water supply and water pressure. The District letter also requested specific information of the applicant on peak daily water usage, landscaped area, total water usage, and total water usage of the CPI Property, to support its assessment of water availability. The applicant’s response letter, dated July 15, 2014, is provided in Appendix R and the most recent correspondence from the Water District which provides the usage analysis is dated October 10, 2014 and included as Appendix R. The applicant will continue to coordinate with the Town Board and Hampton Bays Water District for the installation of the second water main as indicated in the analysis.

With respect to water quality, analyses presented in the Draft EIS indicate that no significant adverse impacts would occur for the HBWD.

2.23 Adequate public access to east bank of Canal already exists

Comments E-12 & E-16: These comments note that the eastern bank of the Shinnecock Canal is currently open and accessible to the public.

Response: Comment acknowledged.

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

2.24 Non-conformance to Master Plan, et al

Comments C-11, D-11, D-18, E-2, E-15, F-23, F-42, F-85, F-131, F-150, F-158 & F-203: These comments note that aspects of the proposed project do not conform to recommendations of the various land use plans that apply to the subject site.

Response: See also Responses, Sections 3.1.3, 3.1.17, 3.4.10, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.5.8, and 3.5.23. These comments question the proposed project’s conformance to recommendations for the site in the Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District Plan, the Town Comprehensive Plan Update, and the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan DGEIS. The recommendations of each of these plans pertinent to the proposed project or the project site were presented in Section 3.2.1.3 of the Draft EIS, and the conformance of the proposed project to each was discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2.3, of that document.

The following represents the above-noted land use plan conformance discussion, updated to reflect the Revised Plan.:

Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District Plan (1997) The Revised Plan 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 Revised Plan 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 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 walkway and viewing platform 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 Revised Plan advances many of the plans goals.

The Revised Plan 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 Revised Plan 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.

Page 2-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

The Revised Plan 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 maximize this opportunity by rehabilitating the historic CPI in conformance with the 1999 Town Comprehensive Plan Update recommendations. 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 Revised Plan will utilize density exchange for the three separate parcels to transfer development yield from 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 Revised Plan 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.

Much of the Eastern Property (1.07 acres, or 40% of the site) will remain in its natural, vegetated state thereby retaining valuable natural resources.

Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan (Revised July 2010) and Draft GEIS The Revised Plan satisfies fulfills the community’s goal to maintain and rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn, as specified in the Plan.

It is noted that the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan envisions a PDD as a mechanism by which coordinated development of both sides of the Shinnecock Canal would be realized:

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 Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic 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

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

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 Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the Revised Plan 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 re-development 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 Revised Plan complies with many of the vision points laid out in the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan.

• The Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic 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 Revised Plan 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. • The Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic 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 and PRB 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.

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

• Development of the Canal Property as townhomes will include public access via the public parking, walkway and viewing platform, 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 Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan identifies a PDD as the most useful tool to ensure control over types and design of uses and flexibility in planning. The Revised Plan 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 of 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 Revised Plan is consistent with the recommendations of this Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan pertaining to the CPI Property. The Revised Plan is not directly consistent with the Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic 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 Revised Plan, which is to rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn, which would not otherwise be possible.

2.25 Fiscal/financial aspects of project questioned

Comments C-30, E-20, F-57, F-98, F-120, F-128, F-132, F-162, F-186 & F-192: These comments question certain business-related fiscal aspects of the proposed project.

Response: A team of industry professionals including architects, engineers, architectural historians, appraisers, economists and planners have been a part of the planning of the proposed project as well as the applicant who is well versed in evaluating risk on investment and bringing successful projects of all types to fruition. An analysis evaluating the potential demand and resultant success of the rehabilitated CPI was included in the Draft EIS which summarized the following key points and concluded that the project meets an existing need and will therefore be a positive economic generator of taxes, jobs and convenient services to Hampton Bays:

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

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

It should be noted that the proposed rehabilitation of the CPI is not the most profitable for the property. As described in Appendix A-6 of the Draft EIS, an alternate scenario contemplates multiple restaurants developed on the property which would yield a greater profit for the applicant.

The fractional ownership/time share alternative scenario is explored in Response, Section 3.5.3.

Appendix J-4 contains the applicant’s revised appraisal dated March 1, 2014 for the fair market value of the proposed townhouse units in response to the Town’s review appraisal. The appraised value of the proposed units are now estimated at $525-$575 per SF for units offered with boat slips; $475-$525 per SF for units offered without boat slips and a gross sell out period of 2-3 years from completion.

A Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis was included as Appendix F-1 of the Draft EIS. An analysis of expected property tax revenues if the properties were to be developed as-of-right was included in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIS.

The primary public benefit of the proposed MPDD is the rehabilitation of the CPI facility, which is recognized as an important part of the character of the community. Other public benefits proposed include a contribution to the Town towards open space preservation, construction of a public viewing platform in the southern portion of the Canal Property, roadway modification improvements to the CR 80/CR 62 and CR 80/CR 39 intersections, a public access easement to the Town for Paumanok Path connectivity in the northern portion of the Eastern Property and the installation of a PRB on the CPI Property for advanced nitrogen removal. A discussion of additional benefits of the Revised Plan are included in Section 1.3.3.

Page 2-18 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

2.26 Safety concerns

Comments C-34, C-37, C-52, F-5, F-193, F-196, F-197, F-198 & F-206: These comments express concerns regarding the safety of local residents from traffic generated by the proposed project.

Response: From the review of the traffic volumes contained in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), it can be seen that the traffic volume that will be generated by the Revised Plan will be slightly less, are not significant and will not impact operation and safety at the study intersections. However, it should be noted that any safety issues in the study area already exist. To address these existing safety and operation issues, Suffolk County has completed the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road, and the applicant is also working with Suffolk County to implement geometric improvements at the intersections of Montauk Highway Newtown Road and Montauk Highway and North Shore Road, including a comprehensive network of sidewalks and pedestrian links. These proposed improvements will significantly improve the operation of the intersections in the study area and hence, will improve safety for local residents and all users of the roadways in the study area.

2.27 Use & maintenance of local private roadways

Comments C-36, F-164, F-169 & F-199: These comments request information on the anticipated usage of the local public and roadways that may be impacted by project-related traffic, and on the anticipated provision/funding of roadway maintenance.

Response: In response to concerns of the neighbors along Wildwood Lane and Seneca Drive, the vehicle access to the Nitrex™ system building has been relocated to Canoe Place Road, which would eliminate any maintenance traffic from using these neighborhood roads. As a result, the Revised Plan is not expected to cause any increased usage of these local roads, so that no change in their existing private maintenance costs would occur. In the first year of operation of the Nitrex™ system, daily weekday visits are required by SCDHS. Provided no permit violations occur, three visits per week would occur for three months and then two visits per week thereafter.

2.28 Was “grandfathered” flow approved by SCDHS?

Comments C-39 & F-68: These comments request confirmation on whether or not the SCDHS had indicated its acceptance of the “grandfathered” sanitary flow of the CPI, for planning purposes.

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

Response: As of the date this document was prepared, the SCDHS has not indicated in writing that it accepts a grandfathered flow for the CPI of 20,000 gpd (as 15,000 gpd for the CPI restaurant and bar [see SCDHS Food Control Unit approval in Appendix Q], 1,500 gpd for the five cottages [see Certificate of Occupancy in Appendix Q] and 3,500 gpd for 35 inn rooms). However, it should be noted that it is not SCDHS policy or accustomed procedure to do so. The applicant’s position is that, based on the Food Control Unit approval, the Certificate of Occupancy for the cottages, and SCSC Article 6 wastewater generation rates, the CPI Property would generate a total of 20,000 gpd of wastewater, and that this is the volume that should be considered the “grandfathered” flow.

The pertinent SCDHS regulation is presented in Appendix Q, which indicates that, for projects that have a record of a SCDHS approval, which CPI does through the Food Control Unit approval and Certificate of Occupancy for the cottages, sewage flows may be grandfathered through the SCDHS’s Food Control Unit, which includes an established seating listed on the application (the approval states a Maximum Occupancy of 1,500 persons which, using the SCSC Article 6 flow rate of 10 gpd/occupant, implies a sanitary flow of 15,000 gpd from the restaurant and bar operation) and five single-family residences at 300 gpd, each. It is acknowledged that the regulation also states, “In order to qualify for grandfathering, the original structure and/or structures must be in a condition that can be occupied at the time of submission of the proposed application…” The applicant acknowledges that this is not the case, as the CPI structure is dilapidated at the present time. However, the applicant’s position is that the CPI was closed and maintenance was discontinued at the specific request of the Town, in order to eliminate the late- night noise and traffic impacts to the neighborhood at that time.

It is also noted that the density-related sanitary flow for the proposed CPI site use is 6,600 gpd, which is substantially less than the grandfathered flow. As a result, the proposed project flow is substantially less than the proposed “grandfathered” flow.

2.29 Contingency plans for Nitrex™ system?

Comment C-41: “And the last point I wanted to make was for that any treatment plant that’s going to be proposed, including the one on the canal side, we wanted to address the issue of fail safes, backup generator, extra holding tanks. This came up at a recent public hearing where another site, sewage treatment plant was proposed and this is in the case of an emergency situation. So I don’t know if those questions had already been addressed in the meetings that you had with the engineer, but we feel that, moving forward, any project should really address these issues. And we also thought of the possibilities to suggest that some type of contingency fund might be set p in case of a failure so that there’s money to set aside to mitigate these impacts as soon as possible.”

Response:

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

The NitrexTM system has extensive redundancy and fail-safe features including:

1. Equalization tank that does provide emergency storage 2. Emergency generator 3. Duplex (i.e. two pumps that alternate so that when one fails pumping still occurs) pumps used in all pump stations with failure alarms electronically notifying local operator 4. Ability for the system to comply with effluent standards with the largest piece of equipment out of service – referred to as US EPA Class 1 Reliability 5. The user charge system will have annual contributions to an escrow account for the sole use of equipment repair based upon the amounts necessary to replace equipment at the end of its useful life.

Consequently, the wastewater treatment facility for this site is designed with redundancies to ensure continuous operations.

2.30 Relocate project to a more appropriate site, nearer downtown Hampton Bays

Comment C-46 “But if you want development and tax dollars, put it in the hamlet where the businesses are. Why are you putting it in the middle of a residential neighborhood? If you put this development in the park, there’ll be no more increased traffic because people can walk to the Hampton Bays businesses. They can walk to this development. The Rechlers should be offered a rebate and some type of tax incentive to give this property all made into parks and our area can be shown as a model for transforming what’s a derelict property into an area for all people and sustaining our waterways, because we know Shinnecock Bay has been declared one of the worst sites of water that’s been polluted and anywhere in the country. ”

Response: The applicant does not own any land in the area of downtown Hampton Bays hamlet to which the proposed project could be located.

2.31 Public STP allowed under existing RWB zoning of Eastern Property

Comment C-64: “I’d like this under spoken to in some ways – I had a chat yesterday with someone about this. I’m astonished that everyone in that neighborhood does not know that motel zoning would allow for a public sewage treatment plant. It says so right in the code, okay. I would like that understood and vetted out and described a little more.”

Response: Comment acknowledged. According to the Town Zoning Code, Chapter 330-33, Table 4, a public sewage treatment plant is allowed by Special Exception from the Town Planning Board in the MTL (Motel) zoning district.

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

2.32 Preference for Open Space on Eastern Property

Comments D-6, F-74 & F-126: These comments recommend that the Eastern Property be retained in its existing, undisturbed state as public open space.

Response: Comments acknowledged. This parcel is zoned for a motel use and such use could be established on this property to the extent allowed by zoning. The Revised Plan will use this parcel for wastewater treatment only, and a large portion will remain in its natural state, and the balance will be used for wastewater treatment, which is a low intensity use that does not generate substantial activity, traffic, or other impacts commonly associated with density of land use.

2.33 Opposed to “threat” of as-of-right development on Canal Property

Comments D-10, F-141, F-142, F-146 & F-212: These comments indicate opposition to the applicant’s perceived strategy to develop the Canal and Eastern Properties under their existing zonings if the proposed project is not constructed.

Response: The as of right yields were required to be prepared by the Final Scope of the Draft EIS, and represent the uses and yields that could realistically occur with no rezonings. In this way, the public has information by which to compare the proposed project with use that could occur in conformance with zoning, and the spirit, intent and requirements of SEQRA are met with respect to alternative analysis, including the no-build condition.

2.34 Questioning purpose of Radius Study in Draft EIS

Comments D-14, F-178 & F-180: These comments question the purpose of the “Radius Study” contained in the Draft EIS.

Response: The “Radius Study” in question refers to Appendix H in the MPDD Application dated February 2012. A radius map is required by the Town as part of any PDD application. The list provided in the appendix was generated by the Town Assessor’s office.

2.35 Parking on Canal Property may be insufficient

Comments F-4 & F-217 These comments question the adequacy of the number of parking spaces on the Canal Property.

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

Response: As shown on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, the number of parking spaces on the Canal Property, including landbanked spaces, meets Town Code requirements.

2.36 Traffic will be “excessive”, and will adversely impact local roadways

Comments F-6, F-34, F-36, F-48, F-172 & F-215: These comments indicate the conclusion that the proposed project will generate an “excessive” number of vehicle trips, which would exacerbate existing local traffic flow problems.

Response: The TIS prepared for the Draft EIS indicated that the expected trip generation associated with the proposed project would not be excessive, and would in fact not result in any significant adverse impacts on the operation of any intersections studied. As the Revised Plan will reduce the number of townhouses, the trip generation of the Revised Plan would be reduced, which would further reduce the potential the potential for any adverse traffic impacts.

The TIS Addendum in Appendix O-1 indicates that, for the intersection of Montauk Highway (CR 80) and North Shore Road (CR 39), which serves the Canal and Eastern properties, “…the poor levels of service at this location is an existing condition and overall this intersection will operate better than current levels of service with the construction of the [Revised Plan].”

For the intersection serving the CPI Property, Montauk Highway and Newtown Road (CR 62), the Addendum indicates that the planned improvements at this intersection “…will increase the weaving distance for southbound Newtown Road right turn traffic desiring to make a left turn or a U-Turn at Canoe Place Road. These improvements will improve traffic flow and safety at these locations and the study area as a whole resulting in a benefit to the public and community.”

However, the Addendum acknowledges that the proposed improvements at this intersection will not improve its overall operation, but that it will continue to operate at No Build level of service conditions during the analyzed peak periods.

2.37 Rezonings of CPI and Canal Properties should be separated, not combined into an MPDD

Comments F-14, F-15, F-19 & F-154: These comments suggest that the proposed MPDD should not be approved, so that the redevelopment of the three sites would not be considered together, but separately on a case-by- case basis.

Response:

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

Each of the three components of the Project is dependent on the approval of the other two. Thus independent consideration of each component is not possible. It should be noted that the proposed project represents the first instance of Town review of a PDD of the type proposed on multiple, non-contiguous sites. In addition, SEQRA requires that the full extent of the project be assessed in order to ensure that unwarranted segmentation does not occur.

2.38 Subdivision inappropriate

Comments F-24 & F-159: These comments indicate opposition to the perceived subdivision of the sites that comprise the proposed project.

Response: Under the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan, no subdivision is proposed for either the Canoe Place Inn Parcel or the Eastern Parcel. However, both plans contemplate the filing of a subdivision plan for the Canal Parcel townhomes. The subdivision plan will conform to the requirements of the Town of Southampton Subdivision Regulations and will show each individual townhome on a separate and distinct tax lot together with the common area lot(s). The filing of the subdivision is necessary in order to facilitate the applicant’s intention to form a Homeowners Association in which each townhome will be separately deeded to individual owners and thereby ensure that each home will be assessed and taxed as any other single-family home in the in the Town of Southampton.

2.39 Demolish and rebuild not “rehabilitate” the CPI

Comment F-29: “4. CPI should be demolished & rebuilt., not restored.”

Response: The rehabilitation of the CPI has been proposed in response to expressed local public desires and is an integral part of the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan. Architectural evaluations included in the Draft EIS identified a strategy to maintain key elements of the structure in a manner that respects its historic origins.

2.40 Need for additional housing in the area not established

Comment F-37: “There are already so many houses for sale in our area, why would the town think housing was necessary? Why not convince the Rechlers to trade their land for another place you would give them and build a first class nursing home? Peconic Landing doesn’t even have a waiting list anymore because the need is so great.”

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

Response: The Draft EIS included a residential market analysis (Appendix D-2) that indicates that the proposed residential units are highly desirable and expected to sell. The scenarios identified in this comment were not identified as part of the scoping process, nor are they in keeping with the objectives of the project sponsor, who does not have a business interest in developing a nursing home. It is not typically the Town’s policy to offer trades of publicly-owned land for privately- owned land for private development, nor is it expected that the Town would initiate such a policy for the proposed project.

2.41 Maintenance of CPI Property

Comment F-41: “In sum, we would kindly appreciate: No outdoor music; No parking on Holzman Drive and Eleanor Street, at any time; No litter in the Holzman Estates community; No foul odor from sewage; No kitchen odors from cooking; and Increase in Police Department and Code Enforcement officers and Increase litter pickup”

Response: The comments related to parking on Holzman Drive and Eleanor Street, litter, and presence of police and code enforcement personnel pertain not to the proposed project but to the Town of Southampton. With respect to the comments on noise from outdoor events at the CPI, odors from the septic system of the CPI, and kitchen odors from CPI:

• the Response, Section 2.3 indicates that noise mitigation measures proposed for the CPI facility would mitigate the potential for impacts to the neighbors from outdoor events. • the Response, Section 2.15 indicates that the Nitrex™ system on the Eastern Property would not result in odor impacts to the residences nearby, due to the inclusion of proactive odor treatment systems and a positive ventilation system that withdraws foul air and removes odor generating compounds via an odor filter. • it is expected that the kitchen ventilation system for the rehabilitated CPI facility will be equipped with odor filters, to minimize the potential for adverse effects on downwind residential receptors.

2.42 Noise & sightlines unattractive for potential homebuyers

Comment F-49: “I have deep concern for the viability of the sale of the townhouses at $1.2 million per unit. I understand Rechler Equity feel that they will have predominantly ‘hedge fund types’ as their

Page 2-25 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

buyers. I feel that Hampton Bays does not have the cache to attract this level of wealth. I doubt that they will be happy with the view of the other side of the canal and the extraordinarily busy bridge traffic. The bridge generates a great deal of noise and pollution almost 24 hours a day. It is a lovely location for dinner but not for living.”

Response: The commentator’s concern for the financial viability of the townhouses is noted; however, the applicant is experienced in developing housing for this market segment, and expects to attract sufficient buyers. The applicant expects that the amenities proposed will attract buyers seeking to reside in a bucolic, rural atmosphere exemplified by Hampton Bays. The applicant completed a residential market study that was included in the Draft EIS as Appendix D-2.

The commentator does not explain why the “great deal of noise and pollution” from traffic on the bridge would render residential development on the Canal Property unacceptable to occupants, but would make that property “a lovely location for dinner” for potential visitors. Residents will occupy the interior of structures as their domicile and thus will not be subject to exterior noise or other factors, yet, can enjoy the exterior setting at their leisure. Further, a potential buyer will visit the site prior to making a purchase and will make their own decision as to whether they have sufficient interest to make a purchase. Given the site’s attractive setting and the abundant resources and attributes of the area, it is the applicant’s expectation that there will not be any issues with the sale of 37 townhomes on the subject Canal Property.

2.43 Year-round occupancy and school enrollment impacts

Comment F-50: “Lastly, the impact on the schools remains open. These homes are large and clearly can comfortably accommodate a family year round. Our schools are at max and adding an additional $21,000 plus per child to our tax bill is just one more reason to recognize the pitfalls of this project.”

Response: It is acknowledged that the townhouse units proposed will be fully appointed and sufficient to house their owners comfortably year-round. Considering the sale prices of the units, a high level of quality and indoor amenities would be expected, to attract buyers capable of buying these units in the first place. However, the nature of this component is such that these units would be used as “second-home” units by their owners and would be, on a practical level, primarily occupied seasonally, mostly in the summer, considering the water-related features and proximity to businesses and recreation resources of the East End, which are maximal in this season.

Thus, any school-age children residing in the units at this time of the year would not be enrolled in the Hampton Bays UFSD, and so their presence would have no effect on enrollments in this district. The Draft EIS assessed the fiscal impacts of the project and projected the number of school-aged children as well as the cost to educate students finding that there would be a surplus of tax revenue to the Hampton Bays UFSD. Table 1-5 provides an update of this analysis and

Page 2-26 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS finds that approximately 3 school-aged students are expected (based on local multipliers) and after considering the cost of education of these students, the resulting surplus revenue to the school district is $584,934 per year. As a result, no significant adverse impact to the school district has been identified and there is a substantial benefit due to surplus revenue.

Finally, a school district does not “bill” its taxpayers for each student enrolled; instead, it sets a tax rate, based on the assessed value of properties in the district, to be allocated to the district. The district must then fund the educational services to its students from this allocation.

2.44 Compare impacts of as-of-right vs. proposed sanitary flows

Comment F-69: “Additionally, the DEIS should have contained a comparative analysis of what the potential impacts to water resources would be utilizing the as-of-right sanitary wastewater flow on the property (3,390 gallons per/day) as well as the proposed development’s sanitary wastewater generation (10,175 gallons per/day). These analyses will provide a more realistic assessment of potential impacts since the 20,000 gallons/day of asserted flow isn’t exactly a realistic description of the ‘existing’ conditions at the site.”

Response: The data provided in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIS addresses the comment.

Draft EIS Table 5-1 (portion) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Prior Plan/DEIS vs. Alternative 2/DEIS

Alternative 2 - Full As-of-Right Proposed (Prior Plan) Project Parameter Build-Out CPI Property CPI Property 20 unit inn, 350-seat catering, 70- Uses & Yields seat restaurant w/20 bar seats, 120 338-seat restaurant outdoor seats Zoning MPDD RWB Coverages (acres): ------Forested/Natural 0 0 Roads, Buildings, Paved 2.43 3.00 Unvegetated 0 0 Landscaping 3.22 2.65 Total Wetlands 0 0 Water Resources: ------Domestic Use (gpd) 10,175 10,140 Sanitary Wastewater (gpd) 6,600 3,380 Irrigation (gpd) 1,317 544 Total Water Use (gpd) 11,494 10,684 Recharge Volume (MGY) 8.04 5.77

Page 2-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) 6.66 4.89 Nitrogen Recharged (lbs/year) 447 235 The commentator applied the term “as-of-right” to refer to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) Article 6 limit on the maximum allowable sanitary flow for a site if an on-site sanitary system (i.e., a septic system) is proposed. This limit (discussed in Section 1.3.5.1 of the Draft EIS) was based on the acreage of the CPI Property and its presence in Groundwater Management Zone IV, and was calculated at 3,390 gpd of sanitary flow. The Draft EIS, in contrast, applied the term “as-of-right” to refer to the total wastewater flow (of which sanitary flow is only a part) of the maximum allowable development of the CPI Property under its existing zoning (see Alternative 2, Table 5-1 of the Draft EIS). Table 5-1 shows that the sanitary flow component of this alternative is 3,380 gpd, nearly identical to the 3,390 gpd sanitary flow under SCSA Article 6.

Alternative 2 assumed, for only the CPI Property, a sanitary flow of 3,380 gpd, in a total wastewater flow) of 10,140 gpd. This scenario results in a recharge volume of 5.77 MGY, having a nitrogen concentration of 4.89 mg/l. For the proposed project, Table 5-1 shows, for a sanitary flow of 6,600 gpd (in a total wastewater flow of 10,175 gpd), recharge would total 8.04 MGY, at a nitrogen concentration of 6.66_mg/l. Thus, the Draft EIS Table 5-1 shows that, compared to the proposed project, as-of-right development based on zoning of the CPI Property would generate 39% less recharge, but have a lower concentration of nitrogen than the proposed project.

In order to show the mitigation inherent to the Revised Plan, the above analysis was repeated using the Revised Plan as described in this Final EIS (see table below). As can be seen, the Revised Plan will increase the volume of site-generated recharge over Alternative 2 by 78% and, due to the use of the proposed PRB, will not only eliminate nitrogen in recharge generated on the site, will remove nitrogen in groundwater generated elsewhere that is passing beneath the site.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Revised Plan/FEIS vs. Alternative 2/DEIS

DEIS Alternative 2 - Full As-of- FEIS Revised Project Parameter Right Build-Out CPI Property CPI Property 20 unit inn, 350-seat catering, 70- Uses & Yields seat restaurant w/20 bar seats, 120 338-seat restaurant outdoor seats Zoning MPDD RWB Wastewater Treatment On-Site Septic & PRB On-Site Septic Coverages (acres): ------Forested/Natural 0 0 Roads, Buildings, Paved 2.43 3.00 Unvegetated 0 0 Landscaping 3.54 2.65 Total Wetlands 0 0 Surface Water 0 0

Page 2-28 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Water Resources: ------Domestic Use (gpd) 10,175 10,140 Sanitary Wastewater (gpd) 6,600 3,380 Irrigation (gpd) 724 544 Total Water Use (gpd) 10,899 10,684 Recharge Volume (MGY) 10.26 5.77 Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) 0 4.89 Nitrogen Recharged (lbs/year) -35.2 235

2.45 Property insurance and potential impacts of flooding

Comments F-99, F-100, F-101 & F-176: These comments question the adequacy of existing flood insurance measures of the project sites, and request information on insurance protection in any future flood events, particularly related to the Nitrex™ system.

Response: 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. The townhouse development proposes first floor elevations which range from 15 feet to 25.5 feet and will comply with all Federal, State and Town flood and building code regulations. Adequate insurance is freely available in the marketplace and there is no reason why the proposed project would not be able to obtain insurance coverage.

The septic tanks on the Canal Property will be watertight, including bolted water tight manholes. The tank design specifications and pump stations that are part of the septic tanks will be such that flotation will not occur during flooding events. The wastewater force main extending under North Shore Road from the Canal Property to the Eastern Property is watertight.

The Nitrex™ treatment system at the Canal Property is significantly above flood elevation so no flooding protection is required.

2.46 Town review

Comment F-102: “Is the Town of Southampton adhering to stated town conservation guidelines, protecting our lovely, wooded, low density, residential neighborhoods (with residents of different economic levels), canal shoreline, waterway, and, soil, from development damage?”

Response: The Town is currently and will continue to review and process the application in conformance with all applicable Town, County and State regulations and procedures. These questions are broadly identified; however, the Draft EIS provides specific information on use and conservation

Page 2-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

of energy resources, ecological impact analysis, land use and zoning, community character, groundwater and surface water resources and soil and geology resources. Each specific section should be consulted for detailed analysis of the general points noted above. With respect to different economic levels, Hampton Bays and the Town of Southampton are diverse in terms of economic levels of its residents and visitors. The project was conceived by the applicant to address certain needs within the Hampton Bays community, most notably the rehabilitation of the CPI building. Currently, this building is dilapidated and unused; however, the proposed project provides an opportunity to rehabilitate the building and place it into productive use reminiscent of its grand stature within the community. This building will be accessible to a wide range of Town and area residents at various economic levels. The Canal property currently is underutilized and is occupied by a mix of uses including restaurant, retail and dwelling. The redevelopment of this site will assist the overall PDD objective of facilitating the redevelopment of the CPI site, and will also provide housing for hamlet, town and/or area residents that may wish to occupy the site and adopt the lifestyle associated with these homes. The site will also provide public access to the waterfront and thereby will be accessible to all economic levels within the Town. The project also results in an open space contribution that will assist in facilitating open space preservation and public access for the enjoyment of Town residents. Finally, the project will conform with the Workforce Housing law as implemented by the Town and therefore will offer a payment to the Town of Southampton as required by the applicable regulations for 10% of the additional units approved over and above the as of right residential density for the Canal Property Townhomes.

2.47 Comparison of taxes generated by as-of-right vs. proposed development

Comment F-129: “As this process winds down, I request that a detailed analysis be done of the tax revenues to Hampton Bays if the properties in question were to be developed as of right. This analysis should include property tax revenues, which I understand are based on the commercial establishment’s revenues, the hamlet’s share of sales tax, and any other taxes which may be levied on commercial properties. That analysis should be compared to the tax benefits of the townhouses if they were to sell for less and if there were only 20 townhouses, as some people have suggested. I believe the economic advantage to the community is far greater if the property is developed for tourism rather than private homes.”

Response: Table 5-1 of the Draft EIS presents this analysis, for as-of-right (AOR) development, and compares it to that of the Prior Plan. Specifically, AOR development of restaurants on each of the three properties would generate a total of $443,686 annually in property taxes. It is not correct that property taxes for a commercial property are based on the establishment’s revenues. Taxes on commercial components of the Revised Plan are to be based on a projected assessed valuation which factors in the construction/rehabilitation costs and estimated valuation provided by the applicant. Tax rates (provided by the Town Receiver of Taxes to the Town Assessor’s Office) are then applied to the projected assessed valuation to project the impact that the project will have on the local tax base. It is important to note that all analyses are based on current tax

Page 2-30 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS 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 in the Draft and Final EISs are as accurate as possible using fiscal impact methodologies, for the purpose of planning and the land use approval process.

The Revised Plan (see Table 1-5) is estimated to generate a total of $807,398 annually in property taxes. With respect to school taxes (which is the largest single allocation of total taxes), AOR development would provide $339,797 per year to the Hampton Bays UFSD; the Revised Plan would allocate $618,348, which exceeds that of AOR development by 82.0%. It is acknowledged that AOR development would not generate any school-age children, so that all $339,797 it generates would be available to the district, while the three potential students in the Revised Plan would require district expenditures, so that the net school district revenues available would be reduced somewhat, to $584,934.

If the Revised Plan were reduced to 20 townhouses, a total of $543,105 in taxes would be generated, of which $415,939 would be allocated to the Hampton Bays UFSD, which exceeds that of AOR development by 22.4%.

Cursory review of these estimates indicates that the economic advantage to Hampton Bays is from the Revised Plan, not AOR development.

2.48 School-age children and year-round occupancy

Comments F-130 & F-174: These comments express doubt that the proposed project would generate few school-age children that would dwell on-site year-round, to enroll in the local school district.

Response: See Response, Section 2.43.

2.49 CPI and Canal Properties should be self-sustaining

Comment F-170: “The rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn is contingent on the building of the townhouses. These projects should be self-sustaining.”

Response: Such a separation is contrary to the intent of the Town’s PDD ordinance and SEQRA, which contemplates a project as a cohesive whole. This planning flexibility of the Martime PDD enables project amenities and public benefits to be provided as incentives where such features could not be provided if the project’s land area were separated into distinct parts. It is acknowledged that each of the three component sites could be developed as a separate PDD but

Page 2-31 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

since the development of each development is dependent on the simultaneous approval of the other two the separate PDDs would have to receive a simultaneous approval. 2.50 Recusal of realtor

Comment F-173: “The current President of the Beautification Association is a realtor working with Rechler. She should recuse herself from decision making for the association on all counts of the CPI proposal”

Response: This is an issue outside the purview of SEQRA and the Town’s review of the application.

2.51 Ground elevations of buildings on CPI Property

Comment F-216: “Lastly, two additional questions were raised about raising both the elevation of the main CPI building… ”

Response: Like the Prior Plan, raising the grade beneath the CPI building is not included in the Revised Plan, as such an action is not necessary from a drainage or flood plain elevation perspective, would be extremely difficult to achieve from structural and architectural standpoints, and would be unacceptably expensive to achieve. Further, the cost of such an action would necessitate that more residences be provided, to offset the cost of the regrading process. This is not the intent of the project sponsor. The density has in fact been reduced by three units.

2.52 Construction-phase impacts and scheduling, and maintenance activities

Comments F-218 & F-220: These comments request additional information regarding potential impacts experienced by the neighborhood during the construction phase of each component site, including scheduling of such activities, their duration and details of site maintenance during and after construction.

Response: The Draft EIS provides the information requested in this comment; Section 1.4 of that document outlined the anticipated construction and operation of the Prior Plan. Changes related to the Revised Plan for this Final EIS do not significantly change the construction and operational characteristics of the project.

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

Page 2-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

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 1-3, pool, clubhouse • Phase II: Building #s 4-7

The WWTF will be constructed simultaneous to Phase I of the Canal Property construction. It is expected that rehabilitation of the CPI Property will commence with the start of Phase I of the Canal Property, and be completed by the time of the completion of Phase II of the Canal Property.

The construction manager will be responsible for all construction activities including site grading, installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls, ensuring proper storage and stockpiling of construction materials, that building supplies will be stored in designated areas, litter pickup on the property and that measures are implemented to reduce impact to surrounding properties. Construction equipment loading/unloading, materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking will be located within the subject parcels and no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding properties are anticipated. Construction accesses/exits on Newtown Road for the CPI Property, on North Shore Road for the Canal Property and on Canoe Place Road for the 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 is temporary and short-term and may cause minor inconveniences in the neighborhood during limited periods of time during this finite construction process. Once complete, the impact is gone and the project will assume an operational mode as identified in the Draft EIS. Consequently, efforts will be made to minimize disruption in the community; however, given the measures outlined and the limited duration of construction, significant adverse impacts are not anticipated.

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

SECTION 3.0

AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

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

3.0 AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

3.1 Town Conservation Board

3.1.1 Comment G-1

“The subject parcels are located within the watershed for the Shinnecock Canal and eastern Shinnecock Bay. Shinnecock Bay is part of the larger State designated South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) complex. The Canal parcel is also located within the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area (Peconic 500 ft. Buffer). The Peconic Estuary complex has been designated as an estuary of national significance by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Pursuant to the Peconic Estuary Conservation and Management Plan (PEP CCMP) and the SSER Comprehensive Management Plan (SSER CMP), declining water quality, as well as the regular occurrence of brown tide are issues that need to be addressed through reductions in non-point pollution (stormwater).”

The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will reduce the volume of non-point stormwater runoff generated on the project sites (particularly from the Canal Property), that reaches the Shinnecock Canal. In this way, the potential for adverse impacts on the quality of surface water in Shinnecock Bay will be reduced. In conformance with Town requirements, the drainage system on each of the three component properties will retain all runoff generated on impervious surfaces on that site, so that runoff will be directed into on-site recharge facilities and not be allowed to flow on the land surface into the canal (which is currently the case).

The design and installation of each drainage system will be subject to the prior review and approval of the Town, which would ensure that the systems will operate properly and thereby minimize, if not eliminate, the potential for impacts to surface water quality. Drainage will also be subject to a SWPPP and will need to meet water quality and water quantity (storage) requirements of the SWPPP.

The project has also been subject to detailed examination of potential impacts to groundwater and surface water (see Draft EIS, Section 2.4). The Canal Property will be served by a state-of- the-art wastewater treatment facility proposed to be located on the Eastern Property that will minimize potential sanitary impacts to groundwater and therefore will minimize nitrogen which may outflow to the bay system downgradient of the site. The CPI Property is proposed to include a new sanitary system and installation of a PRB near portions of the downgradient property line that will ensure removal of nitrogen and will achieve greater than 100% reduction as a result of the removal of nitrogen from existing groundwater (and site generated nitrogen) passing beneath the site. As a result, the proposed project is not expected to contribute to declining water quality and will in fact improve water quality. Consequently, no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified to groundwater or surface water resources.

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

3.1.2 Comment G-2

“On April 23, 2013, the Environment Division verified the accuracy of the wetland boundary, as delineated by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis. Prior to verifying the accuracy of the wetland boundary, the Environment Division indicated that the Town's Wetland Jurisdiction would extend only fifty (50) feet landward of mean high water provided that subject premises contained a functional bulkhead or revetment, greater than 100 linear feet in length, and that no wetlands extended landward of said bulkhead or revetment. Based upon the April 23, 2013 inspection, it appears that mean high water extends landward of the existing bulkhead/revetment on the southern portion of the parcel. Therefore, the DEIS needs to be revised to indicate that the Town's Wetlands Jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the delineated wetland boundary. A wetlands permit, issued by the Planning Board during the site plan process, will be required for any construction within 200 feet of the verified wetland boundary.”

Response: It is acknowledged that, due to the presence of the apparent high water (AHW) mark landward of the existing concrete revetment, the Town’s jurisdiction in the southern portion of the property extends 200 feet from the delineated wetland boundary in this area. In the central and northern portions of the site where there is an existing, functional bulkhead, the Town’s jurisdiction extends 50 feet from the AHW line. As a result, a Town wetland permit will be required from the Town Planning Board for construction within 200 feet of the southern portion of the parcel and 50 feet within the central and northern portions of the parcel.

It should be noted that the Revised Plan for the Canal Property has been designed to provide the maximum setback from the wetland boundary practicable given the constraints of the site. In the southern portion of the site, a full setback cannot be provided. As a result, relief will be requested from the Town Planning Board under Town Code Section 325-9; however, the Revised Plan has been designed to address Conservation Board comments and includes a minimum 25-foot non-disturbance and non-fertilization buffer along the south part of the site. The Town Board will additionally require that there be no building or encroachment of structures seaward of the crest of the small bluff above the boat basin, and all existing vegetation will be maintained. Buildings and accessory structures will be significantly setback from wetlands associated with Shinnecock Canal and the overall site conditions with respect to wetlands will be improved dramatically through stormwater containment, as compared with the existing uncontrolled runoff and sedimentation that occurs under current conditions.

3.1.3 Comment G-3

“The applicant is proposing to construct various improvements on the Canal property, including residential units, a swimming pool with deck, noise attenuation walls and a boardwalk. Some of these structures are proposed zero (0) feet from the wetland boundary, where 100 feet is required by Section 325-7B(9) of the Town Code. Furthermore, the applicant is seeking to grade and landscape less than five (5) feet landward of the wetlands,

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

where buffer, extending seventy five (75) feet landward of the wetland, is required by the aforementioned section of the Town Code. Although some relief, from the required setback and vegetated buffer requirements, can be granted by the Conservation or Planning Boards, both Boards consistently require the establishment of a covenanted naturally vegetated wetlands non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer. The Conservation Board strongly recommends re-designing the proposed project to increase the structural setbacks to the wetlands and to provide a naturally vegetated non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer extending, at a minimum, twenty five (25) feet landward of wetlands. The nondisturbance/non-fertilization buffer could allow for construction of a public promenade with interpretive signage, as recommended by the Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District plan.”

Response: The Revised Plan has been designed to conform to all applicable Town requirements in regard to building setbacks from the wetland line on the Canal Property (see Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties). As such, with the exception of the public viewing/fishing platform, the buildings, grading, drainage area, etc. have been moved out of this area. As the nature of the viewing/fishing platform or any type of public promenade/boardwalk along the waterfront is such that it must be within the 25-foot wetland boundary area, a wetland permit will be necessary and requested from the Town for this feature. As the vegetation that currently exists in this area is severely impacted by the previous uses, the applicant will revegetate this setback area with appropriate natural species that will, over time, restore the natural tidal wetland habitat of this setback area.

3.1.4 Comment G-4

“As stated in Item 1 above, all of the parcels are located within the South Shore Estuary Reserve watershed, while the Canal parcel is also located within the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area. Section 3.2.2.3 of the DEIS does not address the projects compliance with the Peconic Estuary and SSER Comprehensive Management Plans.”

Response: It should be noted that the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) was not named in the Town’s final scoping document for the Draft EIS, and that the proposed project’s conformance to the South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) was contained in Section 3.2.2.3 (pages 3-31 to 3-34) of the Draft EIS and updated for the Revised Plan, as follows:

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 1. Adopt best management practices to control drainage, erosion and sedimentation prior to and during construction.

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

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. 2. 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.

3. 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. Landscaping will enhance the site setting for wildlife, and practices for pick-up-after-your-pet will be promoted.

9. Adopt marina and recreational boating best management practices, and educate marina patrons about specific best management practices. The project’s 17-boatboat basin/floating dock 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 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. Wastewater from the CPI Property will either be handled in a new septic system to be placed on that property as well as a Permeable Reactive Barrier that will improve water quality by reducing nitrogen or with a similar active NitrexTM system. 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 1. 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

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

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. The proposed project will feature a landscape plan that will favor native species and will improve site conditions for wildlife species as compared with the current site conditions that have non-native and invasive species present.

4. 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 enhanced.

• 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 proposes the construction of a walkway and viewing/fishing platform in the southwestern portion of the Canal Property, for the use and enjoyment of the public. The Town Board may consider all opportunities for expanding public shoreline access, including the provision of a public promenade.

2. Improve and sustain the levels of public access and recreation opportunity at existing sites. The proposed public parking area, walkway and viewing/fishing platform 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. The Town Board may consider all opportunities for expanding public shoreline access, including the provision of a public promenade. The continuation of the use of the existing boat dock with 17 slips and the existing floating dock will maintain and expand existing recreational use of the estuary and continued support of the local marine businesses.

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 includes a public access easement to the Town Paumanok Path connectivity along the northern portion of the Eastern property. . The applicant will also provide roadway,

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

bicycle and pedestrian improvements linking both sides of the Canal to the RWB district occurring south of Canoe Place Road and provide improvements to the existing Shinnecock Canal Park that is adjacent to the CPI.

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 six Community Benefits (rehabilitation of the CPI facility, monetary contribution for open space preservation, public parking area and walkway to a viewing platform on the Shinnecock Canal, roadway improvements, Paumanok Path easement and installation of a PRB at CPI). 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 and designing the Canal buildings to be contextually appropriate with traditional seaside architecture.

• 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. The applicant will also provide roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements linking both sides of the Canal to the RWB district occurring south of Canoe Place Road and may be required to provide improvements to the existing Shinnecock Canal Park that is adjacent to the CPI. The marina will remain and is a water- dependent use and the south part of the site will feature a public access component which is water dependent for enjoyment of scenic vistas and recreational fishing along Shinnecock Canal.

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. The marine and residential nature of the project will enhance the existing commercial

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

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 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 5. 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 public access (viewing/fishing platform or promenade) and linkages to the Paumanok Trail could be enhanced with interpretive signage or other minor improvements as part of a Town interpretive system.

The following presents the measurable goals of the Peconic Estuary Program CCMP and discusses the Revised Plan’s conformance.

Brown Tide • Continue to better coordinate, focus and expand Brown Tide research efforts (measured by funding appropriated, frequency of Brown Tide symposiums and frequency of updating the Brown Tide Workplan and coordinations within the Brown Tide Steering Committee). • Continue the current level of water quality sampling in the Peconic Estuary (measured by the number and frequency of samples taken per year and the number of bays and peripheral embayments sampled). Currently, the Suffolk County Department of HealthServices conducts biweekly monitoring at 32 stations in the Peconic Estuary throughout the year, resulting in over 830 samples taken annually.

The Revised Plan will conform to the Brown Tide-related goal of the PEP CCMP, by minimizing the potential for non-point runoff and sanitary recharge to reach surface water resources, and thereby would help to minimize the creation of Brown Tides. This will be achieved by inclusion of a drainage system that will prevent runoff from flowing off the site’s land surface into the Shinnecock Canal, and by use of a Nitrex™ system for treatment and disposal of wastewater from the Canal Property as well as installation of a new sanitary system on the CPI property coupled with installation of a PRB (see Figure 1-1) to remove groundwater nitrogen.

Nutrient Pollution • Decrease the total nitrogen concentrations in the western estuary to a summer mean of no more than 0.45 mg/ (based on 1994-96 model verification conditions, and measured by surface water nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines). Improve the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the western estuary to ensure that the New York State dissolved oxygen standard (currently 5.0 mg/l) is not violated (measured by surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). • Ensure that the total nitrogen levels in shallow waters remain at or below 0.4 mg/l to help optimize water clarity, maintaining and potentially improving conditions for eelgrass beds, a

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

critical habitat (based on 1994-96 model verification conditions, and measured by light extinction coefficients as compared to the recommended eelgrass habitat optimization goal of at or below 0.75 ± 0.05 m-1). • Ensure that the existing nitrogen and dissolved oxygen levels are maintained or improved in waters east of Flanders Bay (i.e., do not increase TN nor decrease DO) (measured by surface water total nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines and surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). • Develop a quantitative total nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary (measured by development of a strategy and timely endorsement by local and State agencies). Preliminary work group estimates, and work performed by other programs, indicate that a 10-25 percent fertilizer reduction goal is a reasonable first order target for existing residential and agricultural fertilizer programs. • Implement a quantitative nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary (measured by attaining the PEP recommendations including the implementation of the recommended Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program, as well as other recommendations, which may include fertilizer reduction programs, sanitary system upgrade programs, point source controls, etc., as well as monitoring for the impacts on measurable groundwater quality parameters). • Ensure that there is no substantial net increase in nitrogen loading to areas east of Flanders Bay and reductions in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region so that an increase in new development would be offset by reductions in loads from pre-existing uses. The nitrogen work groups will develop means of attaining this goal, which may include groundwater performance standards (e.g., nitrogen concentrations in groundwater resulting from post- development discharge/recharge), implementing fertilizer and clearing restrictions, and zoning. • Continue sponsoring and coordinating research and information gathering (measured by funding appropriated, and research conducted, relative to PEP recommendations). • Continue and expand open space acquisition programs (measured by funding appropriated and acres acquired in target areas). The Revised Plan conforms to the Nutrient Pollution-related goal of the PEP CCMP, in that its use of a drainage system that will retain all runoff on-site and an advanced wastewater treatment system will minimize the potential for nutrients to reach surface water resources.

Habitat and Living Resources • Protect the high quality and concentrations of species in the Critical Natural Resource Areas (measured by acres of open space protected and development of model ordinances). • Maintain current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reduce shoreline hardening structures by five percent (measured by the percent change of natural vs. hardened shorelines through GIS mapping). • Maintain current eelgrass acreage (2,100 acres in main stem of the estuary) and increase acreage by ten percent over 10 years (measured by inter-annual aerial surveys with GIS and SCUBA assessments). • Maintain and increase current tidal and freshwater marsh acreage, and restore areas that have been degraded (e.g., restricted flow, Phragmites australis dominated, hardened shoreline) (measured as number of acres of marsh with GIS). • Maintain a policy of no new mosquito ditches and not re-opening ditches that have filled-in by natural processes; and restore 10-15 percent of mosquito ditched marshes through Open

Page 3-8 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Marsh Water Management (measured by the number of acres of restored tide marsh using Open Marsh Water Management). • Increase the number of piping plover pairs to 115 with productivity at 1.4 (over a three-year average), distributed across the nesting sites in the Peconic Estuary (measured by annual piping plover surveys). • Develop recommendations and guidelines to reduce impacts to marine life from dredging- related activities (measured by amount of reduced dredging volumes and protected benthic habitat acreage). • Foster sustainable recreational and commercial finfish and shellfish uses of the Peconic Estuary compatible with biodiversity protection (measured by juvenile finfish trawl surveys, bay scallop landings, and identifying, protecting, and restoring key shellfish and finfish habitat). • Enhance the shellfish resources available to harvesting through reseeding, creation of spawning sanctuaries and habitat enhancement (measured by scallop and clam abundance/landings). • Link land usage with habitat quality in tidal creeks (measured by continued funding of benthic and water quality surveys to measure the quality/impacts to the habitats within selected tidal creeks). • Ensure that the existing and future aquaculture (shellfish and finfish) and transplanting activities are situated in ecologically low-productive areas of the estuary and that they are mutually beneficial to the aquaculture industry, natural resources, and water quality (measured by the extent and location of aquaculture/transplant facilities, water quality measures, and natural resource data). • Annually initiate five percent of the projects identified in the Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan for the Peconic Estuary (measured by the number of projects funded and implemented annually). The Revised Plan will conform to the ecology-related goal of the PEP CCMP, by minimizing the acreage of habitat on the Canal Property to be cleared, avoiding impact within the tidal wetlands line, by restoring damaged shoreline along the east bank of the Shinnecock Canal, and by planting new tidal wetland buffer vegetation upland of this shoreline.

Pathogens and Closed Shellfish Beds • Maintain current level of lands available to shellfish harvesting, with the ultimate aim of re- opening lands currently closed to harvesting (measured through coliform levels and numbers of acres of shellfish beds available to harvest). • Maintain and improve water quality of the estuary through a reduction of overall stormwater runoff, particularly key areas identified through the Regional Stormwater Runoff Study (measured through the number of stormwater remediation projects implemented). • Eliminate all vessel waste discharge to the estuary (measured by the adoption/implementation of a Vessel Waste No Discharge Area in the Peconic Estuary, the number of pump-out facilities and the volume of waste pumped annually). • Attain a zero discharge of stormwater runoff in new subdivisions (measured by site plans for new development that achieve this goal and the development of new ordinances and Habitat Protection Overlay Districts).

The Revised Plan conforms to the Pathogen and Shellfish bed-related goal of the PEP CCMP by its use of drainage and advanced wastewater treatment systems that minimize the potential for pathogens (in either runoff or sanitary recharge) to reach surface water resources, and potentially impact

Page 3-9 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS shellfish beds. Further, the small boat basin/floating dock will not include any boat waste pump-out system, so that this potential source of pathogens will not be present on the subject property.

Toxics • Improve the quality of the ambient environment (surface waters, groundwaters, sediments and biota) where there is evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources (as measured by surface water, groundwater, sediment and biota monitoring programs). • Comply with schedules for conducting site characterizations, remedial actions and post- remedial monitoring at hazardous waste sites; effectively characterize risks and protect human health and the environment at hazardous waste sites; ensure compliance with permit limits for point source discharges (as measured by compliance with schedules at hazardous waste sites; conducting effective characterizations; and point source monitoring). • Decrease overall emissions of reportable toxics from the five East End towns (as measured by the Federal Toxics Release Inventory). • Eliminate holdings of banned, unneeded and unwanted pesticides and hazardous substances by 2005 (as potentially measured by collections during “Clean Sweep” programs, household hazardous waste collection programs and events, or surveys of farmers/commercial landscapers/homeowners). • Decrease overall agricultural/residential/institutional pesticide applications in the five East End towns (as potentially measured by point-of-sale surveys, surveys of residents, or commercial applicator tallies). • Eliminate to the maximum extent practicable, pesticide applications on turf grass on all publicly held land by 2003 (as potentially measured by resolutions passed [or equivalent]). • Eliminate underground storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements via incentive programs and public education and outreach (as potentially measured following baseline established of number of underground storage tanks [USTS] and monitoring of the number of underground tanks removed, retired and replaced). • Decrease the total amount of treated lumber installed in the marine/estuarine environment (as potentially measured by baseline established from shoreline surveys and monitoring of permits issued for bulkheading installations, replacements, and removal). • Reduce the number of two stroke marine engines in use in the estuary (as potentially measured by harbormaster conducted surveys). The Revised Plan conforms to the Toxics-related goal of the PEP CCMP by its use of drainage and advanced wastewater treatment systems that minimize the potential for toxic substances (in either runoff or sanitary recharge) to reach surface water resources. Further, as discussed in Section 1.1.1 of the Draft EIS, UST removal and associated soil remediation on the Canal Property will be performed in conformance with established NYSDEC regulations and requirements.

Critical Lands Protection Since the actual Critical Lands Protection Plan still needs to be developed, there are no measurable goals associated with this strategy at this point. Measurable goals will be developed and included in the Post-CCMP annual report. As the Critical Lands Protection Plan has yet to be developed, a discussion of the Revised Plan’s conformance to its goals is not possible at this time.

Public Education and Outreach • Annually, embark on one new, substantial public education effort addressing each of the following areas:

Page 3-10 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

- Conducting Brown Tide education and outreach - Reducing residential fertilizer use in the Peconic watershed; - Improving, protecting or enhancing habitats and living resources; - Reducing pathogen loadings to the estuary; and - Reducing the use and loadings of toxics substances to the estuary (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). • Annually, conduct one major watershed effort involving students in estuary management (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory committee). • Annually, conduct one major watershed-wide event to educate those who live, work, or recreate in the Peconics (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). • Annually, support the establishment of one new local embayment or tidal creek association (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). These goals refer to specific public outreach actions to be undertaken by those administrators and participating entities in the PEP, and not at the individual owners of lands within the PEP. Therefore, an analysis of the Revised Plan’s conformance to these goals is not applicable.

Financing • Effectively use existing funding and secure new or additional governmental funding for CCMP implementation from the following sources; - Federal Government, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture; - State Government, particularly the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and State Revolving Loan Fund; - CountyGovernment, particularly the Suffolk County ¼% Sales Tax Program; - Town Governments; and - Village Governments (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). • Secure new or additional private sector funding for CCMP implementation, from the following sources: - Businesses; and - Not for profit organizations (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). These goals refer to specific sources of funding to help implement the CCMP, and not at the individual owners of lands within the PEP. Therefore, an analysis of the Revised Plan’s conformance to these goals is not applicable.

Plan Implementation and Post-CCMP Management • Implement the Peconic Estuary Program Environmental Monitoring Plan. • Produce annual reports. • Update municipal officials. • Develop sub-watershed implementation plans (as measured by the number of sub-watershed plans initiated). These goals refer to specific future actions to be undertaken by those administrators and participating entities in the PEP, and not at the individual owners of lands within the PEP. Therefore, an analysis of the Revised Plan’s conformance to these goals is not applicable.

Page 3-11 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.1.5 Comment G-5

“Based upon review of the SONIR Nitrogen Loading Model criteria, it appears that the model calculates potential nitrogen concentrations based upon sanitary effluent and stormwater recharge. Although Sections 2.2.1.2 through 2.2.2.3 discusses groundwater impacts, the DEIS does not address the potential impacts the proposed nitrogen loads will have on surface water quality. According to the "Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area, Including Waterbodies Currently Impaired Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen: the Lower Peconic River and Tidal Tributaries; Western Flanders Bay and Lower Sawmill Creek; and Meetinghouse Creek, Terry's Creek and Tributaries" prepared by Peconic Estuary Program in September 2007, groundwater input accounted for approximately 54% of existing nitrogen inputs entering the lower Peconic River. Calculation of this baseline groundwater nitrogen load was based, in part, on existing land use. The DEIS needs to discuss how the proposed construction and its associated groundwater nitrogen loading, will impact water quality within the Shinnecock Canal and Shinnecock Bay.”

Response: The comment references Peconic Estuary Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as a source of the percentage of nitrogen inputs to the Peconic River (54%) indicating that nitrogen load was determined based on existing land use for the Peconic Estuary. A TMDL provides a watershed specific analysis of nitrogen loading and establishes goals for nitrogen reduction based on the known sources and control measures to reduce nitrogen influx. The inputs of nitrogen to the Peconic River are therefore specific to that watershed and the nitrogen sources therein, and are not applicable to Shinnecock Canal and Bay. Differences between the Peconic River and the subject site with respect to nitrogen contribution include: population densities, lot sizes, sewering, outflow to a river system rather than a bay system, stormwater runoff, fertilization practices, waterfowl and other less significant nitrogen sources. Therefore, the relative contribution of groundwater nitrogen input for the Peconic is not the same as for the area of the subject site adjoining Shinnecock Bay.

It is acknowledged that Shinnecock Bay is impaired relative to nitrogen, and therefore there is a need to reduce nitrogen loading to this water body through groundwater, to a level below current criteria.

SCDHS establishes population densities for unsewered areas through Article 6 of the SCSC. If population densities are exceeded, wastewater treatment is required. In such cases, effluent limitations for nitrogen in wastewater discharges are established (10 mg/l). Both measures are intended to control groundwater nitrogen. The 208 Study, which was used as a basis for Article 6 considered hydrogeologic zones on Long Island as related to their proximity to surface water (i.e., zones near the shoreline that contribute to surface water quality) and/or their position with respect to “deep” aquifer recharge areas (i.e., zones in the center of Long Island that recharge deep aquifers and are important for water supply). SCDHS used information from the 208 Study to establish Groundwater Management Zones for the purpose of implementation of Article 6. The subject site is located in Groundwater Management IV, which allows 20,000 SF residential

Page 3-12 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

lot size, which is essentially equivalent to two (2) residential units per acre or 600 gpd/acre of sanitary flow.

SCDHS also recognizes “grandfathered” flow as related to existing uses that have historically existed since prior to 1980 when Article 6 was adopted. In such cases where uses existed prior to 1980, recognized grandfathered flow may not be exceeded.

The proposed project will conform to Article 6 of the SCSC by not exceeding the grandfathered flow for the CPI Property, and by providing wastewater treatment with an effluent that will not exceed 10 mg/l of nitrogen for the Canal and Eastern Properties. Additional analysis and safeguards beyond conformance with Article 6 was also provided in the Draft EIS. Further, this Final EIS outlines measures that significantly reduce nitrogen loading, specifically the NitrexTM system proposed for the Canal and Eastern Properties will achieve a nitrogen concentration of 3 mg/l in effluent, and a new sanitary system coupled with a PRB (see Figure 1-1) will be installed at the CPI Property, such that greater than 100% nitrogen removal will be achieved as a result of nitrogen removal from the existing aquifer. In order to achieve the 100% nitrogen reduction goal, either an active or passive alternative sewage treatment system will be chosen by the Town Board as part of the CPI component of the MPDD development. If the passive PRB option with conventional subsurface sanitary system is chosen, a monitoring protocol of the Nitrogen output may be required by the Town Board to both study and determine the long term effectiveness of this approach.

SONIR is used to determine the concentration of nitrogen in recharge to groundwater. It considers sanitary and fertilizer nitrogen in a mass-balance model that is recognized as an appropriate method for analysis of nitrogen concentrations at the property lines of a project site. This method is useful to determine groundwater nitrogen resulting from a project in comparison to existing water quality, the drinking water standard and other nitrogen concentration goals within a watershed. In terms of other nitrogen concentration goals, SCDHS has established a 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. In the Draft EIS, SONIR results for existing conditions indicated the following (see Table 1-5 of the Draft EIS): for the CPI Property(assuming “grandfathered” flow conditions), nitrogen in recharge would be 13.50 mg/l; for the Canal Property (assuming occupancy of the restaurants, bait shop and residences), the concentration of nitrogen in recharge would be 5.26 mg/l; and for the Eastern Property the existing nitrogen is 0.01 mg/l. SONIR results for proposed conditions in the Draft EIS indicated the following: for the CPI Property, nitrogen in recharge would be 6.66 mg/l; for the Canal Property, the concentration of nitrogen in recharge would be 0.44 mg/l; and for the Eastern Property the nitrogen level would be 4.34 mg/l. In contrast, the corresponding SONIR results for the Revised Plan are: for the CPI Property, nitrogen in recharge would be 7.52 mg/l;1 for the Canal Property, the concentration of nitrogen in recharge would be 0.34 mg/l; and for the Eastern Property the nitrogen level would be 2.05 mg/l.

Based on the above findings, information in the Draft EIS leads to the following findings:

1 As noted in Table 1-5; installation of the PRB will remove nitrogen from the CPI Property and area groundwater resulting in a 103% reduction of nitrogen load (see Appendix M-1).

Page 3-13 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

• The handling of sanitary waste on the subject property conforms to applicable SCSC requirements; • Overall, nitrogen in recharge is reduced from existing conditions to the proposed conditions; • The concentration of nitrogen in recharge and nitrogen in effluent from the wastewater treatment facility is less than a management practice concentration of 7 mg/l within a 25-year groundwater to surface water contributing area.

In summary, the assessment performed for the Draft EIS accounts for wastewater handling as related to applicable regulations, as well as groundwater impacts and surface water impacts, and is valid as a means of assessing the potential impact of the project on groundwater. The subject site is not within the Peconic River watershed and therefore, groundwater contribution to surface water quality is not applicable. Given that the project conforms to Article 6, reduces nitrogen as compared with existing conditions, and does not exceed guidance values for areas within a 25- year contributing area, sufficient analysis was completed for the Draft EIS to address potential groundwater and surface water impacts.

3.1.6 Comment G-6

“The DEIS does not include a conceptual landscape and landscape maintenance plan. The Conservation Board strongly recommends that a conceptual landscape plan, establishing a naturally vegetated wetlands non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer, be submitted. The conceptual landscape plan should incorporate the use of native plants, suitable to a seaside environment, to landscape the proposed improvements. Incorporating native plants, into the landscape plan, and minimizing the application of fertilizers and pesticides will help to reduce nitrogen and contaminant loads entering the Shinnecock Canal and the Shinnecock Bay Complex.”

Response: Refer to the Conceptual Planting Plan, Canal Properties for a depiction of the landscape plantings on these parcels, including the tidal wetland plantings in the 25-foot setback area on the Canal Property. The landscape concept will favor reduced turf and use of native plantings throughout the property in order to provide compatible and low maintenance species that will enhance the site and require less fertilizer and irrigation than other varieties of landscaping.

3.1.7 Comment G-7

“Currently, the CPI property is vegetated with 3.21 acres of successional forests or successional old fields. The applicant is proposing to clear 100% of the CPI parcel. Based upon a site assessment, conducted on July 22, 2013, this natural vegetation is located in the northwest corner of the parcel. Although this area is not subject to any proposed grading, the applicant is proposing to remove all existing vegetation. The Conservation Board strongly recommends retaining the existing natural vegetation and supplementing the areas immediately around the existing cottages with native plantings. The retention of the existing vegetation,

Page 3-14 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

and supplementation with native plantings, will reduce habitat loss and reduce the usage of fertilizer dependent plant species.”

Response: As noted on Figure 2-5a of the Draft EIS, there exists 2.07 acres of Successional Southern Hardwood Forest for the CPI Property. The vegetation represented on this site occurs due the clearing of the site as a result of the construction of the five cottages in the early 1920’s and the subsequent establishment after site disturbance. There are present certain ornamental plantings which appear to have been installed soon after the cottages were completed. There are Arborvitae, Norway Spruce, Spirea and other typical ornamental plantings which have survived the lack of maintenance over the years. There has been extensive deer browse of this vegetation which has affected the quality of the plants in this area, particularly Western Red Cedar. Also the lack of landscape maintenance has allowed invasive vines to overtake the larger plant material which has also affected the quality of the existing trees and shrubs.

Due to the proposed grading around the cottages, the area north of the three northerly cottages is not proposed to be graded at this time. There are some ornamental trees which may be able to be incorporated into a proposed landscape of the area. The applicant proposes to augment the proposed landscape around the cottages as well as throughout the site with plant material mentioned in the Town of Southampton Environmental Division List of Native Plants which includes trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The applicant will use mainly native plants on the periphery of the property to provide visual screening and separation. Adjacent to the Inn, a mix of native plants and ornamental plant material will be used, to enhance the landscape aesthetic of the site. These plantings will be maintained to preserve their quality using the latest IPM, organic maintenance practices.

The following partial plant list is representative of the plant material contemplated for use in the entire landscape of the project:

Acer rubrum – Red Maple Betula populifolia - Grey Birch Fraxinus americana – White Ash Ilex glabra - Inkberry LIguidambar styracifolia – Sweet Gum Ilex verticullata - Winterberry Liridendron tulipifera – Tulip Tree Hamamelis virgininia – Witch Hazel Quercus alba – White Oak Myrica pensylvanica – Bayberry Quercus coccinea – Scarlet Oak Viburnum dentatum - Arrowwood Amelanchier canadensis – Shadbush Andropogon gerardi – Big Blue Stem Fagus granidfolia – American Beech Andropogon scoparius – Little Blue Stem Cornus florida – Flowering Dogwood Panicum virgatum – Switch Grass Ilex opaca – American Holly Distichlis spicata – Spike Grass Juniperus virginiana – Eastern Red Cedar Rosa virginiana – Virginia Rose

The overall landscape concept will be to retain select historically placed ornamental species where possible, remove damaged vegetation, and supplement the landscape plan with species identified as suitable by the Town, particularly in the northwest part of the CPI Property. Other areas will feature reduced turf and use of native species with limited ornamental species in areas more proximate to the CPI building. This concept will ensure an attractive site setting, will

Page 3-15 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

retain vegetation where practical and will minimize the maintenance of landscaping by using low fertilizer and irrigation dependent species.

3.1.8 Comment G-8

“According to the Section 2.1 (Soils) of the DEIS, the Canal parcel contains unconsolidated soils and a fluctuating water table, which renders the soil too weak to support traditional structural foundations. In light of this fact, the applicant should provide a construction methodology or foundation plan, which ensures that the proposed residential units, particularly Building 5 with the proposed basement recreation room, are structural sound and comply with Town and State Building Codes.”

Response: As discussed in Appendix C-9 of the Draft EIS (Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Canal Property) the field exploration revealed subsurface conditions of unconsolidated soils and a fluctuating water table, which is not surprising for a site located immediately adjacent to a water body. As such, the design program will incorporate a program of selective removal of substandard materials, and construction of all-new structures will be designed appropriately and, if required, founded on timber piles with concrete pile caps, which is the standard type of deep foundations used for wood-frame residential construction in these types of circumstances.

3.1.9 Comment G-9

“Section 2.1 (Soils) of the DEIS does not include a summary of soil types for the Eastern property. Upon review of the Suffolk County Soil Services maps, it appears that the Eastern property contains Fill Land, sandy (Fs); Carver and Plymouth sands, 3-15% slopes (CpC); and Carver and Plymouth sands, 15-35% slopes (CpE). The Carver and Plymouth sands have severe development limitations for sewage disposal fields due to slopes. The DEIS needs to be revised to include a soil summary for the Eastern property, as well as a discussion on the soil limitations.”

Response: The Canal and Eastern Properties share the same set of soils. The sub-section, Eastern Property of Section 2.1.1.1 of the Draft EIS did address in detail the soil regime and limitations of the Eastern Property, as follows:

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.[emphasis added] The 2006 Phase I ESA addressed the Eastern Parcel and no REC’s were identified. The Phase II ESA report findings and conclusions as well as the J.R. Holzmacher Geotechnical Report results concern only the Canal Property.

Page 3-16 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

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.

However, Table 2-1b of the Draft EISfailed to note that it should have included the Eastern Property; this table has been corrected, and follows:

Table 2-1b SOIL LIMITATIONS, Canal & Eastern Properties

Carver Plymouth Carver Plymouth Use FillLand, 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.

Page 3-17 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.1.10 Comment G-10

“The applicant did not provide a cut and fill plan for the Eastern Property. Pursuant to Section 1.4.1.3 of the DEIS, the applicant estimates approximately 1,200 cubic yards of fill will be removed from the site. The DEIS needs to be revised to include a cut and fill plan for the Eastern Property.”

Response: The Revised Plan includes a plan that depicts the anticipated earthwork for the Eastern Property (see Cut and Fill Plan, Canal Properties). An estimated 8,530 CY of soil will be excavated, as 1,000 CY to install the Nitrex™ WWTF, and 7,530 CY for grading (of which about 230 CY will be retained on the property as fill). The remainderof the material will be removed by truck, for re-use elsewhere as fill or disposal at an approved landfill. The proposed retaining wall depicted on the plans from North Road for the WWTF on the Eastern property will be submitted in cross section to the Town Board in order to assess visual impacts and consider this alternative placement in the Findings. It is noted here that the revised plan may have more significant impacts than the initial proposal and the Town Board will require another alternative that reduces the need for substantial re-grading, soil removal and clearing of natural vegetation.

3.1.11 Comment G-11

“The "Concept Site Plan "prepared by Bowne AE&T Group on August 12, 2011, last revised June 18, 2013 depicts the proposed location of the Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF). It does not appear that the proposed laboratory building complies with the 75 ft. setback, from property lines, required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.”

Response: The Final Master Plan Reportfor the Canal and Eastern Properties (see Appendix N)and associated drawing of the NitrexTM WWTF (see Figure 1-2), as well as the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, show that the laboratory building complies with the 75-foot setback requirement.

3.1.12 Comment G-12

“The “Cut and Fill Plan”-prepared by Bowne AE&T Group on August 12, 2011, last revised June 18, 2013 does not depict the location of the force main, from the Canal property, to the Eastern Property. The plan needs to be revised, or a new plan drafted, which depicts the location of the proposed force main between the Eastern Property and the Canal property.”

Response: Figure 1-2and the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties presents the layout of the wastewater collection system and NitrexTM WWTF, consisting of septic tanks and effluent pumps with the force main that is to convey sanitary waste to the facility.

Page 3-18 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.1.13 Comment G-13

“Additionally, the DEIS does not provide a construction protocol for the installation of the force main, across a heavily trafficked County road. The applicant needs to prepare a construction protocol which minimizes impacts to existing traffic and is compliant with the Suffolk County Department of Public Works Construction Work or Access Permit.”

Response: The force main will use either directional drilling or bore pits to go under North Shore Road (CR 39) from the Canal Property to the Eastern Property, or will trench or use trench boxes when the proposed road improvements are made, in compliance with SCDPW requirements.

3.1.14 Comment G-14

“The DEIS does not address how the effluent, generated by the proposed residential units will be transported to the WWTF pump house, which is approximately ten (10) feet higher in elevation than the proposed units.”

Response: As shown in Figure 1-2, wastewater generated by the proposed residential units on the Canal Property will flow by gravity from the buildings to septic tanks. Then septic tank effluent will be pumped to a common force main on the Canal Property and then under North Shore Road (CR 39) to the NitrexTM WWTF.

3.1.15 Comment G-15

“The “Cut and Fill Plan” prepared by Bowne AE&T Group on August 12, 2011, last revised June 18, 2013 depicts the location of the proposed location of the pump house, force main from the pump house to the WWTF, and utilities. However, the clearing associated with the installation of the utilities and construction of the pump house and force main is approximately 2,600 square feet. The DEIS needs to address whether the habitat loss, associated with the additional clearing, can be reduced and/or avoided through installation of utilities within the Canoe Place Road/Wildwood Lane Right of Ways or via directional drilling.”

Response: See Response, Section 3.1.13. Use of either of these techniques would reduce the amount of ground disturbance required to install the force main, so that the potential for adverse impacts to wildlife from habitat loss would be minimized.

Page 3-19 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.1.16 Comment G-16

“Pursuant to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by RJS Environmental in May 2012, the Canoe Place Inn may contain damaged asbestos containing materials. The DEIS needs to be revised to include the Asbestos Remediation Plan.”

Response: Remediation (removal and or encapsulation) will be accomplished in full compliance with 12 NYCRR Part 56 (New York State Department of Labor Industrial Code 56) where asbestos- containing materials may be disturbed by construction activities (or is presently in a hazardous condition) upon Change of Zone approval. More specifically, an environmental consultant will be retained to draft up specifications for the abatement contractor based on planned construction activities. The contractor’s abatement activity will be monitored by a third-party environmental consultant to insure code compliance during abatement.

3.1.17 Comment G-17

“The "Shinnecock Canal Public Access Sites and Maritime Planned Development District" plan recommends construction of a public access promenade which extends the entire length of the Canal parcel, that connects Montauk Highway to the marinas located along the northern side of the canal. The "Concept Site Plan" needs to be revised to be consistent with this recommendation.”

Response: As shown on the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties, the applicant proposes to provide direct, public waterfront access at the southern end of the Canal Property from a new public parking lot located at the corner of North Shore Road and Old Montauk Highway. This will be subject to consummating the land transfer with Suffolk County. This public access will include a new wooden deck built behind and on top of the existing stone/concrete bulkhead located adjacent to the Old Montauk Highway abutment.

It has been determined by the NYSDEC that the southern end of the site, from this bulkhead to the existing deck area of the former restaurant, is not behind a bulkhead/revetment and therefore the adjacent area extends to the 10 foot contour. The plan has been designed to remove structures from this area. The Town of Southampton has jurisdiction within 200 feet; however, the Conservation Board has outlined a request for a permanent 25 foot no-disturbance, restored “wetland buffer” zone along the southern end of the site. It is the applicant’s position that the creation of a no-disturbance buffer zone is an important feature and that full access along the waterfront would impair this buffer and would not be compatible with the proposed development The Town Board is cognizant of the importance of public waterfront access in this location and attaining a balance between creating a wetland buffer and providing public access is part of the merit on which the Maritime PDD application is being considered. It is noted that there is continuous public waterfront access along the west side of the canal and as recommended in the Hampton Bays Corridor strategic plan the Town Board will seek to have the applicant provide

Page 3-20 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

upgrades to the Town Park there so that the park’s waterfront access ties together the two MPDD sites and the Park is enhanced, rather than hampered, by the adjacent development.

3.1.18 Comment G-18

“The Shinnecock Canal has been designated a Major Maritime Center by the “Long Island’s South Shore Bayway - Strategic Implementation and Marketing Plan Final Report,” prepared by the SSER Council and New York State Department of State. The DEIS needs to be revised to address the recommendations outlined in the aforementioned report. Particularly, compliance with Goal 10 (Enhancing the character and functionality of the Bayway Waterfront).”

Response: It should be noted that the Long Island’s South Shore Bayway - Strategic Implementation and Marketing Plan Final Report was not named in the Town’s final scoping document for the Draft EIS. Nevertheless, the plan is reviewed herein.

The following text describing the Bayway Plan and its relationship to the subject site has been taken from the Bayway Plan:

Introduction The Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve is a 500 square-mile region of shallow bays, marshes, and freshwater streams on the south shore of Long Island. This rich, scenic tidal landscape has been associated with Long Island’s economy, quality of life, and identity for centuries. But over the past 50 years, significant increases in human population have changed the relationship between people and the natural environment, reducing public access to the water and impacting the quality of the natural environment. To help overcome these problems, and to foster renewed appreciation of and access to the estuarine environment, the members of the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council, a partnership of government and non-government groups chaired by the New York State Secretary of State, are working together to promote restoration, stewardship, and enjoyment of the Reserve’s living resources and maritime traditions.

With technical assistance from the New York State Department of State, the Reserve Council prepared a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) in 2001. The CMP establishes a consensus- based blueprint for the protection and restoration of the estuary’s natural, cultural, and economic- related resources and recommends actions to improve water quality, restore and protect living resources, expand public use and enjoyment, sustain and expand the estuary-related economy, and increase education, outreach and stewardship of the Reserve.

The CMP also describes the unique characteristics of key locations within the Reserve where there are concentrations of water-dependent activities and identifies them as Maritime Centers. Finally, it establishes three major Reserve themes-Maritime Heritage, Protecting the Coast, and Enjoying the Estuary- to use as a basis for the management and interpretation of the Reserve’s human communities and diverse habitats.

In 2004, the Reserve Council completed a visioning process for enhancing public use, enjoyment and stewardship of the Reserve based on the goals described in the CMP- and the South Shore Bayway concept was born. The Council envisioned an enlightening, fun, and easy-to-navigate network of

Page 3-21 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

recreational, historic, cultural, and naturally beautiful maritime destinations that would encourage people to promote and explore the Reserve, raise public awareness about the natural and cultural resources within the Reserve, and encourage stewardship of Reserve resources.

The Shinnecock Canal Located in the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, this maritime center encompasses the area surrounding the Shinnecock Canal from Great Peconic Bay to Shinnecock Bay.

Settlement Long before the canal was conceived, members of the Shinnecock Nation portaged their canoes from Peconic Bay to Shinnecock Bay at this spot, a narrow isthmus they called Merosuck. In 1640, a group of settlers from Lynn, Massachusetts, purchased land from the Shinnecocks and founded the Town of Southampton- and the Merosuck area came to be known as Canoe Place. At first, development was slow and limited to Newton Road, where the Canoe Place Inn stood along with few nearby homes. The Shinnecock Canal opened in 1892, and the 20th century ushered in a period of increasingly robust commercial and residential development. The Shinnecock Nation still owns approximately 1,200 acres in this area, including reservation land on Shinnecock and Peconic bays near the northwest end of the canal.

Commerce and Industry The only operating navigational lock system on Long Island is the oldest continuously operating lock system in the state, the Shinnecock Canal connects Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay. Boaters from Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay can enter Shinnecock Bay and the Reserve via the north end of the canal without having to navigate around Montauk Point. They can then follow the Long Island Intracoastal Water Channel, which begins at the southern end of the canal, and goes westward through Moriches Bay, Great South Bay, South Oyster Bay, and Hempstead Bay to the western boundary of the Reserve at East Rockaway Inlet. The largest concentration of water dependent uses in the Town of Southampton is found in the Shinnecock Canal vicinity.

Recreation Many restaurants, marinas, hotels, charter fishing operators, and commercial fishing businesses can be found in the Shinnecock Canal vicinity. The Town of Southampton has purchased much of the land along the west side of the canal to develop as a public park and marina. Meschutt County Park, at the northeast corner of the canal on Dunes Road, offers direct beach access, a boat launch, and a playground.

The following presents the recommendations of the Bayway Plan, and discusses the Revised Plan’s conformance to each.

Goal 1: Improve interpretive signage consistent with New York State Coastal Resources Interpretive Program (NYSCRIP) guidelines and wayfinding signage throughout the Bayway. The applicant has heretofore not proposed Bayway-related signage on the subject sites, but is willing to provide such an amenity, if so requested by the Town in the SEQRA Findings Statement, or as a Condition of Approval.

Goal 2: Develop new boat launches to improve access to the open space, water, canals and rivers. Due to both the private residential nature proposed on the Canal Property as well as the strong currents associated with the ebb and flow of the daily tides associated with the

Page 3-22 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Shinnecock Canal, such a public facility would not be appropriate at that location, and is therefore not proposed.

Goal 3: Improve access to, and amenities for, existing marinas and boat launches. Due to the private residential nature proposed on the Canal Property, as well as the absence of a public marina or boat launch, improvements related to increased public access would not be appropriate on the Canal Property.

Goal 4: Improve existing community parks and create opportunities for new ones. The Revised Plan does not include plans to improve existing parkland, or provision of land for a new community park. However, the Town Board is committed to providing for public access along the Shinnecock Canal, and therefore the revised plan will have to account for providing public access as either the public promenade as recommended in the Town’s planning documents or the viewing/fishing platform as proposed. In addition, providing upgrades to the existing Town park would allow for the public to tie in the history of the CPI with the maritime park and integrate the developments on both sides of the Canal. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan will also donate $250,000 for Town discretionary use for open space enhancements, which could be used for such purposes.

Goal 5: Develop a network of pedestrian walkways, hiking, biking and water trails throughput the Bayway connecting destinations and areas of special interest. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will include appropriate linkage(s) to the Paumanok Trail, for the use and enjoyment of the public. Such linkages would include a public access easement to the Town along the northern portion of the Eastern Property for Paumanok Path connectivity. The applicant affirms his commitment to provide appropriate bicycle- and pedestrian-related amenities for the use and enjoyment of the public. More specifically and in addition to the public access (public viewing/fishing platform or promenade on the Canal Property), the applicant will provide sidewalks along the project property frontages of CR 80 (for the CPI Property and the Canal Property), Newtown Road (for the CPI Property), and North Shore Road (for the Canal Property). It is noted that the project is limited to providing an easement on the Eastern Property for public access to the Paumanok Path; the connection itself will be designed, constructed and maintained by the Town. It is expected that the details of the project’s public bicycle- and pedestrian-related amenities will be determined in discussions with the Town upon submission of the Final EIS, and specified in the local law and Findings Statement.

Goal 6: Work with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, and the New York State Department of Transportation to enhance important state and national park Bayway destinations and areas of special interest. The applicant has proposed a public viewing platform on the Canal Property and Paumanok Path connectivity on the Eastern Property, and will continue communications with these entities.

Goal 7: Promote and preserve cultural resources. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will promote cultural resources by rehabilitating the CPI structure and continuing the long-established public use of that property. The cultural resources of the overall development areas of the three sites have been evaluated and no significant resources have been identified. The use of the Canal Property will provide a

Page 3-23 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

cultural amenity in the form of a scenic vista along ShinnecockCanal, and the Eastern Property will provide passive open space and trail connection.

Goal 8: Improve parking facilities throughout the Bayway. The Revised Plan will provide the necessary and appropriate number of parking spaces within each project site, including public parking for access to the walkway and viewing/fishing platform, so that no adverse impact on local parking needs (including bordering roadways) is expected.

Goal 9: Improve transportation linkages to maritime centers, destinations, areas of special interest, and connectors. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will include linkage(s) to the Paumanok Trail (see above), a pedestrian trail and the scenic vista on the south side of the Canal Property provides a linkage to the Shinnecock Canal.

Goal 10: Enhance the characterand functionality of the Bayway waterfront. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will change the character of the portion of the Shinnecock Canal waterfront that borders the Canal Property. However, this change will enhance, not degrade, the quality and attractiveness of that frontage. The current site involves unstablized soil surfaces that erode and cause sedimentation to the Shinnecock Canal. The proposed site will restore a crumbling waterfront revetment and will remove uses that are currently near the Canal and involve untreated sanitary discharge to the canal. The marina will remain and will function as it currently does, but will be operated through the residential use. The new residences will be designed with architectural and landscape themes that are appropriate to the maritime, historic character of the canal area built environment, would not over-develop the site, or render the residences visually obtrusive or unattractive. The overall shoreline will be enhanced as a result of a 25 foot natural buffer along the southern unbulkheaded part of the property. Overall, the Revised Plan is expected to enhance the character of the waterfront, and will provide functionality in keeping with the intended use.

The “Long Island’s South Shore Bayway - Strategic Implementation and Marketing Plan Final Report,” has been evaluated, including specific consideration of compliance with Goal 10 (Enhancing the character and functionality of the Bayway Waterfront).”

3.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

3.2.1 Comment G-19 “The proposed project at the Canal property will require a Tidal Wetlands permit form this agency, and Table 1-7, “Permits and Approvals Required”, (Page1-49) should be updated to reflect this.”

Response: It is acknowledged that the Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will require a Tidal Wetlands permit from the NYSDEC. Table 1-7 of the Draft EIS has been revised accordingly(see below).

Page 3-24 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

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 (with relief for southern portion) 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) General Permit, Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands permit * Suffolk County Planning Commission. ** Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

3.2.2 Comment G-20

“The description of the proposed project indicates that a 17-slip marina will be created at the Canal property; however, the proposed marina is not shown on the Concept Site Plan included in the DEIS. The proposed marina should be included on the plans, and the potential impacts of the marina, including any possible interference with navigation in Shinnecock Canal, should be addressed in the DEIS at this time in order to avoid a segmentation or the review process contrary to the intent of SEQR (NYCRR Part 617.3 (g)).”

Response: The Revised Plan shows that neither the boat basin nor any of the existing facilities within it will be significantly upgraded; no new or additional boat slips are proposed, nor will there be boat pump-out systems provided. No separate marina or marine service facilities are proposed. The marina is an existing condition and is part of the characterization of the subject site in the Draft EIS. The proposed conditions are relatively unchanged from the existing conditions with respect to the marina. Since impact analysis is based on changes associated with the proposed project, this level of assessment is appropriate and was included in the Draft EIS. As a result, the marina has been considered and segmentation has not occurred.

3.2.3 Comment G-21

Page 3-25 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“Section 1.3.3.2 Canal Property - The second paragraph in this section should be updated to indicate that State as well as Town regulated wetlands exist in the area of the proposed boardwalk and that both State and Town wetlands permits will be required for the construction of the boardwalk.”

Response: It is acknowledged that both State and Town wetland permits will be necessary for the construction of a public viewing/fishing platform due to the location of the platform in proximity to tidal wetlands. The second paragraph in Section 1.3.3.2 of the Draft EIS is revised as follows:

“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 both State and Town-regulated tidal wetlands in the area of the proposed boardwalk, and as a result, permits from both the NYSDEC and the Town Conservation Board will be required for this feature. This amenity represents the second of the project’s three proposed Community Benefits.”

The applicant will obtain all necessary permits during the site plan review process and prior to construction. It is noted that the project has been redesigned such that the upland improvements are all beyond the limit of NYSDEC jurisdiction by situating the proposed buildings landward of the 10 foot contour. Other site improvements within the jurisdiction area will be subject to necessary permits from the Town and NYSDEC.

3.2.4 Comment G-22

“Section 2.3.1.4 Regulatory Conditions - The first paragraph in this section should be revised to indicate that the limit of NYSDEC's tidal wetlands jurisdiction ranges from the bulkhead in the center of the property to approximately 35' inland from the boat basin bulkhead at the northern end of the property to approximately 100' inland from the shoreline along the southern third of the property (See attached 10/29/2013 letter to Nelson, Pope & Voorhis detailing NYSDEC's limit of jurisdiction). The general description of NYSDEC’s Article 25 jurisdiction (fourth sentence in first paragraph) should be corrected as follows:

NYSDEC jurisdiction generally extends inland 300 feet from the tidal wetland boundary; however, this jurisdiction does not extend to areas landward of the 10 foot (MSL) elevation contour on a gradual, natural slope; or landward of the topographic crest of a bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10 feet in elevation; or landward of a substantial man-made legal structure that is greater than 100 feet long, was constructed prior to August 20, 1977, and has remained functional.”

Response: The NYSDEC limit of jurisdiction for Article 25 wetlands regulated under Part 661 is as follows: in the north part of the property, jurisdiction ends at the top of the slope; in the central part of the property, where there is currently a pre-existing bulkhead in and around Tiderunners restaurant, the jurisdiction ends at the bulkhead; and, in the south part of the property south of the bulkhead,

Page 3-26 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

jurisdiction extends to the 10 foot topographic contour. The top of slope, bulkhead and 10 foot contour are illustrated on the project plans. As a result, the following paragraph from Section 2.3.1.4 of the Draft EIS is revised as follows:

“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 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 generally extends inland 300 feet from the tidal wetland boundary; however, this jurisdiction does not extend to areas landward of the 10 foot (MSL) elevation contour on a gradual, natural slope; or landward of the topographic crest of a bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10 feet in elevation; or landward of a substantial man-made legal structure that is greater than 100 feet long, was constructed prior to August 20, 1977, and has remained functional. Inspection of the Canal Property by the NYSDEC revealed that the revetment located on the southern portion of the property is not functional, therefore, NYSDEC jurisdiction extends to the 10 foot contour in this area. Additionally, as the bulkhead on the northern portion of the property has not been present since prior to August 1977, NYSDEC jurisdiction extends to the top of the bluff in this area. NYSDEC does not have jurisdiction behind the bulkhead located in the central portion of the property due to the presence of the existing, functional structure that was constructed prior to August 1977.”

3.2.5 Comment G-23

“Section 2.2 Water Resources - This section of the DEIS must be updated to include a description of the existing tidal wetland resources in the vicinity of the site as well as a discussion of the impacts to those resources which can reasonably be expected to result from the proposed development.

As noted in 6NYCRR Part 661.2(e), coastal shoals, bars,and flats and littoral zones include areas of extreme variability in their contributions to marine food production and other tidal wetland values, and each such area requires a specific assessment of tidal wetland values. Some coastal shoals, bars and flats and some littoral zones are areas of extremely high biological productivity and are nearly or equally as important in this respect as intertidal marshes and coastal fresh marshes. Other areas are of tittle biological significance. Even in these relatively unproductive areas, however, values other than marine food production are often present, and these areas often have the potential to become more biologically productive in the future. Because of their location at the land-water interface, coastal shoals, bars and flats and littoral. zones play an important role in flood and hurricane and storm control. Similarly, because of their location at the land-water interface and because of their generally high levels of productivity, these areas have an important function in cleansing ecosystems and absorbing silt and organic materials.

Development alters flow patterns, causing water to collect and move more quickly across the ground. The limited setback at this site also significantly reduces the area over which runoff not captured by stormwater controls can be absorbed and filtered. Adverse impacts

Page 3-27 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

associated with increasing runoff include increased pollutant levels including nutrients, sediments and toxic substances such as petroleum products and pesticides; degradation of habitat through erosion or sedimentation and through the increased temperature of runoff which has been warmed by flowing over hot impervious surfaces, especially in summer; and the resultant reduction in aquatic biodiversity.

The functions and values of the tidal wetlands and adjacent area must be addressed in the DEIS. The potential impacts of the proposed project on those functions and values must also be evaluated and must include potential impacts from activities which would result in direct physical damage to the wetlands such as excavation, filling, etc., as well as impacts which would result from the increased stormwater runoff associated with the proposed increase in impervious surfaces with a limited setback to the waterbody. In recent years both Shinnecock Bay (part of the South Shore Estuary Reserve) and the Peconic Bay (a Suffolk County designated Critical Environmental Area) have been stressed with excessive nutrient build up. The DEIS must discuss the values· and current condition of these waterbodies in conjunction with an analysis of the potential impact of the project on the water quality of these important surface waters.”

Response: Section 2.4 of the Draft EIS includes a complete assessment of existing water resource conditions as well as an assessment of potential impacts. The Shinnecock Canal, the tidal wetland located in proximity to the Canal Property, is designated as an “LZ” wetland, or “littoral zone”, which is defined by the NYSDEC 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 Canal is also classified as “SC” waters whose use is best defined as “Suitable for fish, shellfish and wildlife propagation and survival. Also, suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.”

Shinnecock Canal is known to have strong currents associated with the ebb and flow of the daily tides, resulting in significant flushing of the Canal on a daily basis. As a result, pollutants carried from stormwater to the Canal have a short residence time within the waterway. Currently, stormwater, sediment and pollutants runs unabated from the Canal Property into the Canal.

The proposed project design will reduce the transport of pollutants to Shinnecock Canal and will improve the environmental conditions of the Canal Property. The north part of the site will ensure that all construction is placed landward of the crest of the bluff and as a result, impacts are not anticipated in this area. The south part of the site will provide a stabilized shoreline and will remove the unstabilized runoff conditions that impact the Canal at present. Rather than untreated sanitary waste, the project will convey effluent to the wastewater treatment facility on the Eastern Property thereby removing on-site untreated discharge. In addition, the south part of the site design contemplates a 25 foot non-disturbance, naturally vegetated buffer area to aid in retention of nutrients generated by on-site stormwater runoff and will prevent stormwater that is increased in temperature by the site’s impervious surfaces from entering the Canal. Additionally, all stormwater on-site will be captured by a drainage system designed to store for a

Page 3-28 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

two-inch storm event, further providing catchment of the “first flush” during a storm, in which the greatest quantity of pollutants is carried in stormwater to downstream waterbodies. As a result, the proposed project will improve conditions to the Canal as a reduction of pollutants entering the Canal from the subject property will be realized through the implementation of the proposed drainage system and the vegetated natural buffer.

3.2.6 Comment G-24

“Section 2.2.2.2 Canal Property - The first full paragraph on page 2-33 begins, "It is not anticipated that this decrease in volume will be sufficient to adversely impact hydrologic conditions beneath the site.” This section is addressing the significant decrease in recharge volume expected on the Canal property; however, the third sentence in this paragraph mentions an increase in recharge volume, "As a result, no significant increases in water table elevations or change in groundwater flow are expected from this increase in recharge volume.” This statement appears to conflict with the discussion that precedes it. This statement should be corrected or clarified.”

Response: The third sentence in the first paragraph on page 2-33 of the Draft EIS has been revised to read as follows:

As a result, no significant decreases in water table elevations or change in groundwater flow are expected from this decrease in recharge volume.

3.2.7 Comment G-25

“Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.2.3 Land Use Plans - These sections must be revised to include an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable coastal policies as provided by New York State’s Coastal Management Program.”

Response: It should be noted that an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the NYS Coastal Management Program was not included in the Town’s final scoping document for the Draft EIS. The following presents the applicable coastal policies and a response to each.

Policy 1: Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commerce, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses. Like the Prior Plan, the Revised Plan will rehabilitate the deteriorated CPI structure,and revitalize the use and condition of theCanal Property with a luxury townhouse development featuring public space (an access walkway and viewing/fishingplatform) and appropriate landscaping. The overall redevelopment represents a revitalization of under utilized and/or deteriorated site conditions.

Page 3-29 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Policy 2: Facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. The Revised Plan will retain the small existing boat basin/floating dock on the Canal Property, and incorporate it into the townhouse development on this property. Additionally, this site will also feature a public viewing platform.

Policy 4: Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities, which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. The development on the Canal Property will include an access walkway and viewing platform for the use and enjoyment of the public; a parking area for public use when using this feature will be provided, together with the continuation of the marine use of the boat basin and floating dock. The proposed uses will strengthen the local economy through investment in the community and generation of tax revenues. The occupants of the Canal Property will become patrons of goods and services in Hampton Bays that will further strengthen the local economy.

Policy 7: Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and where practicable, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats. The Revised Plan is the result of revisions to the Prior Plan undertaken in order to conform to Town and State tidal wetland regulations, to ensure no encroachment into protected tidal waters and associated wetland habitat. The project will remove pollutant sources to the nearby waterway. The project will also improve water quality as a result of wastewater treatment and installation of a PRB (see Figure 1-1) that will remove nitrogen from the existing aquifer. The Canal Property conditions will be environmentally improved as a result of landscaping using native species and control of stormwater runoff.

Policy 8: Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan does not include any use or generation of hazardous wastes. In regard to sanitary wastewater recharge, nitrogen levels will be minimized, so that (see also Policy 32), the potential for adverse impacts to surface or groundwater resources is minimized. Redevelopment of both sites will ensure cleanup of any conditions having to do with tanks, subsurface systems, asbestos and any hazardous materials that may be encountered.

Policy 9: Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources. Installation of a public access walkway and viewing/fishing platform will incrementally increase public access to the marine resources on the Shinnecock Canal. Other aspects of this policy do not apply to the proposed project.

Policy 11: Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. The proposed townhouse structures will be sited at elevations above sea level in conformance to applicable Federal, State and Town requirements, and at distances from

Page 3-30 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

the wetlands line that would minimize the potential for impact from flooding and/or erosion.

Policy 17: Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used wherever possible. The structures will be located at elevations and setbacks from the wetlands in conformance with appropriate Town requirements, which would reduce the potential for impacts from flooding and erosion associated with marine waters.

Policy 19: Protect, maintain and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities. The Revised Plan, like the proposed project, will change the intensity and character of public access to the Shinnecock Canal, within the Canal Property. Specifically, the prior commercial uses had allowed for the public to access the Shinnecock Canal all along its frontage, whereas the Revised Plan proposes to provide an access walkway and viewing platform for the public to use the site for purely recreational purposes. The Town Board is still considering the requirement for a continuous public access/promenade along the Canal frontage as part of the Townhouse revised plan. In addition, the Town Board seeks the public benefit of upgrades to the existing parkland on the west side of the Canal. Continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections will be made from the Canal Property extending along the CPI frontage to Cane Place Road to facilitate persons travelling to the RWB commercial district to the south as well as making a connection to the existing sidewalks on the south side of Montauk Highway that extend to the Hamlet Center.

Policy 22: Development, when located adjacent to the shore, will provide for water-related recreation, whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, includes recreational amenities for both the public (a new viewing/fishing platform along the Shinnecock Canal) and private (a small boat basin/floating dock) enjoyment. It is expected that site residents will make use of water- related recreation in the area thus strengthening the local economy.

Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology, or culture of the state, its communities, or the nation. A central feature both the Prior Plan and the Revised Plan is the rehabilitation of the deteriorated CPI structure, a much-loved community resource that helped establish the character of Hampton Bays. Cultural resources have been assessed and no significant adverse impact to cultural resources is expected as a result of the project.

Policy 25: Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. The townhouse structure in the Revised Plan will be sited at elevations closer to existing topography than had been assumed in the Prior Plan.. The architectural treatment afforded these buildings will be designed to complement the area’s historic architectural pattern and theme. Additionally, the Revised Plan will include a landscaping plan that minimizes potential aesthetic impacts for such observers. The Revised Plan has been

Page 3-31 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

modified to decrease elevations, open views, set back structures and improve the visual conditions across the site.

Policy 32: Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these communities. The Nitrex™ system proposed to treat and recharge the sanitary wastes generated on the Canal Property is innovative for Long Island and operates at a significantly higher efficiency and effectiveness than a system that would typically be installed for this purpose. The installation of a new sanitary system on the CPI Property, and placement of a PRB (see Figure 1-1) or the installation of an active Nitrex™ system will provide innovative water quality improvements that will reduce existing nitrogen concentrations in the aquifer that discharges to surface water downgradient of the site.

Policy 33: Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. The proposed stormwater systems on both the Canal and CPI Properties will not be combined flow systems, and will not overflow onto adjacent sites or into the Shinnecock Canal; as required by the Town, these systems will retain all runoff volume within their respective sites.

Policy 34: Discharge of wastes into coastal waters from vessels subject to state jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will retain the existing small (17 boats) boat basin/floating dock on the Canal Property, and will improve the boat facilities, including water and limited on-shore power provision. However, new gasoline and/or pump-out facilities are not planned or necessary, as boating support services are abundant in close proximity to the Canal Property. This would eliminate the site as a potential new source of impact to canal surface water quality.

Policy 37: Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. The stormwater system of the Revised Plan will, like that of the Prior Plan, retain all runoff on-site, so that all runoff will be recharged into the ground and not remaining free to flow overland into the Shinnecock Canal as non-point runoff. Natural buffers along the shoreline of the Canal Property will reduce non-point source discharge which currently occurs.

Policy 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. In the identical way as the Prior Plan, water resources used or generated on the site will be retained within the project area, where they will be properly treated and recharged into the ground. These include stormwater runoff and sanitary wastewater. It should be noted that the Town and County will review the drainage system and Nitrex™ system, respectively, and be responsible for the approval of each. These approvals would ensure that conformance to the respective standards of these reviews would document that no

Page 3-32 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

such impacts would occur. Water-saving devices will be incorporated into new construction in order to further conserve water resources.

Policy 41: Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause national or state air quality standards to be violated. The Revised Plan does not include any features or operations whose emissions would contravene State or Federal air quality standards

Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The Revised Plan, like the Prior Plan, will preserve and protect tidal wetlands by: conforming to Town and NYSDEC tidal wetland regulations, including (but not limited to) locating the structures outside the 2t-foot setback, keeping all runoff within the Canal Property, eliminating the potential for overland flow from developed surfaces from reaching the canal (as non-point flow), and treating and recharging all sanitary wastewater in a Nitrex™ system, which operates at a higher efficiency and effectiveness than a septic system (which is allowed in this application). Finally, the project will be subject to detailed Town, County and NYSDEC reviews and approvals as part of the Site Plan application process, ensuring that no significant adverse impacts to these resources will occur.

3.2.8 Comment G-26

“In addition, the Peconic Bay has been designated by Suffolk County as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The potential impact of the project on the environmental characteristics of the CEA must be evaluated in the DEIS.”

Response: It should be noted that the PEP CCMP was not named in the Town’s final scoping document for the Draft EIS, so that its status as a CEA was not noted in the Draft EIS. The Response, Section 3.1.4 presents the discussion of the proposed project’s conformance to the recommendations of the PEP CCMP that was included in the Draft EIS. These discussions address the proposed project’s potential impacts on the environmental characteristics and resources of the Peconic Estuary, which include (but are not limited to): marine waters, groundwater, marine flora and fauna, land use, stormwater runoff, and recreation.

3.3 Hampton Bays Union Free School District

3.3.1 Comment G-27

“The Hampton Bay Union Free School District supports initiatives and variances to code that will not have a definite and adverse impact on our school district's density and will have a revenue-positive impact on the district's tax base.

Page 3-33 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

It is projected that the Canoe Place Inn MPDD, when taken in whole, will yield nearly four times the tax revenue to the school district then it does today while sending less than three students to the school. With each passing day, the land is not being maximized for the good of our community- either as a catalyst for the hamlet's economic growth or key lever for property tax relief.”

Response: Comment acknowledged.

3.4 Town Planning Board

3.4.1 Comment G-28 “ “More details on solids that are staying in sanitary tanks at the Canal property should be given. How often will this be pumped? To what treatment facility is it trucked to? What if there is a significant coastal storm, can the tanks be compromised?”

Response: The septic tanks are expected to be pumped every 6± years. Although some locations require septic tank pumping every 3± years, it is Lombardo Associates, Inc. (LAI)2 opinion that the 3 year interval is unnecessarily conservative. LAI’s opinion is consistent with US EPA guidelines and industry practices for the septic tank sizes and design that will be used. Septic tank pumping is practiced to prevent solids carryover to the next treatment process. Pumping is very important when the next process is the leaching pool as the solids could damage the leaching pools. For the Canal system, there will be an equalization (EQ) tank between the septic tanks and the NitrexTM treatment unit which will prevent solids carryover. Excess solids accumulation in the EQ tank, which will be monitored by the operator, will be an indicator that septic tanks pumping needs to be performed.

The septic tank pumpings would be trucked to the nearby Riverhead Wastewater Treatment Plant or Bergen Point, West Babylon.

The septic tanks will be water tight, including bolted water tight manholes. The tank design specifications will be such that flotation will not occur during flooding events.

3.4.2 Comment G-29

“The public benefit discussion is not clear in the DEIS. The economics section does not consider that the CPI is also going to make significant revenue as a business enterprise; this should be factored into the cost analysis. The degree of public benefit offered compared to the density sought is questionable as the viability of historic restoration and subsequent

2 Wastewater consultant to the applicant and engineering company responsible for NitrexTM technology and use of the proposed PRB.

Page 3-34 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

landmarking of the CPI has been described as not possible- why is it not possible? Because the CPI is proposed as only being replicated, the FEIS should explore how the structure can be made to be LEED certified/completely energy efficient and a template or model for other development projects. This would be a public benefit that offsets the loss of the historic restoration.”

Response: The potential revenues to be generated by the rehabilitated CPI facility were not included in the Public Benefits discussion in Section 1.1.4.4 of the Draft EIS because these revenues would accrue to a private entity, not a public one. Essentially, these revenues would be outside of the public realm, and so logically should not be included in an economic analysis for public benefits. If such revenues were to be included, the overall public benefits “picture” of the Prior Plan would be significantly (but artificially) improved, and therefore counter-productive for analysis purposes.

The issue of restoration of the CPI structure and the potential for it to be landmarked were discussed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIS, in which the applicant asserts that the CPI structure was too dilapidated to be restored to such a state. The Town Board will still require submittal of construction drawings that specifically identify what historic fabric is being saved, and which elements are being used to base new replacement materials on, if necessary.

The Draft EIS made it clear that the CPI structure would be rehabilitated (as defined per Town Code, not “replicated”. With respect to use of LEED® features, the applicant will be required to comply with specific measures in this regard as part of the local law (see also Response, Section 3.5.54).

3.4.3 Comment G-30

“The DEIS has not sufficiently discussed or mitigated the impact of the height, size scale and massing of the buildings at the Canal property. The Canal property has significant constraints that cannot accommodate the density proposed without significantly changing the character of this area as well as disregarding the Town's wetland regulations. The FEIS should consider additional alternatives, such as reducing some degree of density from the Canal property- either outright or by transferring some units to the CPI site. In addition the height of the residential units should not exceed 32 feet, which is the residential standard. The townhomes should also be proposed with the latest innovations as far as energy efficiency and sustainable design.”

Response: The Revised Plan demonstrates that, with a reduction in the number and size of townhouse units and a revised grading concept, it is possible to reduce the potential impacts of building height, massing and scale of the Prior Plan even in consideration of the Town’s wetland limits. The applicant proposes the MPDD be zoned with a 35-foot maximum height requirement, similar to that of the RWB district. The Town Board may require specific controls in the local law to offset

Page 3-35 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

the massing of the proposed buildings, including limiting the buildings to the maximum residential standard of 32 feet. Refer to Response, Section 3.5.54 for a discussion on the energy-efficiency and LEED® aspects of the Revised Plan.

3.4.4 Comment G-31

“The FEIS should include a referral to a qualified appraiser who can consider the property values in the residential area where the Nitrex™ STP is proposed (Eastern property) and discuss if there will be a potential devaluation because of the treatment plant.”

Response: See Response Section 2.4.

3.4.5 Comment G-32

“The FEIS should address concerns about aggregate Nitrogen loading on the Shinnecock Bay from all proposed uses; the discussion of potential impacts on the Bay and health of marine fisheries etc. should be discussed more fully.”

Response: The CPI site is not located adjacent to Shinnecock Bay; it is separated from the Bay by Montauk Highway and a distance of approximately 200 feet to the nearest marina basin with access to Shinnecock Bay. The CPI is not adjacent to Shinnecock Canal as it is separated from the Canal by Newtown Road and a distance of approximately 300 feet. The Canal Property adjoins the Canal; however, it is currently occupied by two restaurants, commercial and residential use and the site is unstabilized resulting in runoff and erosion to Shinnecock Bay. The Eastern Property is separated from Shinnecock Canal and the Bay by North Shore Road and Montauk Highway and distances of over 300 feet. As a result, with respect to the CPI Property, the only potential impact to Shinnecock Bay is related to groundwater recharge and downgradient outflow of groundwater to surface water, with the primary concern being nitrogen loading. With respect to the Canal Property, the existing uses and uncontrolled runoff to the Canal will be ceased in favor of an on-site drainage system that will store and recharge stormwater within the site (based on Town design criteria) thus avoiding overland flow and/or discharge to the Canal. The Canal Property will stabilize soils and based on the Revised Plan, will establish a natural buffer along the unbulkhead portion of the site where no effective buffer currently exists. The site will no longer have untreated sanitary waste discharge to the ground in proximity to the Canal, but will convey waste to a wastewater treatment facility located on the Eastern Property, thus providing nitrogen treatment and a greater distance from surface water at the point of discharge. Section 3.1.5 discusses the change in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge and the assessment of potential impacts to surface water. In addition, the Draft EIS addressed nitrogen load in terms of pounds of nitrogen under existing conditions and proposed conditions and found that the load would also be reduced (see Table 2-5 in the Draft EIS). Given the lack of proximity of the CPI

Page 3-36 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

and Eastern Properties to the Canal and Bay, the improved, stabilized conditions on the Canal Property, proposed wastewater treatment and lack of significant adverse groundwater impacts, the potential impacts on the Bay and health of marine fisheries, etc.; has been addressed and is not considered to be significant.

As discussed in Section 1.3.5:

…the proposed PRB will be installed underground in groundwater, so that it will intercept groundwater that is flowing horizontally eastward within the saturated zone toward and into the Shinnecock Canal. This intercepted groundwater includes not only water recharged on the CPI Property but also groundwater that was recharged on other properties to the west. The PRB will remove nitrogen in groundwater flow before it reaches the canal, so that this source of adverse impact to surface water quality will be reduced, and surface water quality will be incrementally improved. This means of improving surface water quality was not included in the Prior Plan.

3.4.6 Comment G-33 “

“Providing a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is not a public benefit, it is a requirement for the proposed density of the project. This should be corrected in the FEIS and not calculated into the public benefit list. An alternative in the FEIS should look at the Canal plan redesigned to accommodate the Nitrex™ system on-site. Also, the FEIS should examine the merits of placing a treatment facility on the CPI- not conventional septic systems. The long-term benefits of the Nitrex™ treatment of wastewater for the health of the Shinnecock Bay ecosystem should be factored into any type of cost-benefit analysis performed.”

Response: There is insufficient space on the Canal Property to site a NitrexTM WWTF.

The use of the Nitrex™ system will enhance the restoration of the aquatic health of Shinnecock Canal and Shinnecock Bay and provide an example of best practices with respect to surface and groundwater quality protection.

As detailed in the Master Plan Report for the CPI Property (see Appendix M-1), the Nitrex™ system and PRB (see Figure 1-1)proposed for that site is expected to operate at a high efficiency, so that, with the installation of the proposed PRB system, the entire CPI Property (CPI and the 5 cottages) development will contribute no net nitrogen to the environment and will be removing groundwater nitrogen from other sources such that less nitrogen will discharge to the Shinnecock Bay.

In consideration of the above, it would be justified to include provision of these types of systems on the CPI and Canal Properties as public benefits.

3.4.7 Comment G-34

Page 3-37 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“The noise impacts have not been sufficiently addressed. A noise study/sound acoustics for both sides should be conducted and impacts discussed/mitigated.”

Response: See Response, Section 2.3.

3.4.8 Comment G-35

“The tax benefit discussion is only valid if there is a restriction of the Canal property units to seasonal use. It is entirely possible that a year-round family with school age children could move in and therefore the tax benefit would not be realized; since there is no control on this it should not be cited as a benefit.”

Response: It should be noted that the only community service that could be adversely affected by year- round occupancy is the Hampton Bays UFSD; for all other community services, only minor differences in usage between seasonal or year-round occupancy would occur. Additionally, even if the all of the 37 proposed townhouses were occupied year-round (an unlikely outcome), only three (3) potential students would be generated. In addition, private school is also a potential option for families living in the townhouses, so that it is possible that little or no enrollment or fiscal impact to the Hampton Bays UFSD would occur.

The Draft EIS presented extensive discussions and analyses supporting a conclusion that the townhouses would be seasonally used and would not be occupied year-round. Factors that support seasonal use include the type of units, the high level of construction quality and detailing, and the on-site amenities for residents. Most significantly, multi-family developments tend to not generate school-age children. These considerations help justify the high-end market of the units; such a price would tend to discourage potential buyers that could not afford year- round housing in a townhouse at such a price. However, the primary factor supporting seasonal use is the nature of the project itself; it will be marketed as a second home for recreational use, boating, holiday weekends, winter getaways, autumn leaf-peeping, and the like.

The applicant is not amenable to filing a covenant prohibiting year-round occupancy or including such a restriction in the HOA agreement. The Draft EIS assessed the full potential impact of a proposed 40 unit townhouse project in consideration of unrestricted occupancy. The Revised Plan calls for 37 units, which is less than that which was previously analyzed. No significant adverse impacts to the school district are anticipated due to the low number of potential school aged students and the high tax revenue which generates a significant surplus to the school district even after consideration of the cost to educate the anticipated number of school aged students.

3.4.9 Comment G-36

“The traffic impacts appear significant in that this is not an as-of-right development, therefore continuing the failing level of service at key intersections because the proposals do not make them worse does not appear to be an appropriate response. Traffic improvements

Page 3-38 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS should be identified that will increase the level of service and decrease the rate of accidents and implementation should be proposed as a public benefit of the development.”

Response: The County has completed the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road. Also as part of this project, the applicant is proposing to redesign the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road to a standard T- intersection and eliminate the existing southbound and westbound right turn ramps. The property that will be gained by the elimination of the southbound right turn ramp will be utilized for landscaping and the installation of a public parking area and walkway to a proposed viewing platform within the applicants’ property to view the canal. The applicant is also proposing to redesign the intersection of Montauk Highway at Newtown Road to remove the existing ramp from southbound Newtown Road to westbound Montauk Highway and construct a new southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road with a southbound to westbound acceleration lane and a deceleration lane at the new site access on Montauk Highway. These improvements will eliminate the weaving of existing Newtown Road traffic making a left turn onto Canoe Place Road. These improvements will improve traffic flow and safety at these locations and the study area as a whole and also a benefit to the public and community.

Comment #8 of the Town’s traffic engineering consultant’s letter (Appendix O-2) noted that “…the weave maneuver will not be eliminated entirely under certain conditions.”The applicant’s response letter addressing this comment is presented in Appendix O-2. The value of each of the proposed roadway improvements are detailed in Section 1.3.6.

3.4.10 Comment G-37

“As tourism is the economic engine for the Town, the Hampton Bays Corridor plan reflects this by recommending waterfront business uses at the Canal property-the FEIS should examine a mixed use development at this site that includes residential units.”

Response: The applicant did not include a mixed-use (i.e., commercial and residential uses) alternative on the Canal Property in the Draft EIS for several reasons:

• A mixed-use alternative on the Canal Property was not required by the Town Board for analysis in the Draft EIS; and • The applicant’s opinion and experience suggest that the Canal Property is too small to provide for both commercial and residential yields that would be viable on fiscal bases to warrant the investment necessary to construct them.

This alternative was not included in the Final Scope for the content of the Draft EIS, and is not in keeping with the goals and objectives of the project sponsor.

Page 3-39 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.5 Town Department of Land Management

3.5.1 Comment G-38 “The DEIS states that “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”, which is inaccurate. As this is a change of zone application the dimensional standards are established at the time that the zoning legislation is written. The SEQRA process informs the dimensional standards that would be incorporated into the PDD law and the Planning Board determines compliance with same as part of the site plan process. Therefore the dimensional standards sought on each parcel must be included in the FEIS and presented as a comparison to the RWB standards that currently exist.”

Response: The following tables present the proposed Dimensional Standards proposed to be applied to the CPI Property (Table 3-1a) and the Canal and Eastern Properties (Table 3-1b) that comprise the overall proposed MPDD, for the Revised Plan. The tables also list the dimensions of the Revised Plan, so that conformance to each standard can be determined. Finally, the corresponding standards for the existing RWB (CPI and Canal Properties) and MTL (Eastern Property) districts are listed (where such standards exist), to provide a comparison.

Table 3-1a Table of Dimensional Standards, CPI Property

CPI Property Provided Dimensional Standards RWB MPDD Min. Max. Conformance Zone Zone (existing (expanded site) site) 330-34, Business Districts Table of Dimensional Requirements Lot Area Minimum (SF) 40,000 40,000 245,937 259,850 No change Not Minimum per dwelling unit (SF) ------permitted Lot Coverage Maximum coverage, main &accessory bldgs. (%) 20 20 11.3 10.7 No change No change; distance taken at Lot width, minimum (feet) 150 150 414 501 Newtown Road lot line Height, maximum Stories 2 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) Pre-existing non-conforming Feet 35 42 42 42 Pre-existing non-conforming Yards, principal building, minimum (feet) Pre-existing non-conforming Front #1 60 8 10.75 10.75 along Newtown Road Pre-existing non-conforming Front #2 60 50 53 98.3 along Newtown Road Side minimum for 1 50 50 204.88 204.88 No change Not applicable; only one side Side, total for both on interior lot 100 n/a n/a n/a yard on this site Side, abutting side street on corner lot 60 n/a n/a n/a Not applicable; only one side

Page 3-40 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

yard on this site Rear 50 50 306.75 306.75 No change Yards, accessory buildings and structures, except fences and retaining walls, minimum Distance from street 60 60 75.8 75.8 No change Distance from side line ------Pre-existing non-conforming Distance from rear line 50 10 11.39 11.39 along western site boundary 330-78: Placement of Accessory Uses and Buildings in Non-Residential Districts Off-street parking setback (feet) 10 3 3 3 330-83: Yards Adjoining residential district Transitional side yard 50 50 57.9 57.9 No change Transitional rear yard 50 10 11.4 11.4 Pre-existing non-conforming Adjoining limited access and secondary highways Transitional front yard 20 20 75.8 75.8 No change Adjoining all other streets Transitional front yard 20 10 10.8 10.8 Pre-existing non-conforming Parking in rear yard setback 10 10 29.5 29.5 No change 330-84: Height Pyramid Law Montauk Highway Required Required Compliant Compliant No change Non- Non- Newtown Road Required As exists Pre-existing non-conforming conforming conforming Railroad ROW Required Required Compliant Compliant No change Rear Yard Required Required Compliant Compliant No change ShinnecockCanal ------North Shore Road ------330-99: Design Requirements for Non-Residential Parking and Truck Loading Areas No change; based on paved Interior landscaping per space (SF/car) 25 25 43 43 spaces greater than 50 stalls (1) Height is 3-½ stories; however, Town Code does not recognize ½ stories, so height is listed as 4 stories.

Table 3-1a shows that, for the CPI Property, the Revised Plan would conform to all of the proposed MPDD standards. For the eight standards that would not be satisfied, the existing CPI structure represents a pre-existing non-conforming condition which the proposed rehabilitation program would be allowed to maintain.

Table 3-1b Table of Dimensional Standards, Canal & Eastern Properties

Canal & Eastern Properties Provided Proposed Dimensional Standards MTL Min. Max. RWB Zone MPDD Conformance Zone (existing (expanded Zone site) site) 330-34, Business Districts Table of Dimensional Requirements Lot Area Minimum (SF) 40,000 40,000 40,000 290,809 316,316 No change Minimum per dwelling unit (SF) Not permitted 40,000 7,000 ------Lot Coverage Minimum coverage, main & accessory 20 20 20 11.1 10.2 No change

Page 3-41 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

bldgs. (%) No change; distance Lot width, minimum (feet) 150 150 150 304.24 413.04 taken at Montauk Highway lot line Height, maximum Stories 2 2 3 3 3 Feet 35 35 35 35 35 No change Yards, principal building, minimum (feet) Front #1 60 60 5 8.9 8.9 ShinnecockCanal Front #2 60 60 8 14.1 31.9 Montauk Highway Side minimum for 1 50 50 15 18.6 18.6 Railroad ROW Only one side yard Side, total for both on interior lot 100 100 n/a n/a n/a on this site Side, abutting side street on corner lot 60 60 n/a n/a n/a Not applicable Rear 50 50 30 35.9 35.9 North Shore Road Yards, accessory buildings and structures, except fences and retaining walls, minimum Distance from street 60 60 60 n/a n/a Not applicable Distance from side line ------Distance from rear line 50 50 50 n/a n/a Not applicable 330-78: Placement of Accessory Uses and Buildings in Non-Residential Districts Off-street parking setback (feet) 10 10 5 5 5 330-83: Yards Adjoining residential district Transitional side yard 50 50 n/a n/a n/a Not applicable Transitional rear yard 50 50 n/a n/a n/a Not applicable Adjoining limited access and secondary highways Transitional front yard 20 20 8 14.1 31.9 Adjoining all other streets Transitional front yard 20 20 5 8.9 8.9 Parking in rear yard setback 10 10 5 5 5 330-84: Height Pyramid Law Montauk Highway Required Required Required Compliant Compliant No change Newtown Road ------Not Railroad ROW Required Required n/a n/a Not applicable required Rear Yard ------Not ShinnecockCanal Required Required n/a n/a Not applicable required North Shore Road Required Required Required Compliant Compliant No change 330-99: Design Requirements for Non-Residential Parking and Truck Loading Areas Interior landscaping per space (SF/car) 25 25 25 32.8 32.8 No change

For the Canal and Eastern Properties, Table 3-1b indicates that the Revised Plan would conform to all of the proposed MPDD standards.

3.5.2 Comment G-39

Page 3-42 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“In the Land Use section, the DEIS states that “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” which is also inaccurate. Multi-family housing of this size and scale does not exist in this location, and the proposed residential development in a Resort Waterfront Business Zone where it is currently not permitted is considered a new land use. The FEIS must be corrected in this regard and include a discussion related to the impacts associated with the introduction of the proposed land use in this location, as was required in the Final Scoping document. Any impacts that this new multi-family residential use may have on the continued survival of the water-dependent businesses in the remaining commercial area should be identified.”

Response: When occupied, the Canal Property was characterized by a mix of uses, including commercial (two closed restaurants and a closed bait shop), recreational (17-boatboat basin/floating dock) and two apartments in a single structure;;see Figure 3-1).Thus, a type of multi-family use was previously represented in the area. As the subject site is no longer actively used, none of these uses remain on the Canal Property, so that no multi-family residential sites currently exist in the vicinity.

It is acknowledged that multi-family residential use is not permitted in the existing RWB district; the proposed project seeks to rezone the Canal Property to a PDD district wherein such a use would be allowed, the purpose of the MPDD zoning request is to provide zoning flexibility to accomplish the proposed project. Though there are no multi-family housing uses in the area, there is a variety of housing sizes and motel uses as well as a mix of various commercial uses. Therefore, there is a mixed use character to the area including that of the subject site. The proposed use will provide public access to the waterfront, residential use and will maintain the marina;

Following are discussions of the Revised Plan’s potential impact on local land use, and on the continued survival of water-dependent businesses in the remaining commercial area along the canal.

Land Use(adapted and revised from Section 3.2.2.1 of the Draft EIS) The Canal Property is proposed to be redeveloped with 37 high-quality townhouses, yielding a density of 8.08 units/upland acre. All existing buildings on the Canal Property would be removed as result of the redevelopment, and the three existing commercial uses (all now-closed) would cease. Multi-family residential use of the site, however, would continue, though its density would be significantly increased from low-density to high density. Figure 3-1 shows that no other multi- family residential sites, let alone multi-family sites having a density comparable to that of the Revised Plan, exist in the area.

The Revised Plan would introduce a new land use type (townhouses) on the subject site or into and would increase the density from 0.44 units/acre (representing the pre-existing residential structure that contained an apartment) to 8.08 units/upland acre. With respect to the impact on the area land use pattern from this density increase, the Revised Plan would represent an impact, though not necessarily a significant or adverse impact, due to the design of the Revised Plan. Such measures include its

Page 3-43 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

siting on a small property, oriented toward the Shinnecock Canal and away from the neighborhood of detached, single-family homes to the east. Finally, Figure 3-1 shows that there are few if any other nearby properties that could be rezoned for multi-family residential development, so that the Revised Plan would have little or no potential to trigger such development elsewhere in the vicinity. Thus, the proposed multi-family residential use on the Canal Property is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on the land use pattern of the area.

The primary land use effect of the proposal will be to generate additional seasonal multi-family housing in the area in the form of a housing type not previously represented (multi-family townhouse units).

Water-Dependent Uses Section 1.1.2.1 of the Draft EIS established that the townhomes are expected to attract second home owners and would be subject to greater summer seasonal and tourism-related use 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, dancing, wine-tasting, sightseeing). As a result, it is expected that site occupants will bring revenue to Hampton Bays and the surrounding area, particularly to the boat- and water- dependent businesses along the Shinnecock Canal. The project’s use concept will strengthen the local economy and tax base and reduce burden on services; this is promoted in the land use and planning documents of the Town for the Shinnecock Canal area.

3.5.3 Comment G-40 “To ensure consistency with the intent of the Maritime PDD, as well as the existing RWB zoning at the Canal, an alternative should be examined which restructures the ownership concept of the development so that the proposed townhouse units would be available for rental/fractional ownership so as to promote and enhance the Town’s hospitality and tourism industry.”

Response: Appendix J-5 contains an analysis to determine the potential fair rental market value range and seasonal rental market value range for waterfront units similar to the proposed townhomes. The analysis examined year-round waterfront rentals located in eastern Suffolk County and seasonal waterfront rentals located in either the North or South Fork of Long Island. The estimated fair market seasonal rental from Memorial Day to Labor Day is $30,000 (less expenses) and $48,000 for a year round rental (less taxes and expenses). Based on the average expected selling price for the proposed townhomes, an investor would expect a return of between 7-10% on their investment net of expenses. The minimum 7% return would require a rental income net of expenses of at least $80,000, far more than can be expected rent for a seasonal or year-round rental of the proposed units.

Despite the Hamptons area being considered a vacation destination, the fractional ownership or time share concept has not been successfully implemented in the Long Island market likely due to the fact that the summer vacation season is short. Where these types of uses are successful, there are either two seasons or a much longer season. For example, Gurneys Inn and Spa, which was unsuccessful. Given these factors, this ownership occupancy concept is not in keeping with the goals and objectives of the project sponsor and is not proposed. The applicant has

Page 3-44 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

conceptualized a project that achieves sufficient revenue to offset the extensive rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn which will provide a focal point and asset within the Hampton Bays community, consistent with the traditional/historic value that this site has contributed to the community in the past.

3.5.4 Comment G-41

“The impact of privatizing the existing transient boat slips that patrons use to access the restaurants on the Canal has not been discussed. Please include an analysis of the reduction of 17 publicly available transient boat slips and the impacts related to adherence to State Coastal policies, the South Shore Estuary Reserve plan and Hampton Bay DGEIS that advocate for the retention of publicly available transient docks/slips such as those within the boat basin.”

Response: The Revised Plan will incrementally reduce the number of boats that could be accommodated along the Shinnecock Canal for transient public use. This does not conform to the intent of the SSER Plan or Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan DGEIS. However, as can be seen upon review of Figure 3-1, there are a number of marinas presently serving boaters on the Shinnecock Canal, that offer many boat slips that boaters could use when visiting the area. As a result, it would not be expected that a 17-boat reduction in the potential for public use would represent a significant adverse effect on the boating public.

3.5.5 Comment G-42

“The public benefit of waterfront access is a large component of the proposal and in the pre- application phase the Town Board and public were offered continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront, linking to the adjacent properties to both the north and south. The plans submitted with the formal PDD application only provide for an on-site boardwalk to a gazebo located on the southern portion of the site. The stated goals of the Town’s many adopted plans, including the recently adopted Hampton Bays Corridor Strategic Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, recommends the promotion of water-dependent/enhanced uses and creating a public promenade in this location. Additionally, the amount of public benefit this equates to in terms of the PDD and project’s increased density was not justified in that the Boardwalk was quantified as a loss to the appraised value of the property and not in terms of being an asset to the community. The FEIS will explore how a project alternative can be designed so that continuous public access along the entire waterfront linking to the adjacent parcels to the north and south consistent with the objective of the Town’s planning studies can best be achieved. All proposed restrictions related to such access should be described. In addition, page 1-48 of the DEIS indicates that “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

Page 3-45 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

zone”. Does this mean that the Town will have to bear the responsibility and cost for ongoing maintenance of the boardwalk/waterfront access?”

Response: The PDD application referenced that public access to the Shinnecock Canal waterfront would be provided via a walkway in the southwestern corner of the site. Thus, the Draft EIS presented a similar feature that would occupy the longest length of frontage available, but necessarily limited to only the Canal Property. The promenade shown in the Draft EIS would occupy the southern half off the property’s frontage, and would terminate at a new, public gazebo.

The Revised Plan shows the intended project that would provide a public viewing/fishing platform overlooking the Shinnecock Canal to be placed in the southwestern corner of the Canal Property, just north of the highway bridge. In addition, parking and a means of access to this public amenity has also been incorporated into the Revised Plan. Town Board is committed to providing for public access along the Shinnecock Canal, and therefore the findings and local law will have to account for providing public access as either the public promenade as recommended in the Town’s planning documents or the viewing/fishing platform as proposed. The Town Board will also seek improvements to the existing parkland adjacent to the CPI to facilitate public access of this underutilized resource as part of the public benefits and overall scheme to integrate both sides of the Canal into the Maritime PDD.

3.5.6 Comment G-43

“The DEIS adequacy memorandum issued by the Department of Land Management on January 22, 2013 states:

“The difference in the size and scale of each potential project (as of right vs. zone change) is a large part of the impact assessment. The density exchange comparison does not preclude this analysis; it must take the permitted yield into consideration. The yield discussion should therefore identify the size of the proposed use (e.g. for Canal property the number of Townhomes, size, number of stories, etc.) and make a reasonable comparison to the as-of- right yield in terms of massing, floor area, sanitary flow, coverage, intensity of use, traffic/trip generation, etc. with an explanatory narrative. The table and comparison in 3-7 does not meet the intent of the Code requirement for use of Pine Barrens credits in terms of credits needed for difference in yield sought; valuation (cost per credit in current market) and commensurate public benefits offered.”

The proposed development of Canal parcel has not been fully evaluated as outlined above, especially in terms of its ability to accommodate the proposed 88,000 sq. ft. of floor area where the as-of-right yield is only 17,176 sq. ft. This proposed square footage is over 4 times what is currently permitted, thus the impacts related to the proposed size and scale of the project in the context of its surroundings should be addressed more accurately to be able to understand the mitigation or project changes needed. Based on this, the development of a conceptual design alternative that reduces the massing and scale of the proposed townhouses to fit better into the site and surroundings should be provided and addressed in the FEIS.”

Page 3-46 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: The Revised Plan reduces the massing and scale of the Prior Plan and, as described in Section 1.0, reduces the impacts of the Prior Plan as well. Overall, the number of units has been dropped, their sizes have been reduced, and the design has been amended to expand views through the site and increase the separation between buildings. The heights of buildings are 35 feet and will conform to underlying zoning for building height. This changes and improves the visual character of the site both within the development and as viewed from outside of the development.

3.5.7 Comment G-44

“Related to item 6 and the potential for scaling down the size of the Canal project, the proposed size of recreation building at the Canal property is 6,000 sq. ft. It has been the policy of prior Town Boards to restrict the size of recreation buildings to a certain amount of square footage per unit (e.g. 50-75 sq. ft. of recreation space per unit) within Planned Development Districts with primarily residential uses to encourage the residents of the proposed units to become part of the larger community and utilize the facilities and amenities within the Hamlet and Town. The FEIS will discuss the potential for a project alternative of a reduced recreation building to no greater than 3,000 sq. ft.as part of the visual mitigation strategy.”

Response: The Revised Plan proposes a clubhouse area within Building 2 on the Canal Property of about 1,900 SF in size. This is a rate of 51.4 SF/unit, which is within the rate established by the Town Board for such a feature. The overall site provides a recreational setting for residents and retains significant outdoor space in an attractive setting for recreational enjoyment. There are abundant recreational resources in the area of the proposed project. Residents will be expected to take full advantage of the site’s indoor and outdoor recreational resources as well as resources in the area.

3.5.8 Comment G-45

“According to the Visual EAF submitted (Appendix Q), annually 10.30 to 22.79 million viewers are projected to see these projects on a daily/weekly basis, yet the DEIS states that “Due to the nature and type of buildings as well as the lack of landscaping on this [Canal] 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”. This will be corrected in the FEIS to reflect that the positive declaration for this PDD proposal has identified potentially large impacts to the character or quality of the area as well as creating a material conflict with the community’s current plans or goals as officially adopted in the Hampton Bay Corridor Study/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, rather than the stated conclusion of no impact/mitigation warranted, the applicant should instead address potential project changes at the Canal property that align both the use and design with how the site contributes significantly to the Shinnecock Canal maritime corridor, gateway to both Shinnecock Hills

Page 3-47 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

(east) and the Central Business district of Hampton Bays (west). The proposed re-grading of the Canal property and resultant elimination of the existing topography should also be discussed in terms of its visual impact, especially as seen from the Shinnecock Canal. The potential to use the sites existing topography as part of the design should be explored as part of the redesign alternative recommended in item 6.”

Response: The Canal Property is an eastern gateway to Hampton Bays when traveling west on Montauk Highway. The CPI Property likewise is visible from the highway bridge over Shinnecock Canal. Neither site is currently considered to be attractive in terms of their contribution to the visual resources of the area. The Canal Property will be improved with the proposed residential development, which has been redesigned to address and improve the visual characteristics of the proposed project. The decrease in site topographic elevation, reduction of density by three units, opening up of space between buildings, setting back buildings from waterfront areas, an extensive landscape restoration plan and conforming to height requirements improves the visual setting within the site and from the surrounding area. The CPI Property will experience substantial improvements as compared with current conditions, such that the existed blighted buildings will be rehabilitated and will present a cohesive and historically supporting use on the site. The architecture, design and landscape enhancement of the site will ensure that this site is an attractive eastern gateway to Hampton Bays in the westbound approach along Montauk Highway.

3.5.9 Comment G-46

“All proposed lighting must meet the existing code requirements of Article XXIX; specifically that all site lighting shall not shine or illuminate onto any neighboring property. A revised lighting plan should illustrate compliance with code requirements, including foot-candle data that indicates 0 at the property lines.”

Response: Concept Lighting Plans for both the CPI and Canal & Eastern properties have been prepared. These plans show that fugitive lighting will not occur at the property lines, as required by Town Code Article XXIX.

3.5.10 Comment G-47

“The landscaping plan for the Canal property indicates utilizing the County right of way on North Shore Road (CR39A) for plantings and portions of the noise wall (see item 11). This is not appropriate as all required site plantings should be accommodated within the property boundaries. Additional street tree plantings may be acceptable within the right of way subject to the approval of Suffolk County DPW.”

Page 3-48 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: The Conceptual Planting Plan, Canal Properties shows that the noise wall has been eliminated from the Revised Plan, and that new plantings will be limited to only within the subject sites.

3.5.11 Comment G-48

“The Town of Southampton is not characterized by walled/fenced developments that are typical of more urban locations. The Town Code has provisions for a 4 ft. maximum wall/fence height in front yards of residential zones and 6 ft. maximum in non-residential zones. The intent of limiting wall/fence height is to minimize the visual impacts that these structures have on the Town’s streetscape while still providing for security and privacy. The combination of the large massing of the townhouses and the dimensional constraints of the site forces the location of the proposed 10 ft. and 8 ft. wall on the property line and in some locations within the right of way surrounding the property and as such creates a significant change to the character of the area.”

Response: As discussed in Section 1.3.1, the noise wall has been eliminated from the Revised Plan. The reduction of units and reduction of building massing on the Canal Property has resulted in an improved site design that is more compatible with the site and area and will present an attractive view to and from the site. As a result, it is not expected that any significant adverse impacts to the visual resources or character of the site or community will occur as a result of the Revised Plan.

3.5.12 Comment G-49

“In addition, the cross sections (figures 1-7 b, c, d) do not align with what is shown on the Canal and Eastern concept site plan’ in terms of location relative to property lines and wall height. Alternatives to the wall including additional setbacks, reduction in height and buffer plantings should be included as part of the site design alternative recommended in item 6.”

Response: The noise wall figures in the Draft EIS should be disregarded, as no noise wall is proposed in the Revised Plan. Landscape plantings will be used extensively as part of the site design.

3.5.13 Comment G-50

Page 3-49 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“The site plan for the Canal property should be able to accommodate all the required parking (100 spaces) where 80 parking spaces are proposed and the additional 20 spaces would be landbanked for potential future use should the need arise.”

Response: For the Revised Plan, the Concept Plan, Canal Properties shows that the number of parking spaces on the Canal Property, including landbanked and public parking spaces, exceeds Town Code requirements.

3.5.14 Comment G-51

“The impacts associated with the parking (not valet) provided at CPI (for taproom/restaurant use outside of catered events) has not been discussed and more specifics should be provided. The materials proposed for the overflow parking areas should be provided, so as to indicate that it can accommodate the proposed use of these areas for this purpose.”

Response: As shown in the Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn, the event parking areas will have a capacity of 108 spaces, and will be surfaced in grass pavers, a well-established material for such an application.

3.5.15 Comment G-52

“Within the ‘Public benefit package’ discussion, the increase in tax revenue is amortized over a 10 year period. A thorough discussion on how the potential tax incentive programs work in relation to property taxes and when the community can expect to see an actual tax benefit should be addressed by the applicant and will be included in the FEIS. A breakdown of this information should be provided in relation to the information provided in Section 3.3.2.1, Fiscal Considerations and Tax Revenue.”

Response: For the purpose of the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis did not take into consideration any tax incentive programs. The applicant has represented that they will not pursue any real property tax incentive programs that would alter the full realization of real estate taxes to be generated as determined by the Southampton Sole Assessor at the completion of the project. The figures presented in both documents illustrate an estimated tax benefit to the community, based upon a projected assessment 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 Town assessor at the time of occupancy. Projections included as part of the Draft EIS and the Final

Page 3-50 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

EIS are as accurate as possible using fiscal impact methodologies, for the purpose of the planning and land use approval process.

3.5.16 Comment G-53

“The DEIS indicates that there is no affordable housing component included in the MPDD application and residential townhouses at the Canal property, however, the applicant is required to address the requirements of the Long Island Workforce Housing Act which would require an additional 4 affordable units or payment in lieu. This must be addressed in the FEIS.”

Response: The Applicant proposes to provide a payment to the Town of Southampton equal to two times the median income for a family of four in the Nassau/ Suffolk statistical area as required by the applicable regulations for 10% of the additional units approved over and above the as of right residential density for the Canal Property Townhomes.

3.5.17 Comment G-54

“The DEIS states that the “primary land use effect of the proposal will be to generate additional seasonal multi-family housing” (p. 3-21). Although the DEIS speculates that the units will only be occupied seasonally, it does not indicate how the project may be structured to ensure this. Other Planned Development Districts have offered restrictive covenants related to the occupancy limitations of the residences, these types of options should be presented and will be addressed in the FEIS, as additionally set forth and in connection with the resort- ownership recommendation of item 3 herein.”

Response: See Response, Section 3.4.8. The analysis in the Draft EIS does not assume a restriction, nor is one proposed.

3.5.18 Comment G-55

“The main public benefit cited in the DEIS is the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn (CPI) due to its historic use but not because of the importance of the structure itself. The applicant has not submitted a historic structure report as required, however Appendix I contains a ‘Historic Evaluation of the Canoe Place Inn” prepared by Arrowstreet Architects, PC. which consistently describes the CPI as architecturally inferior in the context of contemporary hotel/inn design and the Colonial Revival style in general, as well as when compared with other works of the architect, William Bottomley. Because this conclusion is debatable among architectural historians, the assessment should include an analysis of the other position that

Page 3-51 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS architecturally it is an original work and given its unique design and historical associations and references, it is deserving of landmark status and preservation.

It has been asserted that virtually all of the original building has been destroyed or so severly comprised that “restoration” is no longer an option. A thorough analysis of the building/structure was not undertaken (i.e. a Historic Structure Report). The most recent OPRHP correspondence dated April 30, 2012 requesting interior photographs to determine eligibility for National Registry designation was not answered and therefore the conclusion that the structure is not eligible for National Register Listing is not supported. The applicant should explain in detail why they object to rehabilitating the structure pursuant to the Department of Interior Standards and why, if the building is still potentially eligible for designation, pursuing Landmark status for the Canoe Place Inn is not feasible.”

Response: An historic structure report, labeled Appendix B-2 in the Draft EIS, was submitted as part of the application. This report includes a detailed discussion of the historic importance of the property including a discussion of whether Canoe Place Inn is deserving of landmark status and concludes that it does not.

The Historic Evaluation of the Canoe Place Inn, prepared by Arrowstreet, does not assert that “virtually all of the original building has been destroyed” but rather specifically identifies a number of components, and areas that are original, deserving of “restoration” and are specifically identified for preservation. It is true, however, that significant areas of the structure as it exists today, are either not original to the historically significant era and/or have been compromised sufficiently from that era that there is insufficient historic fabric to be restored. As is the case with many, if not most, projects of this type, the proponent has identified those portions of the historic fabric which are deserving and capable of being restored and will restore them and has proposed a design for the remainder of the project that is sympathetic to and appropriate to the context of the history of the site.

The detailed evaluation prepared in the Historic Structure Report provides a basis for the recommended approach to rehabilitation. The rehabilitation program is specific to the CPI building and as a result, essentially provides the explanation for why the approach is recommended as compared to Department of Interior standards and/or pursuing Landmark status. The applicant commits to performing the rehabilitation pursuant to this report. As part of the local law, the Town Board will require submittal of construction drawings that specifically identify what historic fabric is being saved, and which elements are being used to base new replacement materials on, if necessary. The Town Board will also require a local architectural preservation consultant be retained during the rehabilitation effort.

3.5.19 Comment G-56

Page 3-52 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“It has been asserted that virtually all of the original building has been destroyed or so severely comprised that “restoration: is no longer an option. A thorough analysis of the building/structure was not undertaken (i.e. a Historic Structure Report). The most recent OPRHP correspondence dated April 30, 2012 requesting interior photographs to determine eligibility for National Registry designation was not answered and therefore the conclusion that the structure is not eligible for National Register Listing is not supported. The applicant should explain in detail why they object to rehabilitating the structure pursuant to the Department of Interior Standards and why, if the building is still potentially eligible for designation, pursuing Landmark status for the Canoe Place Inn is not feasible.”

Response: As noted in Response, Section 3.5.18, an Historic Structure Report was provided in the Draft EIS, in which the eligibility for Landmark status was discussed in detail. The structure was found to be a conglomerate of different additions and alterations that modified the original structure over time, and therefore was not representative of any particular or notable architectural character. The building is however of interest with respect to the character of the community, and its role as a gathering place local folks and historically important people in history. The overall conclusion of the Reportis that the Canoe Place Inn is not eligible for State/National Register Listing. This information was prepared by a cultural resources specialist and represents the position of the applicant. The applicant recognizes the importance of this structure to the character of the community, and therefore has proposed to rehabilitate the Canoe Place Inn to its former grandeur. It is recognized that the applicant’s position with respect to eligibility and listing is not final as a result of the Historic Structure Report; however, the project serves the ultimate goal of establishing a permanent, beneficial use of the site in keeping with its traditional use and elements of historic architecture.

3.5.20 Comment G-57

“The appraisal for the Canal property submitted with the MPDD application should have been included in the DEIS as an appendix; it must be included with FEIS. Pursuant to §330-244C (8), the Town has retained its own appraiser to verify the information submitted, including the ‘Boardwalk fiscal impact’ and these appraisal reviews are attached to this memo for response in the FEIS.”

Response: Appendix J-4contains the applicant’s revised appraisal dated March 1, 2014 for the fair market value of the proposed townhouse units in response to the Town’s review appraisal. The appraised value of the proposed units are now estimated at $525-$575 per SF for units offered with boat slips; $475-$525 per SF for units offered without boat slips and a gross sell out period of 2-3 years from completion. Appendix J-6 contains the applicant’s appraiser’s response to the Town’s appraiser’s review.

Appendix J-1contains the applicant’s revised appraisal dated March 21, 2014 for the impact of the proposed public access walkway in response to the Town’s review appraisal. The appraisal

Page 3-53 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

considers the impact of the proposed (revised) public walkway and viewing platform in the southwest corner of the Canal Property and considers that the public access walkway has been relocated to public area (surplus right-of-way area) and the viewing platform is the only portion remaining on the Canal Property, thus significantly reducing the impact to the value of proposed townhomes. The appraisal estimates a $538,000 impact to the proposed development.

3.5.21 Comment G-58

“There is a discrepancy in the narrative related to the market feasibility for the CPI in that as the DEIS indicates the proposal will be highly successful; it also contends that the proposed catering and Inn use with restaurant does not represent the ‘highest and best use’ for the property. This contradicts other parts of the DEIS that indicate that the site is “ideally situated to ensure its success in the existing catering, restaurant and overnight stay market”. There are no quantifiable numbers provided to support this assertion; therefore the applicant should include an economic analysis related to the actual projected ‘loss’ of revenue related to the CPI proposal and discussion of the minimum number of units at the Canal property that would cover this projected loss. This discussion should take into account the attached information provided by the appraiser hired by the Town of Southampton.”

Response: There is no discrepancy in the Draft EIS. The use of the CPI as a catering facility will serve a need in the area of the proposed project given the locational analysis and anticipated interest in a catering facility on the subject site. The rehabilitation of the CPI building is a significant expense, and as outlined by the applicant, does not represent to him the highest and best use of the site. It is expected that multiple quality restaurant (consistent with RWB zoning) would be more successful and would represent a higher and better use, than the costly rehabilitation of the CPI building as a catering facility.

The project is being pursued by the applicant in order to maintain a use that has traditionally occupied the property, with the basic design and character of the CPI building as interpreted through the Historic Structure Report for its architectural and functional rehabilitation. The community has expressed a strong desire to maintain this use of the site, and the applicant has been responsive in meeting this community goal.

The Draft EIS envisioned a 40 unit townhome project, rehabilitation of the CPI structure and a package of public benefits that more than equals the increase in density/intensity of use for the site, thus supporting the MPDD concept for the project. The Final EIS provides three less units on the Canal Property, and increased costs for rehabilitation of the CPI site particularly due to the proposed installation of a Permeable Reactive Barrier which provides a significant water quality improvement of area groundwater in addition to the required sanitary system. As a result, the applicant plans to make a significant investment in the community through the proposed overall development, and therefore takes all of the risk in terms of investment and potential for return.

Page 3-54 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

The applicant is a skilled developer with significant experience and seeks to provide a project that will be an enhancement to the community and provide a return on investment. Appropriate appraisals are provided in Appendices J to support the various benefits included in the package and the benefit value analysis. The applicant maintains that the CPI use will be successful, that it is not the highest and best use in terms of direct revenue potential, yet rehabilitation of the CPI building is important to the community and is a basis for the overall project concept, that the 37 units is the minimum value for the developer that will support the overall project concept, and that the developer takes on the risk associated with ensuring that the overall project achieves the financial objectives of the project sponsor. Coupled with this, the applicant through this Final EIS, provides the full analysis of benefit value to the Town from this MPDD supported by appropriate analysis (Section 1.0) and appraisals (Appendices J).

3.5.22 Comment G-59

“The proposal for the CPI site states that a 70 seat “(minimum)” restaurant is proposed, what is the maximum? This was not calculated in the traffic analysis or the other impact analyses. Please confirm that the proposal is for a 70 seat maximum restaurant, and if not, indicate what the maximum is and address all impacts related to the proposed seating quantity.”

Response: The indication in the Draft EIS that there would be a “minimum” of 70 seats in the restaurant is no longer operative. For the Final EIS, it has been determined that there will be 70 seats maximum in the restaurant.

3.5.23 Comment G-60

“The Eastern property has been recommended in the adopted Hampton Bays Corridor/DGEIS plan to change from Motel (MTL) to Residential (R-60). The FEIS will include a discussion of how this change would affect the project alternatives in terms of the as-of-right yield.”

Response: If the Eastern Property were developed as recommended in the referenced plan, it would generate an estimated two (2) residences, and simultaneously eliminate the 11 motel units that this property would have generated under its MTL zoning. Simultaneously, the number of motel unit-equivalents that would be transferred across the canal to the CPI Property would be reduced from 25 units to 14 units. As the Revised Plan seeks a total of 62 units (i.e., 25 at the CPI Property and 37 at the Canal Property), there would be an excess yield requested of 22 units. Thus, these represent what the Revised Plan would have to compensate for, with public benefits. Based on a per-Pine Barrens Credit value of $73,400, developing the Eastern Property with two residences would require the applicant to expend public benefits having a value of at least $1.615

Page 3-55 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

million. It is noted that the zoning remains MTL and as a result, the above is a hypothetical exercise intended to address the comment. The existing MTL zoning is the correct zoning for analysis of as-of-right yield, and this is included in the Draft and Final EIS.

3.5.24 Comment G-61

“Section 2.2 includes a general discussion of Groundwater Resources, assessing the general quality of water in the project area by looking at groundwater quality data from the Hampton Bays Water District for the Magothy Aquifer. While the public water supply is from the Magothy Aquifer, what is of interest in this location is actually groundwater quality data from the Upper Glacial Aquifer. The applicant must provide this information and address all water quality related impacts in the FEIS.”

Response: For the purposes of impact analysis, it was decided that the quality of groundwater supplied and consumed at the project properties should logically be the subject of the analysis, rather than the quality of groundwater passing beneath the sites (from which the surface would be isolated). That is, groundwater in the Upper Glacial Aquifer could not reach the subject properties for a considerable amount of time, so that a discussion of any impacts at the surface from this groundwater would not yield any useful insight. Conversely, impacts on the Upper Glacial Aquifer from activities on the surfaces of the project properties have been analyzed in detail (e.g., Appendices M-1 and N, and Section1.3.7). These analyses show that the proposed PRB (see Figure 1-1) on the CPI Property will remove more than all the nitrogen recharged on that site, that the quality of water recharged on the Canal Property willhave a very low nitrogen concentration (0.32 mg/l), which would tend to reduce nitrogen levels in the Upper Glacial Aquifer, and that the quality of water recharged on theEastern Property through the Nitrex™ system will likewise reduce nitrogen levels in the Upper Glacial Aquifer. Any discussion of the quality of groundwater in the Upper Glacial Aquifer would be descriptive of up-gradient activities and impacts, which is outside the mandate of the Final EIS. See also Response, Section 3.5.26 (below) for information on water quality in the vicinity of the site based on the updated/draft Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (SCCWRMP).

3.5.25 Comment G-62

“A needs assessment of anticipated water usage for both development proposals and a determination of whether the Hampton Bays Water District currently has adequate capacity to serve those needs must be included in the impact assessment of the FEIS.”

Response: The Hampton Bays Water District has provided a letter, dated April 10, 2014 (see Appendix R), which indicates that although there are water mains in proximity to the proposed development, that water pressure is reduced east of Shinnecock Canal, and water system improvements may be needed to ensure adequate water supply and water pressure. The District letter also requested

Page 3-56 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS specific information of the applicant on peak daily water usage, landscaped area, total water usage, and total water usage of the CPI Property, to support its assessment of water availability. The applicant’s response letter, dated July 15, 2014, and Water District Hydraulic Analysis, dated October 10, 2014 are provided in Appendix R. The applicant will continue to coordinate with the Town Board and Hampton Bays Water District for the installation of the second water main as recommended.

3.5.26 Comment G-63

“Page 2-23 of the Groundwater Resources Section 2.2 references the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (1987) for information; however this plan is over 20 years old. Rather the applicant should consult/cite the August 2010 draft Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan prepared by CDM (publicly accessible on the Suffolk County Department of Health website). The central issues of interest is the Nitrate data (ppm) reported in the project area for both private wells and community supply wells.”

Response: The SCCWRMP, originally adopted in 1987, is presently being updating to reflect more recent development trends, resource plans and studies, and government programs and regulations pertinent to water supply and water resource protection. The following brief description of that update program has been taken from the Executive Summary, dated January 2014:

While today our drinking water generally meets quality standards, elevating levels of contaminants raise serious concern. Many of our rivers, estuaries and bays are impaired as a result of eutrophication. Nitrogen, which primarily spews from residential septics and cesspools, as well as fertilizer, are the principal culprits that spur hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, diminution of sea and shellfisheries, and degradation of our protective natural infrastructure-wetlands and seagrass beds that act as wave and storm surge buffers. Sea level rise, which also contributes to marshland degradation, is projected to raise groundwater levels, increasing vulnerability to saltwater infiltration, and further compromising on- site wastewater treatment infrastructure largely composed of cesspools and septic tanks.

Perhaps nowhere have we seen the impact of nitrogen pollution in more stark terms than the Great South Bay. At one time, this bay produced more than half the clams eaten in our country. However, over the past quarter-century, the clam harvest in Great South Bay has fallen by 93 percent, destroying an entire industry which accounted for 6,000 jobs. While clams were once over-harvested, they have largely failed to recover due to recurrent brown tides fed primarily from nitrogen from septic systems and cesspools. We must decide if this type of impaired surface water body will be our region’s future or if we can restore our bays to health.

In advance of the release of the 2014 Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (“Comp Plan”), this Executive Summary Update is spotlighting the Comp Plan’s critical findings, and relevant post-Superstorm Sandy considerations, in order to spur a critical public dialogue about the scope of the problem and begin to frame near-term solutions. While many environmental issues related to groundwater and surface waters have arisen since the previous Plan (1987), one elemental condition has remained constant: the vast majority of Suffolk residents rely on on-site wastewater disposal systems that discharge to groundwater. In addition, fertilizer use, industrial and commercial solvents,

Page 3-57 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

petroleum products, pesticides and a host of other manmade contaminants have had profound and long- lasting impacts on groundwater quality, as well as on fresh surface waters and coastal marine waters into which groundwater and stormwater runoff discharge.

More specific information in regard to nitrate contamination at public and private water supply wells (from sewage effluent recharged to the ground from on-site treatment systems) is presented in Section 3 of the draft SCCWRMP update:

Changes in Nitrate Levels Since 1987 To assess changes in nitrate over time, average nitrate concentrations measured in community supply wells that were sampled in both 1987, (the time that the last water quality assessment was conducted, as documented in the 1987 Comp Plan) and in 2005 were compared. A summary of nitrate concentrations of samples taken from the same set of 477 public supply wells sampled in both 1987 and in 2005 is provided by Table 3-1 [of the updated SCCWRMP draft]. The data show that nitrate levels have increased in all three aquifers, and that nitrate concentrations in the same set of 277 upper glacial public supply wells sampled in both 1987 and 2005 have increased by an average of nearly 1 mg/L as shown by Figure 3-2a. Nitrate concentrations in the same set of 227 Magothy public supply wells sampled in both 1987 and 2005 have increased by an average of over 0.5 mg/L, as depicted by Figure 3-2b. Only three Lloyd aquifer wells were sampled in both 1987 and 2005; the nitrate concentration in one of the wells increased by more than 1 mg/L, while nitrate levels in the other two wells remained stable. Figures 3-2a and 3-2b also indicate that using data from all community supply wells to characterize aquifer conditions, nitrate levels, on average, have increased by more than 1 mg/L in both the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers.

Overall, average nitrate concentrations remained less than or equal to 6 mg/L in nearly 87 percent of all community supply wells in 2005, and exceeded the drinking water MCL in untreated samples obtained from less than two percent of all community supply wells. While the overall assessment shows that nitrate levels remain in compliance with applicable standards in the majority of public supply wells, comparison of data collected from the same sampling points in 1987 and 2005 has revealed that nitrate concentrations have continued to increase in all aquifers, and that more deep public supply wells are being used to obtain better water quality.

The draft SCCWRMP establishes that nitrate concentrations in the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers in the vicinity of the Shinnecock Canal (as determined from samples taken from both public and private supply wells) remain well within applicable NYS standards for drinking water.

3.5.27 Comment G-64

“The discussion on page 2-24 related to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study does not take into account the specific soil and groundwater conditions of the subject sites in terms of stormwater pollutant attenuation. Considering the sandy soils and relatively fast percolation rate prior to reaching the high groundwater table that exists in this area, how do these particular sites comply with the recommendations of the NURP study and Hydrogeologic Zone IV for anticipated pollutants? Since the information cited is from 1982, discuss anticipated impacts from these pollutants and the latest methodologies for mitigation”

Page 3-58 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: Section 2.2.2 of the Draft EIS indicates that there are significant vertical separations between the surfaces of the three component properties and the water table beneath the subject sites to allow for effective attenuation of pollutants carried in stormwater. Specifically, the distances between the surface and water table are:

• 9± to 48 feet (CPI Property) • 3± to 19 feet (Canal Property • 16 to 56 feet (Eastern Property

Even assuming that the recharge system (e.g., leaching pools) may extend to a depth of 6 feet, judicious location of these pools could be arranged within each of the three sites so that the minimum allowed separation under Town Code requirements (2 feet) could be provided. Elevations throughout the CPI and Eastern Properties are expected to be sufficient (11 to 30 feet asl) to allow for common stormwater systems to be installed on these properties. For the Canal Property, ground elevations are likewise sufficient to allow for common leaching pool fields to be placed beneath the two parking areas (18 to 23 feet asl), so that nearly half of that property would be served by such systems. It is only the western half of the Canal Property, along the Shinnecock Canal, where ground elevations are lower and the water table is nearer the surface, that leaching pools would not be feasible. For this portion of the Canal Property, a drainage reserve area is proposed, having a minimum elevation of about 9 feet asl (see Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canal Properties). This area uses no subsurface leaching pools, so that the estimated 6 feet between the bottom of the drainage reserve and the water table are expected to be sufficient for proper recharge and attenuation of entrained pollutants.

It is acknowledged that the relatively high permeabilities of the sandy soils would allow for rapid percolation of stormwater effluent to the water table and downward into the Upper Glacial Aquifer. It should be noted that the NURP Study did find that pollutants were attenuated as stormwater effluent passed through the soil matrix, and that no minimum separation was recommended in the Study. Finally, drainage system requirements were determined based upon Town determination of the minimum separation necessary to provide adequate attenuation, implying that conformance to such a requirement would assure that adequate attenuation occurs and thereby protect groundwater quality.

3.5.28 Comment G-65

“Consider the high level of impervious areas within the Canal plan, discuss the potential for the drainage plan to be designed for more than a 2 inch rainfall event.”

Response: The drainage calculations were prepared in accordance with the “Town of Southampton Road and Drainage Standards”.

Page 3-59 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.5.29 Comment G-66

“Related to groundwater flow, page 2-26 indicates the assumption that regional water flows from the CPI property to the east into the Shinnecock Canal, and similarly from the Canal Property to the West into the Shinnecock Canal. This is depicted in figure 2-4. That said, there are no contours or elevations provided for the immediate areas of the project sites to support this. The applicant should consult the regional water table map, including it as a reference, to definitively determine whether the groundwater is actually flowing toward the Canal, or in a southerly direction from the CPI and Canal properties toward Shinnecock Bay.”

Response: Figure 2-4 of the Draft EIS provides a water table map figure for the area surrounding and including the subject property. There are no contours illustrated in the areas of the CPI and Canal properties. The anticipated direction of groundwater flow as described in the Draft EIS is based on interpolation of physical and hydrologic characteristics of the sites such that they are located south of the main land mass on each side of Shinnecock Canal, and generally south of where groundwater would be expected to flow toward the north to Peconic Bay. The location of the CPI site on the east side of the groundwater mound west of Shinnecock Canal and the Canal property on the west side of a groundwater mound east of Shinnecock Canal, groundwater flow likely has a southeast and southwesterly component, respectively, for the CPI and Canal parcels. Shinnecock Canal adds an additional hydrologic influence that could potentially induce groundwater flow toward the Canal during lower tidal stages. Given each site’s proximity to Shinnecock Bay and the Canal in relation to the wider land mass east and west of the Canal, overall, there is a southerly component to groundwater flow, with potential for flow to be variable in the east and southeast dimensions base on tidal influences.

In response to concerns expressed by the Town, an appropriate number of groundwater monitoring wells will be installed on each of the three component properties to determine groundwater levels, and flow patterns and rates, as well as wastewater and drainage system performance. The exact number, local and schedule for testing of these wells will be required as part of the local law to be determined during the site plan review process.

3.5.30 Comment G-67

“The project sponsor performed one representative soil boring for each property to determine depth to groundwater, which is not necessarily an accurate representation of the entire parcel. The Suffolk County Regional Water Table Elevation maps, published by Suffolk County Department of Health Services in connection with the USGS (circa 1990’s), should be referenced and used to substantiate the test boring information. For the Canal property, where there are questions related to locating the Nitrex™ system on-site, additional information is needed as it relates to depth to groundwater. Since a remediation action plan is being considered as part of the DEIS, any groundwater data obtained during investigations of this

Page 3-60 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

property or in connection with the spill remediation action plan (i.e. any data from groundwater sampling/monitoring wells installed) must be provided.”

Response: If groundwater data is required to be obtained during investigation/remediation activities, it will be provided.

3.5.31 Comment G-68

“Appendix K-1 - The NP&V model should use the correct rates for Evapotranspiration (ET) based on areas considering (e.g. ‘mature forest’ ET rates should not be used for unvegetated areas, etc.)”

Response: The SONIR Model User Guide (Appendix L-1) includes a table of evapotranspiration values under Data Input Sheet 1, item 5. These values are based on location, soil types and vegetation and are generally in the range of 50% of precipitation. A value of 24.2 inches per year (52.9 %) was used for all inputs in the Draft EIS SONIR model runs, corresponding to sand with a shallow root zone. It is possible that “Unvegetated” land may have a lower evapotranspiration rate due to lack of vegetation. An alternative value of 21.2 inches per year (46.6%) was inserted in “Unvegetated” into all of the model runs and the resultant concentration of nitrogen in recharge was unchanged. Any new model runs prepared for the Final EIS include this value; however, it is noted that the change does not alter the overall concentration of nitrogen in recharge.

3.5.32 Comment G-69

“Appendix K-1 -The model defines persons per dwelling at 4.1 but the values are run at 0. Please describe methodology/correct.”

Response: The SONIR Model User Guide includes a population factor which can be used if nitrogen load is determined based on population. The SONIR model was designed with the flexibility to analyze nitrogen in recharge based on population or sanitary flow. In the case of the CPI/Canal/Eastern Property MPDD analysis, nitrogen in recharge is more appropriately determined by input of sanitary flow and concentration of effluent. As a result, the population input was inserted at zero (0) persons per dwelling. This represents the correct use of the model. With respect to the User Guide, this has been updated to reflect a population density for the Canal Property of 2.49 persons per unit which is consistent with Table 1-5 of the Draft EIS.

3.5.33 Comment G-70

Page 3-61 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“Appendix K-1 -The model appears to assume that no one will have any pets in the townhomes. Please describe methodology/correct.”

Response: Townhouse units are less likely to have pets than single family homes. In addition, pet owners are currently are more attuned to the “pick up after your pet” philosophy, particularly in “common areas”, such as those outside a private back yard, as will be the case for the townhouses. As a result, the model did not account for pet waste. The SONIR model is designed to be able to include a factor for pet waste. This was added in the Final EIS analysis revised SONIR model runs for the Canal Property development since this is the residential component of the overall project (see Appendix L-3). This results in an increase in the overall concentration of nitrogen in recharge, to 1.12 mg/l, from 0.34 mg/l. The results are considered a worst case scenario in view of a probable lower pet population and not accounting for “pick up after your pet” practices.

3.5.34 Comment G-71

“Appendix K-1 - The level of Nitrate in the water supply has not been given although the model uses 1 mg/L as the standard value. Verification of this data should be obtained from the Hampton Bays Water District and methodology given if there is a range of values (i.e. straight average vs. weighted average, etc.).”

Response: Table 2-3 of the Draft EIS provides water quality information for the Hampton Bays Water District. Nitrate is reported at 2.04 mg/l. This value was input into the SONIR model for revised analyses used in this Final EIS. This results in a small incremental increase in the overall concentration of nitrogen in recharge.

3.5.35 Comment G-72

“Appendix K-1 -All responses related to the SONIR model may be referred by the Town to a qualified hydrologist for additional review and recommendation.”

Response: The model is fully referenced per the User Guide included in Appendix K-1 of the Draft EIS. The updated SONIR model runs are included with this Final EIS (see Appendices L-2 through L-4), but do not significantly alter the conclusions with respect to the concentration of nitrogen in recharge.

3.5.36 Comment G-73

Page 3-62 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“CPI - The existing conditions model for CPI assumes it is currently operating and generating sanitary wastewater and irrigating/applying fertilizer. As relayed in item 11 of the DEIS adequacy memorandum issued by Land Management on January 22, 2013, “for analysis purposes throughout the DEIS it should not be assumed that the existing structures on the CPI property are ‘occupied and operational’ as that is not the reality of the site in its present condition”. Thus, the model for existing conditions on this site should be run at zero for a true comparison. It would be acceptable to instead run these ‘existing conditions’ as a different model labeled ‘grandfathered flow’ or another ‘as-of-right’ scenario.”

Response: The Draft EIS SONIR model run for CPI Existing Conditions (Appendix K-1) has been updated to be titled Existing CPI-Operational Flow and remains the same. An additional SONIR model run is provided for the Final EIS (Appendix L-5) and is titled Existing CPI-No Sanitary Flow. This results in a concentration of nitrogen in recharge of 0.01 mg/l. This represents existing conditions; however, it is noted that the CPI use could be activated and therefore consideration of the operational flow remains valid.

3.5.37 Comment G-74 “CPI - Notwithstanding the item above, the amount of “Impervious Area Recharge” (Sheet 2) does not appear to align with the main volume discussion on page 2-26, which indicates there are no drainage structures; please elaborate and correct where appropriate.”

Response: The discussion on page 2-26 referenced above is as follows:

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.

This is not inconsistent with the Draft EIS SONIR model run for existing conditions at CPI. Specifically, for each land coverage type in the SONIR model, in consideration of total precipitation, there is an amount subject to evapotranspiration, an amount subject to runoff, and the balance is recharged. Consistent with the statement on Page 2-26, the majority of precipitation is recharged and this is consistently accounted for in the SONIR model.

3.5.38 Comment G-75

“CPI - The fertilizer application rate input is 2.30 lbs/1000 sq. ft. although item 5 of the SONIR discussion indicates a conservative range would be 1.5-2.1 lbs/1000 sq. ft. Please explain why this value was chosen.”

Page 3-63 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: The fertilizer application rate used in the Draft EIS SONIR model runs was a worst case scenario that would correspond to fertilization from unmanaged residential use (per the SONIR User Guide). Indeed, management of commercial properties and multiple family residential use subject to a maintenance contract would require less fertilizer as it would be properly managed through soil pH adjustments/measurements, proper controlled irrigation methods and application of slow release and/or more frequent small quantity application protocols. As a result, it is expected that the proposed CPI and Canal project sites would be managed and therefore would have less applied fertilizer. As per the User Guide, this would result in range of 1.5-2.1 lbs/1000 SF of applied nitrogen in fertilizer. This results in an average of 1.8 lbs/1000 SF, which would more accurately reflect the nitrogen application rate for the proposed project. Consequently, the updated Final EIS SONIR model runs use this number for fertilizer-nitrogen application. This results in an incremental decrease in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge.

3.5.39 Comment G-76

“CPI - The proposed CPI conditions model appears to assume that the amount of fertilized area is only about half of the proposed lawn area (1.7 acres instead of 3 acres). This brings the Nitrogen (N) value down but may not be truly representative of the actual N load the proposed project will generate. Similarly, on Sheet 3, the water supply seems to be missing about one third (1/3) of the wastewater in the calculations, which lowers the amount of Nitrogen in recharge but may not be an accurate representation. Please explain methodology and calculations.” Response: Site landscaping is described in Section 1.3.8 of this Final EIS and was outlined in the Draft EIS Section 1.3.6. It is expected that not all revegetated areas will be established in fertilizer dependent vegetation; the difference in acreage represents the anticipated use of native landscape species that would not receive regular applications of fertilizers. Table 1-5 shows that, of the 6.17 acres of landscaping anticipated, 4.27 acres would be native species (no regular use of fertilizers), with the remaining 1.90 acres to be planted with fertilized landscape species. As a result, those areas requiring fertilizer will be reduced. This is a responsible effort toward a greater degree of environmental protection on behalf of the applicant. The final landscape plan will ensure that the acreages indicated in Table 1-5 of this Final EIS are achieved in terms of limiting fertilizer dependent vegetation. With respect to water supply quantities, this was checked and found to accurately account for wastewater in the calculations. As a result the SONIR estimates are valid.

3.5.40 Comment G-77

“Canal Property - The model appears to assume that all existing lawn areas are currently irrigated but most of the site is a gravel parking lot with no lawn areas. Please correct or provide the exact amount of square footage of lawn area that is currently being irrigated.”

Page 3-64 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: The CPI, Existing Conditions, Draft EIS SONIR model run accounts for 0.29 acres of lawn, and did include this as being fertilized and irrigated. Though maintenance practices may have changed over the past few years since the site has not been actively used, it is apparent that no turf management is currently occurring. As a result, for the purpose of the Final EIS, the acreage of land fertilized, and acreage of land irrigated are both entered as zero (0). This does not result in an appreciable change to the existing condition.

3.5.41 Comment G-78

“Canal Property - For the built condition, the model appears to assume only half of the lawn areas would be fertilized and seems to underestimate the amount of N in recharge, which may be higher when the additional lawn and pets are factored in. Please explain methodology and calculations.”

Response: Site landscaping is described in Sections 1.3.8 and 3.5.39 of this Final EIS and was outlined in the Draft EIS Section 1.3.6. It is expected that not all revegetated areas will be established in fertilizer dependent vegetation. As a result, those areas requiring fertilizer will be reduced. This is a responsible effort toward a greater degree of environmental protection on behalf of the applicant. The Revised Plan features a 25 foot natural buffer area on the south, unbulkheaded part of the site. In addition, the overall landscape theme will involve use of native plants where possible as well as reduction of turfed areas. The final landscape plan will ensure that the acreages indicated in Table 1-5 of this Final EIS are achieved in terms of limiting fertilizer dependent vegetation. In addition, a factor has been added for pet waste in the revised SONIR model runs for this Final EIS. As a result the revised SONIR model provides an accurate assessment of the built conditions on the Canal Property.

3.5.42 Comment G-79 “Regarding wastewater at CPI, page 2-37 of the DEIS indicates that the existing conditions will be improved because the proposal goes from the purported grandfathered flow of 13.5 mg/L to 6.6 mg/L, but does not consider the fact that the site is not operational and does not currently have any associated wastewater flow. The ecological impacts associated with the Health Department allowing for the continuance of grandfathered discharge limits that would ordinarily necessitate a wastewater treatment system should be discussed in detail. The SCDHS is an Involved Agency and must make its own findings prior to issuing any approvals.”

Response: See also Section 3.5.36, which includes an additional SONIR model run for the CPI Property absent operational flow. The site use could be reactivated and thus could achieve the allowed grandfathered flow per SCDHS. While the SONIR model runs show a significant improvement in nitrogen in recharge on the CPI Property resulting from the proposed project as compared with “operational flow” conditions, this improvement is not evident if comparing the site to the “no

Page 3-65 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

flow” condition. Nevertheless, the site is established with an existing building that changes the condition as compared to a “green” site. Further, the grandfathered flow could be realized, thereby making comparison to the “operational flow” condition valid. Finally, other measures of compliance and potential impact analysis are provided through comparison to regulatory requirements, the drinking water standard, a BMP of 7 mg/l for wastewater discharges, and the absolute analysis numbers generated for the concentration of nitrogen in recharge. See also Section 3.1.5 which outlines the groundwater and surface water impact analysis and findings. It is acknowledged that SCDHS is an involved agency that will issue their own Findings Statement.

3.5.43 Comment G-80

“The FEIS will discuss the feasibility of providing a “NitrexTM” advanced wastewater treatment (WWT) system on the CPI property in lieu of using conventional sanitary systems as a potential public benefit of the PDD proposal.”

Response: Because of the shallow depth to the water table beneath the Canal Property, as well as the site’s narrow configuration (that would not allow for adequate setbacks from water resources or the property lines required by the SCSC), a Nitrex™ WWTF would not be feasible on the Canal Property. The Prior Plan has been revised to propose the installation of a new sanitary system on the CPI site, with further installation of a PRB (see Figure 1-1) to remove nitrogen from sources associated with the proposed project as well as nitrogen concentrations in groundwater passing beneath the site. As a result, greater than 100 percent nitrogen removal is achieved which has significant water quality benefits as compared with existing conditions (with and without operational flow of CPI) as well as as-of-right conditions use conditions under RWB zoning. In order to achieve the 100% nitrogen reduction goal, either an active or passive alternative sewage treatment system will be chosen by the Town Board as part of the CPI component of the MPDD development. If the passive PRB option with conventional subsurface sanitary system is chosen, a monitoring protocol of the Nitrogen output may be required by the Town Board to both study and determine the long term effectiveness of this approach.

3.5.44 Comment G-81

“The Eastern property is proposed for a Nitrex™ WWT system to handle the wastewater from the Canal property. The applicant should discuss the impacts surrounding this precedent of offsite wastewater treatment in the Town of Southampton. The applicant should address the negative and positive environmental effects of building the necessary infrastructure for the proposed wastewater treatment system near sensitive water bodies. How would this be useful for an alternative mixed use development on the Canal property or in the vicinity? Is there a potential for expansion or connectivity? What are the potential impacts for the surrounding residential uses? The applicant shall describe the actual constraints as to why the Nitrex™ system cannot be accommodated on the Canal site. Are there any anticipated public benefits relative to the community immediately surrounding the Eastern parcel where the Nitrex™ facility is proposed?”

Page 3-66 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: The proposed PDD concept assumes that all the acreage in the maritime development district is considered as one, and not individually. That is, even if there are a number of non-contiguous sites within this PDD, the overall development is expected to be distributed over the land available, and is not to be constrained to any one site. This was the case for the Prior Plan, and remains so for the Revised Plan. Thus, the CPI, being the most important component, must be rehabilitated in-place; the Canal Property will be redeveloped residentially, , and the Nitrex™ system will go where it would conform to SCDHS requirements. By placing the Nitrex™ system on the Eastern Property, the vertical separation between the system’s leaching pools and the water table exceeds the SCDHS minimum required (which could not occur on the Canal Property), and the Nitrex™ system could not be located on the CPI Property, as it could not meet the required setbacks. Further, the analyses presented in this document (see Appendix M-1) indicate that the use of Nitrex™ technology and the PRB on the CPI Property will minimize groundwater impacts and will improve water quality in the Shinnecock Canal by removing nitrogen in groundwater that was generated on other properties to the west and north.

As noted earlier, re-development of the Canal Property with a mixed-use project could not include anon-site Nitrex™ system, as it could not accommodate one. A mixed-use scenario on the Canal Property would have to be reduced in size to allow for an on-site septic system, or would have to connect to off-site treatment.

The Nitrex™ system will be designed and permitted by the SCDHS to serve only the Canal Property. The Canal Property is not expected to have any significant amount of remaining development potential. Any expansion (to serve other sites in the vicinity) would be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, and would require the establishment of a sewer district.

The issue of adverse impacts on the appraised value of other homes in the vicinity is addressed in Section 2.4.

3.5.45 Comment G-82

“The DEIS does not assess the anticipated impacts of not preserving the Eastern parcel as recommended. The Town would be interested in the Paumanok Trail option (see Section 1.1.4.2 on p. 1-17) and therefore it should be presented in the public benefit section.”

Response: Section 1.3.1 has been revised to include the use of a portion of the Eastern Property as a linkage in the Paumanok Path walking trail, a significant region public open space amenity. If such a public benefit were not provided, adverse impacts to the public would include: loss of an opportunity to provide such an amenity, at little or no cost to the public.

3.5.46 Comment G-83

Page 3-67 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“Related to soil remediation at the Canal, page 2-9 of the DEIS states that “upon approval of the re-development of the site, all sanitary pools will be closed out in accordance with SCDHS requirements”. What is the status of the Spill remediation plan for the underground storage tank (UST)? When will the cleanup be initiated? Is it also contingent upon approval or is the timeframe mandated by NYSDEC?”

Response: Remediation will commence upon redevelopment of the site. The work plan for the remediation has been approved by the NYSDEC; no time frame has been mandated.

3.5.47 Comment G-84

“For each of these intersections, the analysis states “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”, except Montauk Highway, which also stated that with the project there will be “less traffic delays”.

The intersections do operate at the same LOS letter distinction (“A” to “A”, “F” to “F”) in the No Build and Build scenarios, but what constitutes an “F” in these scenarios differs widely, as there is no upper threshold to an “F” determination. For example, the current delay of 10.5 minutes to turn left out of Canoe Place Inn, which is an “F”, becomes 15 minutes in the build scenario, and is still an “F”. So while the letter grades or “LOS conditions” remain the same, the numbers show that there will be significant impacts on the safe operation of these intersections. In turn, Montauk Highway at Canoe Place road, currently receiving LOS “F” for left and right hand turns also has the highest crash rate in this area. Increasing the delays even further, as this report states will occur with the proposed use, will only exacerbate this problem.

Montauk Highway at North Shore Road does improve by 8% for southbound left turns between the No Build and Build scenarios, but at the same time, the southbound right Montauk Highway at North Shore Road does improve by 8% for southbound left turns between the No Build and Build scenarios, but at the same time, the southbound right turn has an increase in delay from 1.4 minutes to 2.3 minutes, or a 61% decrease in efficiency. In fact, of the 28 periods of time measured to determine the difference between the Build and No Build scenarios, the delay improved during one time period at an intersection, stayed the same during 7 periods, and got worse, often significantly, at 20 periods, or 71% of the measurements.”

Response: As previously stated in the TIS, the failing levels of service at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road is an existing problem. The SCDPW is currently working on the installation of a traffic signal at this location. The installation of the traffic signal at this location will mitigate the failing levels of service and hence improve traffic flow and safety in the study area.

Page 3-68 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

The failing levels of service at the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road is an existing condition. The construction of the proposed project will improve the operation of the southbound left turns between the No Build and Build Scenarios during all the six peak periods analyzed. However, between the No Build and Build scenarios the southbound right turn movement only degrades during two of the six peak periods analyzed (Wednesday and Friday PM peak hours) with an increase in delay of 8% and 11% during the Wednesday and Friday PM peak hours respectively. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to improve the operation of this intersection by redesigning the intersection to a modern T-intersection and remove the southbound and westbound right turn ramps. The redesigned intersection will reduce the number of traffic conflicts, provide for a better flow of traffic and improved traffic safety.

Item #10 of the Town’s traffic engineering consultant’s letter (Appendix O-2) commented on the impact of an increase in delay at this intersection, as well as on the provision of improvements at this location. The applicant’s response letter addressing this comment is presented in Appendix O-2.

3.5.48 Comment G-85

“An additional concern with the proposed development and the associated traffic delays is the impact on response times by Emergency Vehicles; this includes ambulances and fire trucks. While the average response time goals by these agencies vary by the type of incident (life threatening vs. property damage, for example) it is important to consider EMS vehicles in overall traffic operations. It is especially important at the Canoe Place Inn property that is currently not utilized but is planned to have events serving up to 350 people.”

Response: The proposed signalization of Montauk Highway at Canoe Place Road and the redesign of the intersections of Montauk Highway at North Shore Road and Montauk Highway at Newtown Road will reduce delays on Montauk Highway and hence will reduce average response times for Emergency Vehicles.

Item #11 of the Town’s traffic engineering consultant’s letter (Appendix O-2) commented on the effect of the proposed improvements at this location, and the need for additional traffic engineering analysis. The applicant’s response letter addressing this comment is presented in Appendix O-2.

3.5.49 Comment G-86

“The NPV engineer’s response is unconventional for Planned Development District application because the intent of a PDD is to allow for development incentives in return for improvements to the area and quality of life for local residents. One of the long- term goals of Article XXVI (Planned Development Districts) is to maximize efficiency and coordination of existing and

Page 3-69 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

planned transportation facilities and networks. Improving the traffic conditions in the area through installing traffic mitigation measures would be a viable public benefit. Therefore it is recommended that the applicant provide an analysis of alternatives to mitigate these traffic impacts as provided for in SEQRA, and as part of the community benefits associated with this PDD application, the applicant should provide improvements at their own expense. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle amenities must be made part of the scope of the traffic study as these are typically incorporated into all PDD’s that involve residential uses. The proposed traffic mitigations prepared in the FEIS will be forwarded to the Town’s Traffic consultant for review and recommendation.”

Response: The following improvement measures proposed within the study area will be viable to public and community benefit:

1. The County has completed the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Canoe Place Road. The installation of the traffic signal at this location will mitigate the current traffic issues at this intersection and hence will improve traffic flow and safety in the study area.

2. The applicant is proposing to redesign the intersection of Montauk Highway and North Shore Road to a standard T- intersection and eliminate the existing southbound and westbound right turn ramps. The property that will be gained by the elimination of the southbound right turn ramp will be utilized for landscaping and the installation of a small public parking area and walkway to a proposed viewing platform within the applicants’ property to view the canal.

3. The applicant is also proposing to redesign the intersection of Montauk Highway at Newtown Road to remove the existing ramp from southbound Newtown Road to westbound Montauk Highway and construct a new southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Montauk Highway and Newtown Road with a southbound to westbound acceleration lane and a deceleration lane at the new site access on Montauk Highway. These improvements will eliminate the weaving of Newtown Road traffic making a left turn onto Canoe Place Road. These improvements will improve traffic flow and safety at these locations and the study area as a whole and also a benefit to the public and community.

The Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties shows that sidewalk will be installed from the Canal Property’s main vehicle access northward to the northern limit of the property. The applicant is amenable to the installation of sidewalk from the site’s main vehicle access southward to connect to the existing sidewalk on the northern side of Montauk Highway, and to installing bicycle racks and/or other bicycle-related amenities on the Canal Property, to be completed as part of the site plan review process with the Town.

3.5.50 Comment G-87

“The environmental effects of the zoning change cannot be segmented from the construction phase and should therefore be fully discussed within the FEIS. The FEIS will elaborate on how the construction impacts can be minimized.”

Page 3-70 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: Section 4.1 of the Draft EIS contained an extensive and detailed discussion of the anticipated impacts of construction on the three project properties. With respect to the measures that can and/or would be taken to mitigate these impacts, the Draft EIS indicated:

• erosion control measures 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. • construction-related impacts would be localized and temporary. • the properties are large enough to allow demolition, staging, construction and completion of improvements to occur within the site boundaries, relying on surrounding roads only for access to and from the sites. • the time span and geographical extent of the construction processes are limited, so that the potential impacts that may be experienced by the site’s neighbors are likewise anticipated to be limited. • 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. • it is proposed to reuse as much of the excavated soil 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: o use of trucks having a larger volume (so that the number of trips needed is further reduced); o limiting truck movements to hours outside of school bus and commuter hours; o use of major roadways (reducing truck use of residential streets); and o 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: o school bus activities occur during early morning and early afternoon hours, when only a limited number of trucks are utilizing the roads; o bus drivers as well as truck drivers are trained and specially licensed to operate their vehicles in a safe manner, observing appropriate traffic laws; o the safe and efficient site access will be established so that trucks can enter the site without causing delays on local roadways; and

Page 3-71 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

o 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. • 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. • a SWPPP will be prepared to ensure compliance with water quality and quantity requirements pursuant to Technical Guidance and GP 0-10-001 requirements. • 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.

As noted, this information was included in the Draft EIS and is reiterated herein in response to this comment.

3.5.51 Comment G-88

“Regarding noise, the DEIS states that long-term impacts related to noise will predominantly result from the seasonal outdoor activities on the CPI Property. Public testimony objecting to the use of tents for outdoor weddings and special events on the site was heard by the Town Board. The applicant should explain and address in the FEIS if there is any way to limit the tent use to specific timeframes within the season or other strategy to mitigate the potential impacts of noise on the surrounding area.”

Response: See Response, Section 2.3.

3.5.52 Comment G-89

“South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) Plan - 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.

How will the proposed project provide pedestrian linkages? Locate the potential areas on a map and provide supporting narrative as to how this would be accomplished.”

Response: As of the date of preparation of this Final EIS, mapping of the Paumanok Trail at a level of detail sufficient for planning are not available, so that details of a potential connection across the Eastern Property cannot be provided. Nevertheless, the applicant proposes an easement to the

Page 3-72 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Town for public access to the northern portion of the site, to be used for passive recreation in connection with the trail linkage (i.e., Paumanok Path).

3.5.53 Comment G-90

“South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) Plan - 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.

This response does not consider that the size and scale of the proposed townhomes changes the visual quality and sense of place, specifically, the coastal landscape that exists along the Shinnecock Canal corridor. More discussion related to the mitigation of impacts that relate to non-compliance with this standard should be included.”

Response: Review of Figure 3-1 shows that the Shinnecock Canal is lined primarily by developed commercial properties. As a result, the Prior Plan was not non-compliant with the SSER with respect to the visual quality and sense of place of the Shinnecock Canal corridor; rather, the existing condition of the Canal Property is non-compliant with the SSER. The portion of the canal corridor occupied by the Canal Property is presently a vacated former mixed-use site with four abandoned, unmaintained buildings interspersed with overgrown weedy vegetation and empty gravel parking areas, with an unattended floating dock and dilapidated revetment. With the proposed changes to the project noted in Section 1.3, particularly to the Canal Property, the Revised Plan will comply with the SSER. Specifically, the reduced number of units results in the elimination of two residential structures, and the revised grading allows the residential structures to be lower in height. The separation between buildings has been increased, as has the distance from the Canal, thus providing improved views across the site and from the site. As a result, the reduced size and scale of Canal Property re-development would further mitigate potential visual impacts on the “sense of place” of the canal corridor.

3.5.54 Comment G-91

“Regarding sustainability features incorporated into the design, the final scope for the DEIS required a discussion related to the use of energy efficient devices that will be evaluated and addressed against current energy savings standards and further required a discussion related to the potential for townhouse buildings and the site to be constructed using LEED standards. Please indicate in the FEIS how this will be accomplished and respond to the Planning Board’s similar comments about this in their referral report of December 19, 2013.”

Response:

Page 3-73 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

At the Canoe Place Inn, the existing building has, due to its age, no energy or water savings measures installed. Where appropriate within the context of maintaining as much of the historic structure as possible, insulation will be added to reduce both heating and cooling energy use. An entirely new, energy-efficient heating and cooling system will be provided and all new plumbing fixtures will be low-flow, dual flush and water-efficient. All new appliances and equipment will meet Energy Star requirements, where such equipment is available.

At the Canal Property, the individual units will be designed to meet Energy Star requirements, including highly insulated building envelopes, high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment and low-flow dual-flush plumbing fixtures. The buildings have been oriented in a north-south direction to minimize solar gain in the summer months, and balconies and/or deeply inset windows have been provided along the western facades to provide passive cooling in the summer and passive heating in the winter. to the Town Board may require the applicant to pursue LEED®or equivalent certificationand will include the specific sustainable features of the project in the local law to ensure compliance with the Town’s Sustainability Plan recommendations.

3.6 Town Department of Municipal Works

3.6.1 Comment G-92

“Canal Property - There is a proposed wall to be located near the northern property line south of the LILCO Tower. The resulting slopes adjacent to the wall both at the eastern end and western end of the wall are quite steep. The Engineering Division is concerned that this steep slope will result in substantial erosion at the slope wall interface, especially on the western slope where it will discharge to the boat basin. The designer is requested to consider installation of a drainage feature at the slope in both locations to reduce the overland flow entering into this area, in addition to flaring out the grades to provide a more gentle transition.”

Response: A wall is no longer proposed near the LILCO tower. As illustrated in the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, the area between Building #1 and the LILCO tower no longer has steep slopes and will remain near existing grades. The existing slope to the boat basin on the Canal Property will remain. It is noted that a drainage feature at the top of the slope is not feasible due to the site constraints which limit the location of the proposed structures, resulting in the limited

Page 3-74 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

availability of area for such a feature. Drainage from the proposed building will be directed to on-site leaching pools designed to conform to Town standards for stormwater runoff storage, reducing overland flow to the maximum extent practicable. Any disturbance to the existing slope will require a permit from the NYSDEC, and is anticipated to be stabilized with a turf reinforcement mat and a native seed mix.

3.6.2 Comment G-93

“Canal Property - There is a proposed cut slope to be created north of CR 80 along the south property line, becoming more dramatic near the walkway south of Building 9. Please provide the proposed method of slope stabilization along this walkway. ”

Response: As shown in the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, the existing embankment within the right-of-way, north of CR 80 is not being disturbed. The existing embankment is currently vegetated, which stabilizes it. On the south property line, the walkway south of Building #7 is supported with a retaining wall.

3.6.3 Comment G-94

“Canal Property - Tributary Area “C” has building, sidewalks, decks and permeable areas contributing storm water which is proposed to be accommodated by a Drainage Reserve area. While the presented calculations appear to provide adequate capacity, the Engineering Division has some concerns. The drainage reserve area has a bottom elevation of 8.0 and top of 9.0. The approximate groundwater is El.5.0 and influenced by tidal fluctuations. Please provide calculations for the condition of extended high tide and/or storm high tide with infiltration rates of storm water in the basin. The concern is that storage will be insufficient during high rain and/or storm events where groundwater and tidal waters rise.”

Response: Based on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the high tide is around elevation 3.1. The Drainage Reserve Area will still function in conformance with the design intent of this component of the drainage plan.

3.6.4 Comment G-95

“Canal Property - Tributary C also appears to have a potential safe overflow of the basin located south of the basin, north of Building 9-unit 40. Please provide stabilization details of this swale.”

Response:

Page 3-75 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

.At minimum, the existing swale west of the proposed drainage reserve area (DRA) and north of Building #7 is anticipated to be stabilized with a turf reinforcement mat and native hydroseed mix. Further details regarding stabilization of this swale will be evaluated and designed during the Site Plan review process. The DRA is designed as per Town requirements.

3.6.5 Comment G-96

“Canal Property - Please provide a construction phasing plan for this property to ensure that construction proceeds in a manner to prevent sediment discharges to the Shinnecock Canal.”

Response: The Canal Property is of a sufficient size to ensure that all construction staging, storage and operations can be contained within the site. The site is currently extensively disturbed, thereby providing areas needed for construction staging and management as the development proceeds. The site plan set to be prepared for the Town Planning Board review will include an Erosion Control Plan and any other plans that may be required during that review.

The Erosion Control Plan will be implemented as follows:

1. Prior to the start of any disturbance, install silt fencing along the perimeter of the areas to be graded and install sediment filter bags at existing drainage inlets. 2. Install temporary gravel construction entrances/exits. 3. Complete site clearing, including removing and stockpiling existing topsoil. 4. Regrade the site to proposed subgrade elevations. 5. Install drainage structures and install sediment filter bags at new drainage inlets. 6. Complete final grading for driveways and parking areas, and stabilize these with dense graded aggregate. 7. Complete final grading of landscape areas and permanently vegetate, landscape and mulch. 8. Complete final paving of parking and driveway areas. 9. All erosion and sediment control practices will be inspected weekly and after rainfall events. Needed repairs will be made immediately upon detection. 10. The above are minimum requirements; specific methods and materials employed in the installation and maintenance of erosion control measures shall conform to the document,“NYS Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control”.

3.6.6 Comment G-97

“CPI Property - This property is proposed to be 100% disturbed under the proposed plan, please provide a construction phasing plan for this property to ensure that construction proceeds in a manner to prevent sediment discharges off site.”

Response: The CPI Property is of a sufficient size to ensure that all construction staging, storage and operations can be contained within the site. The site is currently extensively disturbed, thereby providing areas needed for construction staging and management as the development proceeds.

Page 3-76 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

The site plan set to be prepared for the Planning Board review will include an Erosion Control Plan and any other plans that may be required during that review.

3.7 Town Highway Department

3.7.1 Comment G-98 “ “The drainage capacities for pavement, sidewalks and buildings for a Town road are correct as well as drainage standards for a two (2") inch rainfall. The coefficient is one (1); the standard engineering number. The landscaped areas drainage capacity pools should be using the standard coefficient of .025 instead of. 0.2 which would increase the cubic footage and the capacity for storm water runoff.”

Response: The drainage calculations on the Concept Grading and Drainage Plans have been revised to indicate a 0.25 runoff coefficient for the proposed landscape areas.

3.7.2 Comment G-99

“Landscaped areas do not percolate when the ground contains frost and weather conditions on the east end produce frost conditions that long as two to three months. Maximum capacity will help prevent flooding areas at these sites; particularly the western property which contains significant grade changes from the west side of the site towards Newtown Road.”

Response: The drainage calculations were prepared in accordance with the “Town of Southampton Road and Drainage Standards.” The runoff coefficient for landscape areas is identified in this manual. It is noted that the road and drainage standards are able to be modified by the Town Board in the PDD legislation if site conditions warrant it.

3.8 Hampton Bays Fire District, Board of Fire Commissioners

3.8.1 Comment G-100

“CPI Property -Curb cuts and driveway radius’ are too narrow for the operation of fire trucks, especially the location to the front of the building.”

Response: The curb cuts provided are 24 feet or wider and have 30-foot radii, which are sufficient for the operation of fire trucks. Appendix O-2 contains additional discussion of emergency vehicle access within the sites:

Page 3-77 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Note that the concept site plans have forwarded to the Fire Commissioners for their review by Town Planning and is pending their approval of the accessibility of the site with their emergency vehicles. The radii at the curb cuts are 30 feet, which allows emergency vehicles to turn into the driveways. We have included a Vehicle Path Plan showing the route of the largest Hampton Bay fire truck as provided by the fire truck supplier. The Hampton Bay fire ladder truck (47 feet long) will be the largest vehicle accessing the property, as such, all other smaller vehicles will be able to maneuver through the properties.

3.8.2 Comment G-101

“CPI Property - Parking, the count of 176 parking spaces, both asphalt and overflow on lawns around the property. We would like to know what the projected capacity of patrons for the dining restaurant, bar, catering area, and proposed tent area.”

Response: The Concept Site Plan, Canoe Place Inn shows that a conforming total of 236 parking spaces will be available on that site, of which 14 would be proximate to the five cottages, leaving 222 spaces for patrons of the CPI structure. As given in Table 1-5, the Revised Plan would provide the following on the CPI Property, with estimated occupancies:

• catering - 350 persons (117 parking spaces required) • restaurant w/bar seats - 90 persons (31 parking spaces required) • outdoor events - 120 persons (40 parking spaces required)

The above totals 188 spaces, leaving 34 spaces for employees, and inn guests.

3.8.3 Comment G-102

“CPI Property - The five 1 story residences on the west side of the property. Are these buildings for seasonal rentals, or for year round occupancy? Are they to be rented or sold individually?”

Response: The applicant proposes to rent these cottages; the length of these rental periods has not been determined at the present time, and will be dictated by market demand. The Maritime PDD legislation will be very specific related to the prohibition of converting the cottages into year- round dwelling units, as this is not the intention of the proposed development at the CPI property.

3.8.4 Comment G-103

“CPI Property - Yard hydrants, a new hydrant line should be looped in from hydrants on Montauk Highway through the property to the north and reconnected to the hydrant on Newtown Road. More discussion should be directed to the Hampton Bays Water District.”

Page 3-78 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: Required yard hydrants will be considered in coordination with the Hampton Bays Water District..

3.8.5 Comment G-104

“CPI Property - Sprinkler system”

Response: An updated, code-compliant sprinkler system will be provided at the Canoe Place Inn structure including stand-pipes in the stairwells.

3.8.6 Comment G-105

“CPI Property - Knox box be installed”

Response: A knox-box will be provided for the use of the Hampton Bays Fire Department at the rehabilitated Canoe Place Inn, at a location to be determined by the department.

3.8.7 Comment G-106

“CPI Property -Relocation of all drywells from in the travel area of the driveways to grass areas. This is requested to avoid the placement of the tower ladder. The trucks landing gear cannot be placed on top of a cast manhole cover.”

Response: The Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Canoe Place Inn has been revised to show that the manhole covers of the drywells will be outside of the access aisles.

3.8.8 Comment G-107

“CPI Property - BOFC would also like to know if there is a full basement planned, access points, and ceiling heights.”

Response:

Page 3-79 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

No new basements will be constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn. There is a small, existing basement under a portion of the original inn that will remain, as it is part of the original building but will not have any occupancy or day-to-day use.

3.8.9 Comment G-108

“CPI Property - Building construction”

Response: The existing Canoe Place Inn is constructed of a combination of wood frame and non- combustible terra cotta blocks, which were intended to prevent a fire such as the one that destroyed the inn in 1921. As much of the original framing and most, if not all, of the terra cotta will be preserved in place, and the new infill portions of the building will be of compatible, wood frame construction

3.8.10 Comment G-109

“CPI Property - Building elevations”

Response: Views of the proposed rehabilitation of the Canoe Place Inn were provided in Appendix J-1 of the Draft EIS; additional views will be prepared as part of the site plan application.

3.8.11 Comment G-110

“CPI Property - Elevator location(s)”

Response: No elevator is proposed for the Canoe Place Inn as it is neither required by the NYS Code for wood-frame inns less than four stories, and any new elevator enclosure, including its over-run, would be visually incompatible with the existing inn building.

All existing and new public entries to the inn will be accessible to those with physical disabilities and fully accessible rooms will be provided on the first floor of the inn.

3.8.12 Comment G-111

Page 3-80 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“Canal Property -Curb cuts and driveway radius’ are too narrow for the operation of fire trucks, especially the two entrances and exits as well as the Calder sac on the south of the parking area.”

Response: The curb cuts provided are 24 feet or wider and have 30-foot radii, which are sufficient for the operation of fire trucks (see also Response, Section 3.8.1).

3.8.13 Comment G-112

“Canal Property - 8’high concrete wall for noise. This wall will not allow multiple access points to the property in the event of a building, car or boat fire other than the two points of entry. In the event of a car accident in an entrance it also eliminates anyone from exiting the parking lot areas.”

Response: A noise wall is not being proposed on the Canal Property in the Revised Plan. In addition, two wide gaps between buildings have now been provided, one on the southern end of the property and one north of the boat basin/floating dock, to provide easy access and egress for life-safety equipment through the property to the canal and boat basin/floating dock, respectively.

The Revised Plan shows that three vehicle accesses onto North Shore Road will be available for emergency vehicle ingress. While the northern parking area has only one vehicle access, the parking area is separated from North Shore Road by only a 25-foot deep landscaped strip. This could easily be crossed by an emergency vehicle access, which could be added to the plan during the site plan review process.

3.8.14 Comment G-113

“Canal Property - Walk ways and access to the west side of the buildings. The walk areas vary in size and would restrict the operation of driving a fire truck in between the buildings, or down to the waterfront to make a rescue”

Response: As noted in Response, Section 3.8.13, wider gaps have been provided between the buildings on the Canal Property sufficient to allow life-safety equipment access to the western side of the proposed buildings.

3.8.15 Comment G-114

Page 3-81 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

“Canal Property - Limited (walking only) access to the Canal waterfront from Montauk Highway bridge to the Locks (RR bridge). Between the proposed retaining wall at the RR Bridge and the 8’ high noise wall, along with the limited truck access, any water rescue equipment would have to be walked into the property to the canal area adding time to make the rescue.”

Response: The noise wall is not being proposed as part of the Revised Plan. As noted in Response, Section 3.1.17, the Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties provides a new, off-street public parking area accessed from North Shore Road at the southeast corner of the site. An on-grade, accessible path will be provided from this parking area along the toe of the slope of the Old Montauk Highway embankment to the canal.

3.8.16 Comment G-115

“Canal Property - Distances from the parking lot to the most western townhouse buildings exceed 240’not including the length of hose needed to enter the buildings.”

Response: The distance from the parking lots to the furthest townhouse in the Prior Plan has been reduced in the Concept Site Plan Canal Properties. In addition, the applicant will work with the Hampton Bays Fire Department during the Planning Board site plan review submittal so that, hydrants will be located properly and shown on the plans for submission to the Town Planning Board.

3.8.17 Comment G-116

“Canal Property - Yard hydrants, a new hydrant line should be looped in the North Road along the sidewalks to the west of the parking area to allow fire trucks to connect the LDH hose without obstructing additional vehicles from arriving. There is currently only one hydrant in the area on the east side of North Road, and once the LDH hose is attached, it prevents any additional use of North Road, and will require closing down this road. More discussion should be directed to the Hampton Bays Water District.”

Response: See Response, Section 3.8.16.Required yard hydrants will be considered when coordination with the HBWD occurs and will be required as part of the Maritime PDD law.

3.8.18 Comment G-117

“Canal Property - Sprinkler system, no mention of a RPZ room, also a discussion with the Hampton Bays Water District to understand the water needs for these (40) buildings.”

Page 3-82 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

Response: Residential grade sprinkler systems, as specified in the NYS Building Code will be provided in each of the individual 37 townhouses as well as in the clubhouse building.

3.8.19 Comment G-118

“Canal Property - Knox box be installed on all townhouses”

Response: As each of the townhouses is a private residence, knox-boxes are not appropriate for inclusion as part of the Canal Property. A knox-box will be provided at the clubhouse structure.

3.8.20 Comment G-119

“Canal Property - Relocation of all drywells from in the travel area of the driveways to grass areas. This is requested to avoid the placement of the tower ladder. The trucks landing gear cannot be placed on top of a cast manhole cover.”

Response: The site plan will be revised as necessary to avoid placing drywells having manhole covers with insufficient bearing strength in locations where fire equipment (particularly tower truck landing gear) may be placed.

The Concept Site Plan, Canal Properties has been revised to show that the manhole covers of the drywells will be outside of the access aisles.

3.8.21 Comment G-120

“Canal Property - BOFC would also like to know if there is a full basement planned, ceiling heights, and any allowed uses. It appears from the canal side of the computer rendering on the website that the foundation is elevated and this additional information is needed to estimate the total elevation to the roof line for ladder placement. In the event of a rescue, need to get to the roof from the canal side.”

Response: A portion of Building 2 will include a basement to house the resident’s clubhouse. The relocation of the proposed buildings at the north end of the site to the “top of the bluff” above the boat basin, has eliminated the previously shown “elevated foundations” and should provide easier ladder placement.

Page 3-83 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.8.22 Comment G-121

“Canal Property - Building construction (stick frame), hurricane rated windows, solar panels?”

Response: The proposed structures on the Canal Property will be wood-frame construction with residential grade sprinkler systems. Windows and other openings will meet the appropriate wind-load and impact requirement of the NYS Building Code for this location. Although the north-south orientation of the buildings is good for control of solar gain and passive heating/cooling, it does not provide appropriate solar orientation for roof-mounted solar electric panels.

3.8.23 Comment G-122

“Canal Property - Building elevations from North Road side (east) and Canal side (west)” Response: Building elevations for all sides of the buildings on the Canal Property will be provided during site plan review before the Town Planning Board.

3.8.24 Comment G-123

“Canal Property - Location of pool equipment, pumps, chemicals, heaters, as it relates to living areas and CO exhaust.”

Response: All pool equipment will be located in the single-story clubhouse building. No such equipment and/or storage of materials for the pool will be located in or adjacent to any residential unit.

3.8.25 Comment G-124

“Canal Property - Elevator location(s)”

Response: There will be no elevators on the Canal Property.

3.8.26 Comment G-125

“Canal Property - Boat slips, how many boats are planned to be moored at this location”

Response: It is anticipated that room for 17 boats would be available, so that up to 17 boats could be moored at the floating dock on the Canal Property.

Page 3-84 CPI, Canal & Eastern Properties Maritime Planned Development District (MPDD) Change of Zone Application Final EIS

3.8.27 Comment G-126

“Canal Property - Exposure to the townhouses at the boat slips is ±20 feet. Exposure problem form exhaust or possible boat fire to the buildings.”

Response: While in plan the townhouses are approximately 20 feet from the edge of the dock, the structures have been relocated behind the top-of-the-bluff, which is more than 15 feet high, further separating the structures from any possible incident in the boat basin.

3.8.28 Comment G-127

“Canal Property - Limited (walking only) access to the boat basin area”

Response: Both the existing floating dock and the separate, adjacent fixed walkway along the entire length of the boat basin will remain. Accessible access will be provided from the south-side resident parking lot through the pool area to the boat basin.

3.8.29 Comment G-128

“Canal Property - The elevation of the townhouses, and the 8’ noise wall, may become an issue with icy road conditions on North Road approach to the intersection, as the shade casted during the winter months, may not allow the roadway to dry. Plans indicate the wall to be within 3’ at times to the sidewalk and curb of the roadway. More information should be discussed.”

Response: The noise wall has been removed from the Canal Property in the Revised Plan, thus alleviating any concern related to casting shadows onto the road right-of-way.

Page 3-85