CDM 8900 Yaphank FGEIS070611

User Manual: CDM 8900

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 231 [warning: Documents this large are best viewed by clicking the View PDF Link!]

Declaration as Surplus and Subsequent Sale
of 250 Acres of County Owned Land in Yaphank
for Mixed Use Development Purposes
Yaphank, Town of Brookhaven
Suffolk County, New York
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared for Suffolk County for the:
July, 2011
FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
Declaration As Surplus and Subsequent Sale of 250 Acres of County Owned Land in
Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes
250 acres on both sides of Yaphank Avenue between
the Long Island Expressway to the north and Horseblock Road to the South
Yaphank, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York
LEAD AGENCY: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
CONTACT: Michael Mulé, Environmental Projects Coordinator
Suffolk County Planning Department
100 Veterans Memorial Highway, 4th Floor
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel (631) 853-5203
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
CONTACT: Michael Mulé, Environmental Projects Coordinator
Suffolk County Planning Department
100 Veterans Memorial Highway, 4th Floor
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel (631) 853-5203
PREPARED BY: CAMERON ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, LLP
CONTACTS: Janice Jijina, P.E., AICP/Alan J. King, Jr., P.E.
100 Sunnyside Boulevard, Suite 100
Woodbury, New York 11797
516-827-4900
Project Coordination/Engineering/Environmental/Traffic
LALLY ACOUSTICAL CONSULTING
Emily Lally
272 Water Street #5R
New York, NY 10038
212-614-3280
Noise
AMY S. GREENE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Tom Brodde
4 Walter E. Foran Boulevard, Suite 209
Flemington, NJ 08822
908-788-9676 ext. 10
Ecology
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Cece Saunders
P. O. Box 3037
Westport, CT 06880
203-226-7654
Archaeological Resources
ERM
Jim Perazzo
40 Marcus Drive, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 756-8900
Environmental Site Assessment
PEARL M. KAMER, Ph.D.
Consulting Economist
Syosset, New York
516-433-3629
Economics
CDM
Mary Anne Taylor
100 Crossways Park
Woodbury, NY 11797
516-496-8400
Groundwater Modeling
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2-1
2.1. GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1. Casino ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2. ENERGY/LEED ............................................................................................................................ 2-12
2.3. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ....................................................... 2-13
2.4. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 2-14
2.4.1. Water Supply ................................................................................................................. 2-14
2.4.2. Wastewater Management .............................................................................................. 2-14
2.4.3. Stormwater Recharge ................................................................................................... 2-16
2.5. ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 2-17
2.5.1. Wetlands, Streams and Carmans River ........................................................................ 2-20
2.5.2. Land Cover and Vegetation .......................................................................................... 2-24
2.6. LAND USE .................................................................................................................................... 2-26
2.7. ZONING ........................................................................................................................................ 2-33
2.8. PUBLIC POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 2-35
2.8.1. General ......................................................................................................................... 2-35
2.8.2. Carmans River .............................................................................................................. 2-43
2.8.3. Smart Growth ............................................................................................................... 2-47
2.9. TRANSPORTATION – TRAFFIC AND PARKING ............................................................................... 2-50
2.10. VISUAL QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 2-55
2.11. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 2-55
2.12. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 2-62
2.13. COMMUNITY SERVICES ................................................................................................................ 2-63
2.13.1. Emergency Services ...................................................................................................... 2-63
2.13.2. School Districts ............................................................................................................. 2-64
2.14. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................................................................................. 2-67
2.15. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 2-69
2.16. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 2-70
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Project Components ................................................................................................................................. 1-4
Table 1-2: Thresholds for Further SEQRA Analysis ................................................................................................. 1-4
Table 2-1: Conformance with Smart Growth Principles (Table 8-2 of the DGEIS) ................................................ 2-49
Table 2-2: Year 2025-2045 Emission Factors and Volumes ................................................................................... 2-59
Table 2-3: Year 2045 Emission Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................... 2-59
Table 2-4: Maximum Potential Truck Trips (Trips per Hour/tph) ........................................................................... 2-61
Table 2-5: Project Data by Area .............................................................................................................................. 2-72
Table 2-6: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives (Revised DGEIS Table 25-14) ............................... 2-73
APPENDICES
Appendix A – SEQRA Documents
Appendix B – Hearing Transcript
Appendix C – Comment Letters
K:\C1800-1849\CE1808E\Yaphank FGEIS June 17 2011.docx
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 1-1
1. Introduction
The County of Suffolk (the “County”), issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the sale or
lease for mixed–use development of approximately 250 acres at its Yaphank County Center.
Respondents were encouraged to configure a development team that would bring the highest
possible level of design and planning experience to this opportunity. The County sought
responses that would establish a new standard of excellence in design, a sense of place and an
exciting vibrant live, work, and play environment that would enhance the local Yaphank
community and the greater Suffolk County region. The County selected the development
proposal that best met the conditions and requirements of the RFP considering the capacity, both
financially and based on prior experience, for the respondent to transform their development
concepts into a sustainable built environment (the “Selected Developer”).
The County Legislature determined that a declaration of surplus and sale of this size property,
while associated with a development plan was a Type I Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement would be
required to comply with SEQRA requirements. A Draft Scope was prepared, a Public Hearing
was held, and public comments were received. A Final Scope was then prepared based on the
comments received and was adopted by the County Legislature in the fall of 2010.
Suffolk County accepted the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on March
17, 2011, held a public hearing on the DGEIS on April 12, 2011, and accepted public comment
on the DGEIS through April 29, 2011. The Notice of Completion of the Draft GEIS and the
Notice of Hearing for the April 12, 2011 Public Hearing are provided in Appendix A – SEQRA
Documents.
This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) addresses concerns raised during
the SEQRA Hearing and written comments received during the public comment period on the
Draft GEIS. The Draft GEIS is incorporated into this document by reference.
The State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.9(b)(8) states that:
A final EIS must consist of: the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it;
copies or a summary of the substantive comments received and their source (whether or
not the comments were received in the context of a hearing); and the lead agency's
responses to all substantive comments. The draft EIS may be directly incorporated into
the final EIS or may be incorporated by reference. The lead agency is responsible for the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 1-2
adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS, regardless of who prepares it. All revisions and
supplements to the draft EIS must be specifically indicated and identified as such in the
final EIS.
Chapter 2 of the FGEIS summarizes and responds to all of the substantive comments received
through the SEQRA public hearing and public comment period. Chapter 3 summarizes the
mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. A complete copy of the hearing
transcript and the written comments is provided in the Appendix.
Following adoption of this FEIS, the remaining steps of the process for the proposed action,
including completion of SEQRA review and subsequent actions, are as follows:
• Based on the information and analysis contained in the DGEIS and FGEIS, the County
will adopt a Statement of Findings, which is the final environmental basis for the
County decision, and will: (a) establish whether the proposed action avoids or mitigates
significant adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives available (Positive Findings); or (b) establish that the proposed
action does not satisfy this prerequisite for approval (Negative Findings). Adoption of
this Findings Statement completes the SEQRA process.
• If the County concludes SEQRA with Positive Findings, it can proceed with the
Declaration as Surplus and Subsequent Sale of 250 Acres of County Owned Land in
Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes, which comprise the proposed action.
The County can sell the Areas separately or in combination as the analysis was done
for the individual areas as well as the entire site.
While this will complete the SEQRA review for the County’s action, further SEQRA analysis
may be required during the detailed design phase of any future development actions on this site,
as specified in SEQRA §617.10(d) and further described in Section 26 of the DGEIS and
summarized below.
For an identical project - it is anticipated that a Supplemental EIS will be required even if the
project remains exactly the same in order to evaluate issues related to site design which were
unknown at the time of the preparation of the DGEIS. The preliminary scope of this analysis
would include the following issues:
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 1-3
• Design and Layout
• Programming for Arena and Stadium
• Methodology for sustained affordability of housing
• Cut and fill analysis
• Stormwater management
• Visual quality
• Landscape plan
• Lighting plan
• Update of community service and utility availability
• Wastewater treatment plant design
• Energy analysis
• LEED compliance
For a modified project - the DGEIS and FGEIS were based upon a conceptual plan that is subject
to change as a result of more detailed design and the approval process through the Town of
Brookhaven. Through the rezoning and approvals process it is anticipated that the plan design
could change in various ways including specific uses, density and layout. For each area of
analysis, if these assumptions are exceeded by more than a minor amount (specified below)
additional analyses should be performed for that issue.
The project that was analyzed in this DGEIS consisted of approximately 3,000,000 square feet of
mixed use development as specified in Table 1-1 below. In the event that the overall scope of the
development is increased beyond 3,000,000 square feet, or any individual component is
increased by more than ten percent (10%), additional analysis shall be conducted to determine if
there are any greater impacts than analyzed herein which need to be evaluated. Additionally, if
less than the entire site is developed, there should be no more than 10% variation in the uses and
density proposed for those Areas.
Table 1-2 lists the thresholds which would trigger the consideration of additional SEQRA review
for a modified project. If any of these thresholds are exceeded it is anticipated that an initial
evaluation would be performed to determine if the potential impact is significant and warrants
subsequent review. This determination would be made by the Lead Agency in effect at the time.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 1-4
Table 1-1: Project Components
Use Total Site Area A Area B Area C Area D
Housing
72 @ 650 sf 46,800 sf
46,800
sf
785 @ 1,100
863,500
sf
863,500
215 @ 1600 sf
344,000
Sf
344,000
sf
Commercial
Arena
160,000
sf
160,000
sf
Hotel 70,000 sf 70,000 sf
Restaurants 35,000 sf 35,000 sf
Retail 25,000 sf
25,000
sf
Office
50,000
sf
50,000
sf
Health Club 50,000 sf 50,000 sf
Day Care 20,000 sf 20,000 sf
Outdoor Stadium 152,160 sf
152,160
sf
Light Industrial
1,200,000
sf
1,200,000
sf
Recreational Fields
3
Fields
3
Fields
Total 3,016,460 sf 588,960 sf 1,227,500 sf 3 Fields 1,200,000 sf
Table 1-2: Thresholds for Further SEQRA Analysis
Geology
Project changes will impact geologic resources
Soils
Construction is proposed that is incompatible with site soils
Topography
Construction is proposed in steep slopes
Surface and Subsurface
Conditions
The Phase I Site Assessments identified several Recognized Environmental
Conditions (RECs) which will need to be investigated before commencement
of site design and construction. If any of these RECs would impact site
development, these impacts shall be analyzed.
Groundwater
Project changes will require more than 548,000 gallons per day of water supply
Adequate water supply cannot be provided to serve the project
Stormwater Collection,
Treatment and Recharge
All Stormwater cannot be retained on site.
Fertilizers & Pesticides
Noncompliance with County fertilizer and pesticide policy.
Ecological Resources
More than 240 acres of site cleared.
Sewage Disposal
More than 477,000 gpd of wastewater generated
Advanced wastewater treatment plant not available
Land Use
Different land uses than analyzed herein
Zoning
N/A
Public Policy
N/A
Transportation – Traffic
More than the following trips:
AM Peak: 1,815
Midday Peak: 2,478
PM Peak: 3,600
Saturday Peak: 2,478
Transportation – Parking
Less parking spaces provided than required by code
Visual Quality
Arena taller than 70 feet, or located closer to property boundaries; all other
buildings if taller than 40 feet.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 1-5
Noise
For traffic noise: a 6 dBA increase in noise levels
For stationary sources: exceeding the limits set forth in the Town of
Brookhaven Code
Air Quality
If traffic needs to be reanalyzed or if traffic mitigation measures identified
herein are not installed
County Farm
Project changes that would put more activity closer to the County farm
Community Services
Inability of emergency service providers to serve the site
Schools
More than 207 projected public school children
Utilities
More than 15,000 KVA or 1,100 therms
Economic Impacts
Tax abatements, IDA, etc.
Construction Impacts
Lesser construction mitigation controls than outlined herein
Cumulative Impacts
N/A
LEED
Project does not meet LEED Certification
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-1
2. Comments and Responses
This chapter addresses the comments received during the SEQRA public hearing and the public
comment period on the DSEIS. The comments are grouped by subject matter and referenced to
the original source. Comments are reproduced exactly as written. Where multiple comments
have a similar theme and/or are repetitive, not every individual comment is listed and they are
grouped and responded to once. A complete copy of the public hearing transcript and the written
comments is provided in Appendix B – Hearing Transcript and Appendix C – Comment Letters.
2.1. General Comments
2.1.1. Casino
Comment 1:
The people of Yaphank have been under siege for a long time from developers, the
Compost facility, the jail, the Town dump, the Trap and Skeet and now Steve Levy. His
Legacy Village Plan was a horrible idea and his Casino idea is even worse. The CEQ
should seriously contemplate taking any action that will lead to this land being declared
surplus or offered for sale. The people of Yaphank are against any attempt to put a casino
on this property. This is a very historic town and we do not want the town destroyed by
this type of development. (Letter from Robert/Audrey Kessler)
I am very concerned about the sale of this land for development. Land that is near the
beautiful Carmans River as well as near the Pine Barrens needs to be carefully protected.
A casino where Legacy Village was to be is just ridiculous. This residential area will be
choked with traffic and will invite more problems to this beautiful area that are related to
such development. (Email from Helen Sohne, April 29, 2011)
In the midst of long-standing fighting to find ways to eradicate the invasive species that
have attacked our Yaphank lakes, and in the face of the present venture to place the
hamlet of Yaphank into the Pine Barrens in order to protect it from further environmental
damage, how can constructing a casino possibly be considered? Years of meetings,
studies and taxpayer expense devoted to finding solution to the invasive plants, and
currently months of meetings to understand and potentially support the Carmans River
Watershed Protection and Management Plan to protect in perpetuity the fragile ecosystem
of the rivers would be for nought. It would be unconscionable to consider a destination
casino for Yaphank. (Email from Carol Dooley, April 28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-2
I am a Yaphank resident and I am absolutely outraged by the proposal to create a
Shinnecock Indian Casino on the "Legacy Village property. (Email from Kathleen
Madigan, April 28, 2011)
I, as well as my husband, and numerous neighbors are opposed to the development of this
land. In addition, to hear this past week that the possibility of a casino being built in the
Yaphank area, has angered us, to say the least. The negatives definitely outweigh the
positives: increased traffic, increased crime, decrease in home values. We have already
decided that if this were to happen we would move...no doubt about it. We will not stay in
an area that puts are family at risk for potential various situations. (Email from Marybeth
Lyons, April 29, 2011)
As President of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge and a 43 year resident of
South Haven I am writing to tell you that we are against any development of this property;
especially a casino or other development within the watershed of Carmans River. (Email
from Claire Goad, April 29, 2011)
I have read about the Shinnecock Indian Nation considering putting in a casino in
Yaphank. We have enough dumped on us already with the shooting range, dumps,
compost. We do not need a Casino in Yaphank. Our lakes and Rivers need to be
protected. (Email from Diane English, April 29, 2011)
PLEASE leave our Carman’s River Watershed plan intact! We don’t need any private
land developers and/or an Indian Casino. This area has been hit hard enough. Maybe
someone on the North Shore would love such a casino, but we DO NOT. (Email from
Bob/Donna Esp, April 29, 2011)
Response: The GEIS evaluated the proposed action of Declaration as Surplus and Sale of
255 Acres of County Owned Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes as
advanced in the Legacy Village proposal. A Casino is not part of this process. In the event
that a casino is advanced for this site in the future, a Supplemental EIS would be required
to thoroughly analyze the potential impacts of that use, as is required under SEQRA.
Comment 2:
I felt that, in general, the consultant downplayed most of the potential impacts of the
project. (Email from Daniel Pichney, dated April 5, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-3
Response: The purpose and use of a Generic EIS is described in the SEQRA regulations
as follows:
Generic EISs may be broader, and more general than site or project specific EISs
and should discuss the logic and rationale for the choices advanced. They may
also include an assessment of specific impacts if such details are available. They
may be based on conceptual information in some cases. They may identify the
important elements of the natural resource base as well as the existing and
projected cultural features, patterns and character. They may discuss in general
terms the constraints and consequences of any narrowing of future options. They
may present and analyze in general terms a few hypothetical scenarios that could
and are likely to occur.
Generic EISs and their findings should set forth specific conditions or criteria
under which future actions will be undertaken or approved, including
requirements for any subsequent SEQR compliance. This may include thresholds
and criteria for supplemental EISs to reflect specific significant impacts, such as
site specific impacts, that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in the
generic EIS.
Chapter 26 of the DEIS states that:
As the proposed development is conceptual in nature, detailed plans were not
available at the time the DGEIS was prepared, and the project may be modified
as government approvals are pursued, it is likely that additional SEQRA review
will be required.
Therefore a detailed analysis could not be performed for many of the issues in the DGEIS
and as appropriate for a Generic EIS, the potential impacts could only be generally
estimated. Therefore Chapter 26 of the DGEIS contains specific guidance as to what
additional SEQRA analysis would be required and when this additional SEQRA analysis
would be required. Future SEQRA analysis will be much more specific as it will relate to
a more defined plan.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-4
Comment 3:
It states there was a public outreach, but it wasn't in Yaphank. Not much anyway.
Transparent and lengthy process through the early involvement of the community. After
the RFP Committee met, the plan went behind closed doors and the community had little
or no involvement. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page
18)
Response: SEQRA provides for public involvement throughout the entire process. The
public was invited to comment on the Draft Scope for the Draft GEIS and their substantive
comments were incorporated into the Final Scope. The public was invited to comment on
the Draft GEIS and their comments are being responded to in this Final GEIS. Once a
Final GEIS is issued by the County the public will have a minimum of ten days to
consider the Final EIS before the County adopts Findings.
Additional public outreach will occur if the property is sold and developed as part of the
Town’s approval process. Public Hearings will likely be held on various aspects of the
discretionary approvals such as zone changes, site plans and subdivision approvals.
Additional SEQRA analysis will undoubtedly be required as addressed in Comment 2: and
this will include additional opportunities for public outreach,
Comment 4:
And I know that most of the Yaphank people are currently at the town hall tonight, there’s
another meeting at town hall pertaining to the landfill. So I -- I will tell you that, only for
that, there would many of them here tonight. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April
12, 2011 Transcript Page 25)
Response: The Public Hearing is only one way to participate in the SEQRA process. The
entire Draft GEIS is available online, at the County offices and at the local library. The
public had the opportunity from March 18, 2011 to April 29, 2011 to read the Draft GEIS
and to submit written comments on its content.
Comment 5:
If the sale of this land does happen, I think that it ought to be done with a proviso that any
future plans would have to pass muster as they apply to all issues (the river, traffic, usage,
etc.), on their own merit and should not be sold "as is" with all of the criteria established
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-5
for Legacy Village in place. In other words whoever buys it should have to start from
scratch rather than simply bootstrapping Legacy's criteria as a means of circumventing
zoning, environmental or community issues. (Email from John Palasek, April 28, 2011)
Response: As stated in the earlier comment, “Generic EISs and their findings should set
forth specific conditions or criteria under which future actions will be undertaken or
approved, including requirements for any subsequent SEQR compliance. This may
include thresholds and criteria for supplemental EISs to reflect specific significant
impacts, such as site specific impacts, that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in
the generic EIS.” Therefore any future plans, if materially different from that studied in
the DGEIS, would require additional SEQRA analysis.
The conceptual plans analyzed in the GEIS are not binding on the Town of Brookhaven.
It is anticipated that the Selected Developer may modify the plan, and/or as the project
progresses through the Town of Brookhaven rezoning and approvals process that the plan
design could change in various ways including specific uses, density and layout. Once a
GEIS is completed, the applicant can use the information in that report as a basis, but will
have to provide new analysis of the modified plan, as appropriate. For example the
existing conditions established in the GEIS would be the basis against which impacts
would be evaluated, but a new impact analysis could be required for a specific element.
The criteria for additional SEQRA review are provided in Section 26 of the DGEIS and
summarized in Section 1 of this FGEIS.
Comment 6:
EDF is concerned over the proposed disposition of County land at the Yaphank County
Center (Proposed Plan) in Suffolk County (County). The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft EIS) prepared in connection with Proposed Plan must be revised to
reflect changed circumstances and to include the requisite level of analysis regarding the
preservation alternative. The draft EIS describes the Legacy Village development plan as
the lead proposal that the County is considering as part of its disposition proposal. In
light of recent developments in the County, it would appear to be the case that the Legacy
Village plan is no longer the lead proposal for the Yaphank County Center as it is
described in the Draft EIS. A revised Draft EIS must analyze the most recent proposal that
encompasses sale to a private party and likely development scenarios, including a full
assessment of the likely impacts of a development that is consistent with existing Town
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-6
zoning. The County clearly contemplates significant development of this land; otherwise,
its sale at auction would yield no income. For SEQRA purposes it cannot take the
position that the auction does not contemplate some significant range of development so
long as the intent of the auction is to achieve significant positive revenues for the County.
In order for the County to demonstrate that it will be receiving reasonable value for land
that it is selling, it has to have some development concept in mind. Without the auction,
those impacts would not occur. It is those impacts that a revised EIS must fully address.
As of now, it does not do so at all. (Letter from James Tripp, Environmental Defense
Fund, dated April 26, 2011)
I believe that the DGEIS should be revised for the following reasons: 1. The property
will most likely not be sold to Legacy Village and this is the only proposal that was
reviewed. Therefore it would seem that it would be necessary to investigate various other
possible uses for the property.; 2. There could be any number of different types of
development that could come forward if the property is put up for competitive bidding.
(Email from Johan McConnell, South Yaphank Civic Association, April 28, 2011)
I would like to express my view on the DGEIS that has been generated pertaining to the
acreage in Yaphank. The study is too specific to the Legacy/Lunacy Village proposal and
any future proposals for the land should have to execute a new Environmental Impact
Study that is precise to the intended land use. (Email from Christopher Broszeit, April 29,
2011)
Response: As discussed above, a Generic EIS can only provide a level of analysis that
reflects the level of design available at the time and is meant to be supplemented in the
future if and when more detailed information about a specific proposed plan becomes
available. At this time there is no information available about a casino, nor about specific
alternatives other than Legacy Village. The analysis that was done in the Generic EIS
provides a general framework from which to evaluate the surplus of the land and some
future development thereof. In the future if a different plan is proposed for this land, it will
be analyzed in more detail through a Supplemental EIS.
Comment 7:
The DGEIS lists four areas, A — D. My understanding of the SEQRA law is that this is
segmentation, but I'll let others more familiar with the law address this. No matter what
else comes from this plan, the FEIS should recommend that area A be transferred to the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-7
County Parks Department to become part of Southaven Park. (Letter from Martin Van
Lith, Fire Place History Club, April 28, 2011)
Finally, we note that any segmentation of any environmental review to permit or sanction
development on any of these parcels violates state law. The CEQ cannot facilitate
development on one parcel as if it exists in a vacuum fully apart from the remaining lands
and consideration of the impacts to the entire region from any development within this
critical environmental region. (Letter from MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven
Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
The EIS takes an “all or nothing approach.” Why does it not consider preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas (Parcel A being one) and allow for certain uses for less
sensitive areas. All open space or all development should not be the only options
considered. (Multiple Letters)
Response: The specific reason that Areas A through D were analyzed both separately and
as a whole is that the disposition of the land may occur in pieces. By looking at the
potential development impacts of each parcel separately and as a whole, the County has
the option to dispose of each parcel separately, or in any combination. There is no
segmentation under this process, and sale of one or more parcels individually or in any
combination would be no less protective of the environment than sale of the entire
property as a whole. Segmentation would only occur if a portion of the property were sold
prior to completion of the SEQRA process, which is not contemplated.
Comment 8:
But again, I think more needs to be done… And I think we really need to look seriously at
the Carmans River Watershed study and make sure that whatever is decided by this – this
body that – you know, it’s the right thing for Yaphank. (Suffolk County Legislator
Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 26)
Let me begin by commenting that it is unclear to most in the Brookhaven hamlet
community that the DGEIS for Legacy Village was still an ongoing process given all of the
new developments related with this same land. To begin, it should have been tabled
during the time while Brookhaven Town is undergoing a Carmans River Preservation
Plan. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire Place History Club, dated April 28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-8
This week the CEQ should have put the plan aside and announced either a postponement
or cancellation after the County Legislature voted to kill the Legacy Village proposal and
replace it with their own plan. This is all extremely confusing to the lay people whose lives
will be very much affected by the proposal. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire Place
History Club, dated April 28, 2011)
Response: The new developments on this land mentioned in the comment are assumed to
be the resolution to end Legacy Village and a newspaper report of a potential casino for
the site. Neither of those resulted in the discontinuance of the SEQRA process which
continues to its completion with a Findings Statement following the issuance of this Final
GEIS.
As for the Carmans River Preservation Plan, there is no reason to table a SEQRA process
because a planning study is conducted. The timing of that study is unknown. It was issued
as a Draft Plan in March 2011 and a Final Plan has not yet been adopted by the
Brookhaven Town Board. The appropriate procedure is for any ongoing SEQRA reviews
to continue. If and when that plan is finalized, development of this site will be required to
comply with any regulations or laws that result.
Comment 9:
Equally distressing is that DGEIS comments are due immediately after the report that
Legacy Village's author has been convicted of improprieties by the district attorney. It's
no wonder that public confidence in government is at an all-time low. (Letter from Martin
Van Lith, Fire Place History Club, dated April 28, 2011)
Response: This comment is unrelated to the SEQRA process.
Comment 10:
The whole process that led to this DGEIS is questionable and seems to be a sham: The
signing of contracts with a developer before the legislature voted to declare the land
surplus. The plan and the contract calling for massive development on land that is not
zoned by the Town for this kind of density. And using taxpayer money for the propaganda
promoting the plan. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire Place History Club, dated April
28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-9
Response: The process leading to the DGEIS has been determined to be appropriate by
the County Attorney. No contracts have been signed as of yet with any developer. The
SEQRA process must be completed before a contract can be executed. The County has the
ability to propose potential uses for land it owns. Should the land be declared surplus and
sold, the developer will be required to obtain approvals from the Town of Brookhaven.
Those approvals, which could entail a change of zone, and could impact uses, density and
layout, will ultimately determine what is built.
Comment 11:
We believe any action that will provide for the surplus or sale of this vital Suffolk County
asset is not in the best interests of our environment, our communities or the taxpayers of
Suffolk! We respectfully request that CEQ recommend to the Legislature that sale of these
lands will be environmentally and financially unsound, and that the CEQ is unable to
reasonably carry out its duty absent specific information as to how negative and what
impacts on the land can actually be determined or mitigated. (Letter from MaryAnn
Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
As an active civic group we believe this measure is environmentally unsound and any
future development on this largely “undeveloped” land will only serve to increase the
likelihood that the fragile state of the Carmans River will be put at even greater risk of
environmental disaster … ABCO believes that limitations on development of these lands is
essential to avoid a direct negative and sustained adverse impact to CARMANS RIVER
WATERSHED and the wondrous critical ecosystems that must be protected for future
generations. This will irreversibly damage the quality of the Carmans River Watershed
and only further negatively impact the quality of life of those who reside there. We thank
you for prompt consideration of our comments and hope that the CEQ will serve the
environment and the best interests of Suffolk's residents, both present and future, and not
the special interests or short-sighted limited political vision that seeks short-term and
shortsighted solutions to what is clearly long-term fiscal problems. (Letter from MaryAnn
Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
It was originally purchased with taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers should have a say in
what to do with the acreage. (Email from Charlotte Jacob, April 20, 2011)
Response: It is up to the County Legislature to determine whether to surplus and sell this
property. In order to make an informed decision, and as required by law, the SEQRA
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-10
process analyzes the potential impacts of sale and future development under various
scenarios. The CEQ’s role is to make a recommendation on the environmental impacts,
not the fiscal impacts. Should the eventual plan proposed for this site be materially
different from the alternatives studied, a Supplemental EIS will be required, in accordance
with State law.
In addition, the County’s open space program evaluates undeveloped parcels according to
their environmental, recreational, aesthetic and other values. The evaluation of candidate
parcels for preservation is conducted in the best interests of the citizens and the
environment. According to the County’s open space program criteria, none of the parcels
comprising the proposed project offer exceptional value that would justify their permanent
protection.
In terms of the Carmans River, whatever may eventually be developed on these parcels
will need to conform to whatever restrictions may be imposed by the Carmans River
Watershed Protection and Management Plan that is still in draft form as of this writing.
Comment 12:
I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the potential impact from the
Declaration as Surplus and Subsequent Sale of County-Owned Land in Yaphank. As a
resident and taxpayer I am adamantly opposed to the surplus and potential sale of this
property. (Multiple letters)
This past Tuesday, our local legislators Browning, Anker, Eddington, Romaine and
Barraga, voted the will of their constituents. We ask that their voices, on our behalf, be
seriously contemplated by CEQ. Do not take any action that will provide for the surplus
or sale of this Suffolk County asset! I implore that CEQ move slowly and thoughtfully
about the transfer of ownership of this property. More information should be gathered,
reviewed and considered. (Multiple Letters)
My comment for the CEQ is for the CEQ to note that the Suffolk County legislators
representing the people who live in the vicinity of the land in Yaphank voted against the
sale of the 247 acres, and for more EIS work to be done. (Email from Steven Trusnovec,
April 28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-11
The Fire Place History Club, like the rest of the Brookhaven hamlet community, has been
opposed to the idea of building a mini-city on 255 acres of County land in Yaphank since
it was first introduced by Executive Steve Levy in 2005. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire
Place History Club, dated April 28, 2011)
I am the President of the Yaphank Civic Association, however today I write this letter as a
concerned taxpayer, and lifelong resident of the Historic Hamlet of Yaphank. My family
dates back in this town over two centuries, and I am extremely concerned with the current
proposals for the county owned property known as the Legacy Village project. (Email
from Chad Trusnovec, Yaphank Civic Association, April 29, 2011)
I am totally opposed to any development of this property . We have enough impact to the
land at this time. The landfill has many issues that need addressing, we do not need more
impact on the community in any way. (Email from Lillian and Nick Depaolo, April 29,
2011)
The Civic Association has put on record much opposition to this or any other future
project to this area. Please consider the resident's deteriorating quality of life in the
decision making process. This is much more important than the short term financial gain
that the county may assess. (Email from Chad Trusnovec, Yaphank Civic Association,
April 29, 2011)
I’m writing to in regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the
development of 255 acres in Yaphank. I strongly oppose the sale and development of this
land and feel the land should be preserved. Yaphank and the surrounding areas are rural
communities and could not environmentally or economically support the volume of
houses, buildings, offices, people and traffic. (Email from Karen Palasek, April 29, 2011)
I oppose the sale of this land not only because I believe that any development would
adversely affect both the historic nature of the area and the Carmans river watershed…
(Email from John Palasek, April 28, 2011)
I thank you for the every consideration and hope that the CEQ will find in favor of the
environment and in the best interest of the residents. (Multiple Letters)
Also, I was under the impression that the people owned this land. I certainly do not want
to sell it for this purpose. (Email from Helen Sohne, April 29, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-12
I thank you for the time you took to read this letter. I hope you appreciate that this petition
is not the result of a ‘not in my backyard’ philosophy, but rather an outlook for the future
of a town that has too much charm to cut and divide for a profit. My family is counting on
the CEQ to consider the future of our beautiful Yaphank. (Email from Laura Day, April
28, 2011)
Response: It is noted that various members of the public are opposed to the sale and
development of this property. However, that is not a SEQRA issue. The role of SEQRA is
to analyze the environmental impacts of an action, so that those impacts can be taken into
consideration by decision makers, in this case, initially the Suffolk County Legislature and
ultimately the Town of Brookhaven.
2.2. Energy/LEED
Comment 13:
The draft EIS assumes that the development proposal will be LEED-certified. As a result,
the impacts are less than they otherwise would be. Because the developer is not legally
obligated to obtain LEED-certification or to achieve net-zero electricity consumption for
any development proposal, the Draft EIS must also analyze the impacts should these
assumptions not be implemented (Letter from James Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund,
dated April 26, 2011)
Response: The County Legislature has set LEED certification as a requirement for this
project. They have the ability through the Contract of Sale to ensure that the property will
be developed as a LEED certified project or that an equivalent environmental benefit will
result. While the specific method is not under the purview of the CEQ, a likely method
would be to require LEED certification of the ultimate development and to enforce it
through an escrow account that would be retained by the County if the project was not
LEED certified. These funds could then be used to provide energy and environmental
benefits through another vehicle in the event that the developer defaulted on the
agreement.
In addition, the DGEIS recognized that the Developer’s claim of a net-zero project might
not be fully attainable or achieved, and as such, contacted the utilities to determine if
adequate capacity was available to serve the proposed development. The response was that
adequate electricity and gas are available.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-13
2.3. Surface and Subsurface Environmental Conditions
Comment 14:
Target Practice Area in both Area B and Area D - The report clearly states that the
activity in these areas may have resulted in environmental impacts due to the toxic
materials in the shell casings and the clay targets. Yet, the report fails to mention how to
mitigate this impact. (Email from Johan McConnell, South Yaphank Civic Association,
April 28, 2011)
Response: The potential for environmental impacts from shell casings and clay targets
will need to be assessed as part of any redevelopment. If such environmental impacts are
identified they would need to be mitigated during any construction activities and/or as part
of ongoing engineering or institutional controls pursuant to NYS regulation. Section 4.8 of
the DGEIS indicates that further investigation of the identified Recognized Environmental
Conditions (REC)’s will be conducted by the Selected Developer as part of the due
diligence period. Mitigation for these impacts, if required, shall be the Selected
Developer’s responsibility and will be completed prior to and/or during the project
construction.
Comment 15:
Groundwater Plume in Area B and C - The consultant clearly indicates that there is
potential for impacts for soil vapor in both location, and that the groundwater has been
affected. I am concerned that Area B was designated for the housing units and no mention
is made of how this would affect the units. (Email from Johan McConnell, South Yaphank
Civic Association, April 28, 2011)
Response: The potential for existing ground water contamination to cause a soil vapor
impact will need to be assessed as part of any redevelopment. If such an impact is
confirmed, the redevelopment would need to incorporate mitigation measures in the form
of institutional and/or engineering controls (e.g., sub-slab depressurization similar to radon
mitigation used in other parts of the Country) consistent with NYS regulation. These
regulations allow for certain engineering and institutional controls for a variety of land
uses including residential.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-14
2.4. Groundwater
2.4.1. Water Supply
Comment 16:
The Carmen's River runs through the community of Yaphank which also has two lakes and
flows into the Great South Bay. In the 70's the area in question was stated that it is in a
deep recharge area for the Carmen's river. Now all of a sudden the land is to be used for
Levy World as I call it. The land really belongs to the taxpayers and they should have the
say what is done with it … Why ruin the remaining good drinking water that is left on this
island ... stop this infringement on the beauty and character of this area … looking
forward to keeping this land open for future generations. (Email from Charlotte Jacob,
April 20, 2011)
Response: There are three separate issues in this comment. First, the DGEIS addresses the
issue of groundwater quality in the section on groundwater modeling that shows that there
will not be a contravention of groundwater standards as a result of this project. The
reasons for this are the retention of stormwater on site, limitations on fertilizers and
pesticides that will be imposed by the County on any purchaser, and the fact that all of the
wastewater that is generated will be treated at a tertiary wastewater treatment facility.
These mitigation measures will limit the amount of nitrogen that is released to the
groundwater.
Second, as stated in the DGEIS, according to the SCWA, the proposed withdrawal from
this project would not be anticipated to have a significant effect on baseflow to the
Carmans River due to the size of the watershed recharging the aquifer and the fact that the
water supply would be from an interconnected system that draws from a large area and
from both aquifers.
The third issue concerns the taxpayers’ right to determine the use of the land. That right is
expressed through the actions of their elected officials and is unrelated to the SEQRA
process.
2.4.2. Wastewater Management
Comment 17:
The sewage treatment plant that would be needed is not described enough. What would
the size of it be? How much would it cost, as a developer may not want to have to pay for
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-15
such a large endeavor. What type of sewage plant would be most suitable for this area?
What impact will the discharge from this sewage treatment plant have on the Carmans
River Watershed? (Multiple Letters)
Since the entire Yaphank site is in the Carmans River watershed, all development at the
site prior to completion should be hooked up to a tertiary sewage treatment facility. The
build out of the preferred alternative as called for in the DGEIS shows significant
increases in sewage flow. Since the current Yaphank Sewage Treatment Plant is or will be
at capacity, the amount of acreage required for the upgraded/new facility should be made
part of the GEIS. In addition, the projected cost in current dollars for such a facility
should be calculated so that any individuals purchasing and developing the site know up
front what start up costs will be required. (Letter from James F. Bagg, Jr., April 28, 2011)
Ground water discharge of any waste water from 1000 plus units will further degrade and
impact the river as well as public and private drinking wells in the surrounding areas.
(Letter from MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29,
2011)
Response: Section 5.2.2 of the DGEIS indicates that the Contract of Sale requires the
Selected Developer to design and build the necessary wastewater collection and treatment
facilities, at its own cost. The cost for the treatment plant is estimated at approximately
$18 million dollars at $37 per gallon. The Selected Developer would construct a new
privately owned sewage treatment plant, increase the capacity of an existing publicly
owned sewage treatment plant, or construct a new publicly owned sewage treatment plant
to handle all of the wastewater generated at the project site. The proposed treatment plant
has not yet been designed. However, due to the LEED requirement and the stated goals of
the Selected Developer to create a state of the art facility, it is anticipated that the new
facility will have advanced treatment capabilities and will produce very high quality
effluent with lower nitrogen concentration than the code limit of 10 mg/l. The County can
require other specific level of treatments, such as a minimum of tertiary treatment and/or
best management practices, etc, which can be recommended by the Suffolk County Health
Department, as part of the Contract of Sale. The County has designated Area F
(approximately 15 acres) for this facility. The draft Carmans River Watershed Protection
and Management Plan specifies lower limits for nitrogen discharges to groundwater and a
lower concentration in the river itself. Development in the watershed will need to meet
any regulations adopted concerning nitrogen limits.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-16
2.4.3. Stormwater Recharge
Comment 18:
I oppose the development on top of the Carmans River watershed because of the runoff
from all the houses and stuff that would be built, from – from fertilizers and the roads –
will contaminate the river and also the aquifers that are very nec – like necessary for our
drinking water on Long Island. (Mr. Zarvos, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 27)
Response: As indicated in Section 5.3 of the DGEIS, Suffolk County has adopted several
local laws to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, including the following:
• Local Law 41-2007 “ A Local Law to Reduce Nitrogen Pollution by reducing Use of
Fertilizer in Suffolk County” prevents the application of fertilizer on County owned
property, and prohibits the application of fertilizer on all other property between
November 1 and April 1 every year.
• Local Law 5-2009 “A Local Law to Reduce the Use of Fertilizer Near Surface Waters
in Suffolk County” added another degree of protection as follows: Fertilizer shall not
be applied to any County-owned property, nor to any turf on any non-owned County
real property, within twenty (20) feet of any regulated surface water, except, that this
restriction shall not apply where a contiguous natural vegetative buffer, at least ten
(10) feet wide, separates a turf area and regulated surface water.
• Chapter 380 of the Suffolk County Code describes the County’s Pest Control
regulations, which state: Effective July 1, 2003, no County department or agency, or
any pesticide applicator employed by the County or agency as a contractor or
subcontractor for pest control purposes, shall apply any pesticide on County property
(as owner ort tenant) except as provided for in Sections 380-3 of this Chapter.(See the
DGEIS for the stated exemptions)
Since the County currently owns the site of the proposed project, these limitations on
fertilizer and pesticide use effectively limit the application of pesticides and fertilizer on
the property. The County intends to continue this practice on this land following its sale as
a condition of sale. Therefore, these stringent requirements will apply in perpetuity to the
land purchased by the Selected Developer.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-17
In addition, the Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan specifies
lower limits for nitrogen – see response to Comment 16.
2.5. Ecological Resources
Comment 19:
Statement from all beings not human who have rights to open land free of human
habitation in the Carmans river watershed.
Whereas: We, all creatures, other-than-human and human, look forward to going into the
future as one sacred community of beings.
We: Residents of the Carmans River Watershed, require and strongly request, even go so
far as demand that the powers that be, Council members of the Town of Brookhaven
Board, do not allow any development whatsoever, and even as so much as one square inch
of sacred land.
We: Demand, insist, even go so far as to shout at the top of our lungs, that every square
inch of open space that remains be preserved and protected in said watershed that is
presently free of the taint of human occupation.
We: The winged, four-legged, many legged, no legged, single and multi-celled
invertebrates, even bacteria and fungi, who cannot speak up at public hearings, who
simply live their lives in the habitats and ecosystems given to us, the amphibians, fish,
reptiles, birds, and mammals who rely on the sacred compassion of home sapiens, the
thinking upright being who thinks he/she knows what's best for all beings. We, creatures
that do not create nitrogen concentrations too high for us to live in, pollution problems,
especially the endangered species of two-lined salamanders, tiger salamanders, leopard
frogs, spotted turtles, native brook trout, alewives, bald eagles, endangered scarlet
tanangers and other neo tropical bird species who live here and migrate in winter all the
way down to Central and South America, endangered butterflies, tiger beetles, and to her
aquatic insects who depend on fresh, clean water untainted by the human waste stream
that will most assuredly kill us . Not one square inch...leave us be, let us live!
We: Cannot sign this document, this plea; we creatures who already live within the
Carmans River Watershed have rights to live where Humans think they deserve to live
because builders of homes want to help the human. What about us? All sacred creatures
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-18
who cannot speak for ourselves. We, who have been run roughshod, underappreciated and
unnoticed, we are still here living on those precious square inches that humans want to
take away from us for their own selfish needs which ultimately leads to the destruction of
our sacred spaces...soil, trees, wetlands, meadows, all in their natural state, untarnished!
We: Plead with humankind to not destroy us, move us someplace else, cover us with
concrete foundations. Don't fear us. We mean no harm. We are not dangerous. We are
beautiful, each of us with our unique life form. Enjoy us, let us be here for your human
children to learn about and admire, wonder about and develop curiosity over. Let us teach
you all that we are all part of one sacred community, all members of creation and are very
sensitive to the whims of development by humans. Let it be known that we will not do well
with multi-family dwellings with high density on even ONE SQUARE INCH of open space
at the edge of the Carmans River Watershed because groundwater underneath us knows
no boundary. We creatures do not live by property lines and no trespassing signs. We
each have our natural histories and have the same rights as human to be allowed to live
our lives and we are willing to allow human life to observe us, consider us part of our
sacred community for we each have equal rights and want to teach you to admire and be
curious about us. We bring you peace and a chance to improve the quality of all our lives,
both human and non-human.
We: Ask, in the community of all sacred creation, to stop this insanity and leave the
Carmans River Watershed alone to have a chance to heal Herself, bring Herself to a new
balance where we all can live in harmony, love, and peaceful coexistence.
Thank you, The speechless animal and plant life of the Carmans River Watershed. (Letter
from Tom Stock, received May 2, 2011)
Response: This comment requests that not one square inch of habitat be removed.
However, with any development project on undeveloped land there will be loss of habitat.
The County’s Open Space Policy (see Section 10.2 of the DGEIS) lays out the criteria to
determine whether land should be purchased for preservation. If this land was not already
public land, it would not meet the criteria for the County to purchase it for Open Space. As
described in Section 10.2 of the DGEIS, the Suffolk County Planning Department uses the
“Suffolk County Open Space Rating System for Natural Environments Checklist” to
determine which properties should be acquired. Although the County owns this land, the
County prepared two forms for the project site, one for Area A and one for Areas B
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-19
through D, to evaluate whether this land would be targeted for acquisition, if not already
County property. The County recommends properties for acquisition that achieve a rating
of more than 25 points out of a possible 100 points. Area A was rated at 18 points and
Areas B through D were rated at 8 points. Therefore, none of the project site met the
County’s criteria for recommendation for acquisition for preservation purposes.
As stated in Section 7 of the DGEIS, a review of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Natural Heritage Program database was
conducted to describe the occurrence of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant
natural communities, and other significant habitats which occur or may occur on the
project site or in the immediate vicinity. No state-listed animals, plants, natural
communities, or habitats were identified on the project site.
Installation of buildings, roads and associated infrastructure would increase the
fragmentation of habitats for plants and animals and would encourage the establishment of
invasive plant species. Forest fragmentation can reduce the movements of wildlife species
and limit the amount of genetic diversity within populations. The forest fragmentation
would favor “edge” species at the expense of forest interior dwelling species.
The loss of upland, woodland habitat resulting from the proposed project is the most
potentially significant impact to wildlife populations and species in the area. The proposed
project would clear or disturb approximately 75% of the existing forest and most of the
shrub/transition fields and unmanaged grasslands. The total area of developed/impervious
and lawn/landscaped surfaces would increase.
As a result of the overall development plan, a small amount of natural habitat will remain
for wildlife to inhabit. Resident wildlife populations would be expected to disperse from
the project area and into adjacent natural areas during construction of the proposed
project. There are approximately 6,000 acres of currently preserved land within the
surface area of the Carmans River watershed.
The loss of natural habitat within the project areas may discourage the return of certain
wildlife species. Those species most adapted to suburban habitats, fragmented natural
habitats and human activity would be expected to return to the study areas and reestablish
populations within the altered landscape. Maximizing the preservation of existing forest
will mitigate the impacts on native wildlife populations. Specific project designs should
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-20
strive to maintain travel corridors and contiguous habitat. The use of native tree, shrub and
grassland species will promote re-colonization of the developed areas by wildlife species.
The Commenter suggests that “every square inch of open space that remains be preserved
and protected in said watershed that is presently free of the taint of human occupation.”
This is not realistic since the existing habitat and plant communities present throughout
Long Island, including the study area, are the result of a long history of human influences
including settlement, fire, logging and agriculture. Human influences continue to
indirectly influence habitat characteristics through atmospheric deposition, climate
change, introduction of invasive species and increasing populations of white-tailed deer.
2.5.1. Wetlands, Streams and Carmans River
Comment 20:
And I just want to go into the reduction of wetlands in results to the reduction of water
quality in the Carman Lake (sic) which will result from industrialization and development.
Increase in development and an industrialization will add on to the reduction in the water
quality; overconsumption and mass expansion will lead to further pollution in the water
table; and will also lead to further reduction of wetlands, which could result from coastal
disasters and also provide nurseries and result in vast wild diversity of wetlands... I feel
that the plan is a bit -- a short-term goal in terms of mass expansion and -- leading to
increase use of water which we are already depleting. I feel that we need more long-term
goals which will focus on our resources in our wetlands and -- provided by our wetlands
and -- as well as water quality protection plan. Also, I feel like this vast expansion will be
to a lack of land needed for future generations. So I think we need to think more
sustainably and more about the future, rather than just right now. (Ms. Abreu, April 12,
2011 Transcript Page 11)
I do have a piece of legislation currently to preserve Parcel A. The -- not the developed
area, however -- where it is not currently developed, to preserve that. That's smack dab
right on top of the Carmans River Watershed. And I'm also reading here -where is it
here? Streams in the Carmans River -- I believe its page 20, and it says here, "Although
distant from the Carmans River, the proposed developments in areas B through D could
negatively affect both water quality and quantity within the river due to decreased
groundwater recharge. Increase groundwater withdrawal, introduction of contaminants,
and shallow groundwater can surface runoff, and increased use of fertilizers and deicing
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-21
materials." This is a GEIS. It's a general environmental impact study. I think there could
be more work done on this and I really do -- I think as it stands right now, the Yaphank
development is looking like it’s going to die. And I hope it does. But I have serious
concerns - I've always had serious concerns about this proposed development in Yaphank.
(Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 24)
The parcel is close to the watershed and already surrounded by infringements such as the
County offices, the jail, the police department, firematic, Foley Nursing Home, the town
dump, Grucci, a huge development, Caithness power plant and US rail… The Carmans
River is still not greatly impaired. Please try to keep this river clean. (Email from
Charlotte Jacob, April 20, 2011)
Response: No wetland areas, streams or surface water features were identified within the
project site. Therefore, the proposed plan will not directly impact any wetland resources or
surface water resources. Areas B through F are far removed (i.e., more than 4,000 feet)
from the Carman River wetlands. Area A, however, is closest to the Carmans River with
wetlands approximately 600 feet from the boundary of Area A. Storage and handling of
bulk materials in Area A at present, however, may pose a threat to water quality in the
Carmans River, in particular with respect to runoff of bulk materials. The proposed use
would eliminate all bulk material storage and handling. Future runoff from the proposed
project would be directed to recharge basins (and/or leaching basins) thus preventing
runoff from reaching the Carmans River.
However, the DGEIS states that although distant from the Carmans River, the proposed
developments could negatively affect both water quality and quantity within the river due
to decreased groundwater recharge, increased groundwater withdrawal, introduction of
contaminants into shallow groundwater from surface runoff and increased use of fertilizers
and deicing materials. Potential mitigation measures included in the DGEIS include
limitations on impervious surfaces, preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), construction of stormwater retention facilities to promote infiltration of surface
runoff from impervious surfaces, construction of pre-treatment cells or wetlands to
promote the removal of contaminants from stormwater runoff, restrictions on the use of
fertilizers and pesticides in the proposed landscaping and turfgrass areas and limitations
on the type and use of deicing materials.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-22
The proposed stormwater treatment design will allow for the detention and infiltration of
up to 8 inches of precipitation from impervious surfaces within the proposed development.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides on turfgrass areas would be mitigated by recently
adopted regulations discussed in Section 5.3 of the DGEIS. Additionally, since the County
currently owns the site of the proposed project, these limitations on fertilizer and pesticide
use effectively limit the application of pesticides and fertilizer on the property. The
County intends to continue this practice on this land following its sale as a condition of
sale. Therefore, these stringent requirements will apply in perpetuity to the land purchased
by the Selected Developer.
The proposed project would result in increased withdrawal of groundwater from the Upper
Glacial and Magothy aquifers. According to the SCWA their wells are an interconnected
system and water to serve this project could be supplied through dozens of wells, both
existing and new, if needed. Some of these existing wells are screened in the Upper
Glacial aquifer and some are screened in the Magothy aquifer. If new wells are needed,
the decision on where the wells are screened is based upon water quality and that decision
cannot be made until the location of the well is known. According to the SCWA, the
proposed withdrawal from this project would not be anticipated to have a significant effect
on baseflow to the Carmans River due to the size of the watershed recharging the aquifer
and the fact that the water supply would be from an interconnected system that draws from
a large area and from both aquifers. In addition, the wastewater generated by the project
will be treated and discharged to groundwater, thus maintaining the water table over the
long term. Therefore, additional groundwater withdrawals resulting from the project will
be mitigated by utilizing multiple supply aquifers and discharging treated wastewater back
to groundwater. Additional mitigation measures may include the use of water conservation
practices, limits on irrigation of turfgrass areas and installation of water conserving
fixtures in residential and commercial facilities.
A groundwater model was created by modeling experts to investigate the potential for
significant groundwater impacts from the proposed project. To maintain groundwater
quality entering the Carmans River, groundwater leaving project sites must maintain a
nitrogen concentration of less than 4.5 mg/l. Per the model results, the nitrogen
concentration of groundwater leaving the site would be 2.2 mg/l.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-23
Comment 21:
Even more distressing is the intellectual dishonesty that was used to push this ludicrous
idea to this point. Throughout the County Executive's five-year promotional period there
was no mention of the existence of the adjacent Carmans River. It seems clear to me that
Carmans River was intentionally omitted from all literature to avoid environmental
concerns. As far as I know, there was only one exception to this general deceit, an early
discarded proposal named something like The Villages at Carmans River, which showed a
diagram of a boardwalk leading from the development out to the river. (Letter from
Martin Van Lith, Fire Place History Club, dated April 28, 2011)
Response: The 2006 Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI), which is posted on the
County’s website mentions the proximity to the Carmans River and the General Site
Vision includes “protecting and enhancing the environment including the Carman’s River
watershed”. The Villages at Carmans River was the name of one of the responses received
to the RFEI.
Furthermore, however, there is no legal requirement to discuss environmental impacts
during the conceptual phase of a proposed project. The SEQRA process – under which all
significant projects must be reviewed and evaluated – ensures that all potential
environmental impacts are identified, evaluated and mitigated, if necessary.
Comment 22:
The Draft EIS was prepared at the same time as the Town's Draft Carmans River Plan,
where the Town's goal is for the nitrogen level in Carmans River not to exceed .7 ppm.
The Town's plan should be considered in a revised EIS before any consideration is given
to declare this land surplus for the purpose of auction. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire
Place History Club, April 28, 2011)
The Draft Carmans River Plan proposes a 0.7 ppm nitrogen standard for baseflow entering
the Carmans River. In addition, the Draft Carmans River Plan also adopts a 2.5 ppm (i.e.,
2.5 mg/l) standard for nitrogen at the property line for projects that meets the criteria for
Development of Regional Significance as defined in the Central Pine Barrens
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and 4.5 mg/l of nitrogen at the property line for projects
that require a treatment system per Article 6 of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services code or best practical technology as accepted. As per the groundwater model
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-24
developed by CDM, the average nitrate concentrations for the No Further Development
and Proposed Development scenario – in the larger study area extending to the Carmans
River – are estimated as 1.7 mg/l and 2.2 mg/l respectively. The latter concentration, i.e.,
for the proposed project, is well below the 4.5 mg/l standard that would apply to this
project, and is even below the more stringent standard that was established for
Developments of Regional Significance (as defined for the Pine Barrens).
Comment 23:
And in closing, I must again point out that all of this is on lands that have a direct impact
to CARMANS RIVER WATERSHED, a critical ecosystem that must be protected at all
costs. Further, any future development on these public-owned lands has the potential to
turn the non-destination Historic Hamlet of Yaphank into a mega-city on the Carmans
River. This will irreversibly damage the quality of the Carmans River Watershed and only
further negatively impact the quality of life of those who reside here. (Multiple Letters)
Response: Nearly all of the vacant parcels that have a direct impact upon the Carmans
River, i.e., are adjacent to the river, have been purchased for open space and are protected
in perpetuity. The density of housing units within the Carmans River Watershed will
increase only slightly from approximately 0.29 units per acre to 0.34 units per acre upon
completion of the project.
2.5.2. Land Cover and Vegetation
Comment 24:
In the past, I have been quite vocal about the proposed development on Parcel A. Taking
down the entire woodland there and suggesting, as the consultant did, that planting a few
native trees would make up for disruption of that habitat is patently absurd. Besides the
fact that it would take at least 75 years for newly planted trees to reach the size of those in
the existing woodlands, a collection of trees within a parking lot or as a buffer screen do
not a forest make … As an aside, I would also like to note that in my years of walking the
parcel A area while being employed by DPW, I discovered a lilac shrub, hollies and one
or two other species of cultivated plant that indicated either escapees or a previous
deliberate planting. I just wanted to add to my comments that the woodland on parcel A is
unique in the sense that it is a plant association completely different from the parcels to
the south and has more in common with the woodlands on the hill surrounding the south
side of Lower Yaphank Lake. While there are a number of invasive plants particularly on
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-25
the periphery including Oriental Bittersweet, Japanese Honeysuckle and Norway Maple,
the interior of the woodland contains many fine mature oaks and other deciduous
hardwoods. (Email from Daniel Pichney, dated April 5, 2011)
Response: While Study Area A is part of the broadly defined pitch pine-oak forest
community type, Study Area A does contain plant communities that are somewhat
different than the other properties included in this analysis. The site is bordered by the
Long Island Expressway (LIE) to the north and Yaphank Avenue to the west. Due to the
proximity of the parcel to existing infrastructure and the presence of developed areas, the
northern interior portion of Study Area A supports native vegetation types and the
perimeter habitats support several species of non-native plants. Removal of the forest area
within Study Area A will not be completely offset by landscape plantings associated with
the proposed development. However, a carefully crafted landscape plan utilizing native
plant species can provide important habitat for wildlife species in the area.
Comment 25:
Whenever the issue of clearing land was discussed, the consultant stated that ‘native’
plants would be installed after construction because they were more drought tolerant and
pest free… For a plant to be truly native in all respects, it has to be a plant that is
indigenous to the habitat being disturbed. This would mean plants such as the Eastern
Red Cedar and Pitch Pines that inhabit the area would be replaced, rather than say
mountain laurels or clethra, which while native to LI and are ornamental but are
otherwise inappropriate. Many non-native species suitable for the Yaphank environment
are non-invasive and frugal in their use of both water and nutrients and as such shouldn't
be discounted for the sake of some sort of horticultural correctness. (Email from Daniel
Pichney, dated April 5, 2011)
Response: The commenter is correct that the term “native” could define a broad array of
plant species native in New York, Suffolk County or in the Pine Barrens. To the fullest
extent possible, plant species native to the Long Island Pine Barrens should be selected.
Furthermore, the selected species should be well suited to the anticipated environmental
conditions (i.e. soil characteristics, water, sunlight, etc.) at the specific planting site. In
addition, not-native species well suited to the anticipated environmental conditions may be
considered at the discretion of the Town of Brookhaven.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-26
The Selected Developer will design the landscaping with appropriate plant species that
will require minimal irrigation and fertilization. The Town of Brookhaven will review this
landscaping plan as part of the approval process for future development of this site.
2.6. Land Use
Comment 26:
And I've received numerous complaints about prisoners that have been released and
probationers who have to report to the Probation Department are knocking on doors of
the homes in the surrounding area and littering the bus stops. I've requested to have that
bus stop moved in closer to the jail. And I'm sure the 1,250 units of housing that are being
proposed, those local residents, will certainly be pleased to know -- I'm sure they're not
going to be pleased to know that people who are released from the jail will be riding on
the bus in their community while they're at work. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning,
April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 23)
Response: There are numerous examples on Long Island where locally unwanted land
uses are proximate to residential areas; property values are adjusted accordingly. Given
the well-distributed nature of residential land use on Long Island, a sub-region comprising
primarily sprawling, medium-density residential uses, it is unreasonable to expect that new
residential developments will always be situated in perfect harmony with other uses.
Residential uses are, in many instances, located near highways, shopping centers,
warehouses and industrial areas. Buses are a form of public transportation and thus offer
the opportunity for greater social interaction. As transit use increases so does the sense of
security, both real and perceived, as there are more riders, i.e., more eyes watching.
Comment 27:
I also would like to knows, is there going to be a buyer beware if this project was to move
forward. There’s a landfill – I think we’ve all been reading about the landfill and the
sludge – and a compost facility which still continues to be a problem, a fireworks facility,
a jail and a probabion department. And when you put that out there, who wants to live
next to that? (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 23)
There are so many terrible environmental problems involving this area right now,
including noxious and horrible odors emanating from the LI Compost site and the
Brookhaven Town landfill. (Email from Kathleen Madigan, April 28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-27
Response: The demand for multifamily housing is strong as such developments are
relatively limited in comparison with the predominance of single-family housing on Long
Island. As described in the response to Comment 25 above, residential developments are
often located adjacent to locally unwanted land uses (e.g., highways, rail lines, etc.)
despite their drawbacks. In this instance, the proposed multi-family units are not directly
adjacent to any incompatible uses but instead are separated by a minimum distance of
approximately one-quarter mile. As with any housing, it would be prudent for anyone
looking to rent an apartment or buy a home in any location to visit the surrounding
neighborhood and research the area before choosing to live there. What constitutes an
acceptable or unacceptable condition is an individual choice that is weighed against the
positive attributes of an area, such as closeness to work, family, friends, shopping,
transportation, etc. and the affordability of the housing,
Comment 28:
The EIS does not take into consideration the historic district, which is within a mile of this
land. Doesn’t any development proposal have to adhere to the characteristic of the
surrounding community? This is not adequately addressed. (Multiple Letters)
Further, any future development on these public-owned lands has the potential to forever
change the non-destination Historic Hamlet of Yaphank into an unpredictable pseudo-city
that claims easy access to the Long Island Expressway. (Email from Laura Day, April 28,
2011)
THE Yaphank Historical Society has been working very hard along with Suffolk County
Historical Services to create a beautiful Historic downtown. We have been renovating the
Mary Louise Booth house and we about to start on the Homan-Gerard house. We are also
the caretakers of the Hawkins House which is a beautifully restored 1850 house. Two of
these houses, the Hawkins House and the Homan-Gerard House are on the National
Register of Historic Places. The action of the CEQ will have a huge impact on the
Yaphank Historic District which is less than a mile from the property that the County
wants to declare surplus. (Email from Robert Kessler)
Secondly, the document does not truly assess or address the impacts or other negative
burdens that will destroy the character of the historic hamlet of Yaphank or the rural
nature of several of the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities of
Medford, Shirley, Bellport, Mastic, East Patchogue, Brookhaven and Middle Island are
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-28
already suffering from excessive noise, traffic, and inadequate public infrastructure for
the populations now present. Additionally they host the huge Brookhaven landfill, a major
composting facility, increasing heavy industry, a huge power plant and the unfortunate
settlement of a lawsuit that permits operation of the Brookhaven Rail Terminal,
accommodating heavy trucking throughout the area. None of these issues have been
adequately addressed in the DGEIS. (Letter from MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated
Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
Our small, quiet and Historic Hamlet has been besieged in recent decades by a number of
different projects and developments that have consistently undermined our past rural
character, and we believe any further development will have extreme and forever lasting
consequences to our already deteriorated quality of life. (Email from Chad Trusnovec,
Yaphank Civic Association, April 29, 2011)
Response: The surrounding communities comprise low- to medium-density suburbs
interspersed with parks and preserves; farming is not a major land use. Existing and future
traffic levels are consistent with this intensity of land use. The project area is not within an
historic district. Most of the project area, i.e., Areas B through F, are more than a mile – at
a minimum – from Yaphank’s historic district. Area A is approximately ¼ mile from the
historic district, separated from downtown Yaphank by the Long Island Expressway. This
wide right-of-way with heavy truck traffic and rush hour volumes creates a physical,
psychological and visual barrier between the project site and the Historic District. Thus,
there are no direct physical or aesthetic impacts upon the district
In addition, project site and building design incorporate many elements that will determine
the visual appearance of the proposed development. Façade treatments, landscaping,
setbacks and retention of natural buffer areas can all work together to create a
development that would be compatible with surrounding community aesthetics. These
elements are all under the purview of the Town of Brookhaven and will be considered by
the Town in their review of any plans proposed for the project site in the future.
Comment 29:
This is not an environmentally sound measure and any future development on this
“undeveloped” land will only serve to increase the other burdens of the historic hamlet of
Yaphank. Our community and those surrounding communities are already suffering from
excessive noise, traffic, the stench from the Brookhaven landfill and L.I. Compost and the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-29
soon to be operational Brookhaven Rail Terminal. We are being overburdened by “over
development”. Many areas of Yaphank are an environmentally sensitive part of the
Carmans River watershed area. These 255 acres are partially located within and adjacent
to the Carmans River Watershed. This proposed surplus and sale of land is a “death
sentence” to the Carmans River and it is inconceivable that a government-based effort is
underway to give away our “PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND”. (Multiple Letters)
Response: The proposed uses, i.e., residential, commercial and entertainment, would not
generate any offensive odors and thus would not contribute to existing odor complaints.
Like many other nearby land uses, the proposed project would be within the Carmans
River Watershed but not adjacent to the Carmans River. The residences would be over
4,000 feet from the river (four-fifths of a mile). The potential impacts of development
upon the Carmans River have been evaluated by groundwater experts and were
determined to be minimal and acceptable. In particular, the nitrogen concentration of
groundwater at the boundary of the proposed project would be within the limits proposed
by the Carmans River Watershed Plan. Nitrogen from the proposed project would be
minimized through the use of a wastewater treatment plant. The proposed development
would be built in a more environmentally responsible manner than most existing uses
within the watershed, in particular residential ones, which are not sewered to a treatment
plant, and are therefore may negatively impact groundwater and the Carmans River.
Comment 30:
I find it incredible that we as taxpayers and citizens are spending money to buy land that
will prevent it from being developed and when we own vacant land that is undeveloped we
want to sell it to have it developed. (Email from Linda Caldwell, April 29, 2011)
Response: When Suffolk County began experiencing rapid population growth and
development during the 1950s and into the 1960s, Yaphank was identified as a major
location for the growth of county facilities and the County’s property holdings increased
to almost 900 acres by the late 1970s. Since that time, the population growth of the county
has been much less than anticipated and the population center of the county is anticipated
to remain in western Suffolk. In light of these changed conditions, the County revisited the
properties and examined the needs of the county for the future and identified the portions
of the county land that could be surplus and available for other uses. In the decades that
the County has owned this property it was never designated as open space. Future
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-30
development of the site has always been contemplated and has been discussed in planning
reports over the years.
The 1970 Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Development Plan recommended that “new
activity centers should be planned only in the portions of the Island that are presently
undeveloped, and where it is not possible to expand existing small concentrations of non-
residential uses. In particular, three entirely new activity centers were proposed for eastern
Brookhaven, Middle Island, Yaphank and Manorville; an important component of these
new centers was multi-family housing. The rationale for these locations was that they
were situated along the central transportation corridors of the Island and at points where
the main line of the railroad crosses major north-south highway routes. In addition, it was
argued that the “concentration of a large proportion of the projected population increase in
the centers would permit the retention of the open character of the remainder of the Island.
In 2005, Suffolk County issued a report entitled ”Yaphank County Center Site Evaluation
Plan”. This report concluded that the County’s property was appropriate for development
as the site:
• consists of relatively flat, upland property
• is not within any statutory environmental protection zone such as the Central Pine
Barrens or a Special Groundwater Protection Area
• does not encompass any tidal or freshwater wetlands of any kind
• does not contain any surface water features
• has not been identified as containing or supporting any threatened or endangered
species or species of special concern
• is not within a coastal location and is not subject any special regulations
associated with such locations
• has good transportation access as it is located adjacent to the Long Island
Expressway (495) with direct access to Yaphank Avenue, which also connects to
Sunrise Highway to the south.
• is located along the main line of the Long Island Railroad.
• has public bus service on the S71 route to many destinations including Suffolk
Community College in Selden and Stony Brook University.
• has adequate (or upgradable) utilities available
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-31
The report also determined that of the County’s Yaphank holdings, 146 acres should be
reserved for future county use, providing for a total area for municipal facility use of 326
acres plus 233 acres for the County Farm, or a total of 559 acres remaining in full county
ownership and use. This would leave approximately 300 acres to be surplus and available
for non- county use.
In 2006 Suffolk County issued a report entitled “A Review of Selected Growth and
Development Areas, Suffolk County, New York”. Five areas were profiled, with one of
them being Yaphank, These reports make it clear, that for at least 40 years, development
of this site has been contemplated, either for County facilities or more recently, for
economic development purposes.
Preservation as open space was not considered in these reports. As previously discussed in
the response to Comment 19 and in Section 10.2 of the DGEIS, the Suffolk County
Planning Department utilizes the “Suffolk County Open Space Rating System for Natural
Environments Checklist” to determine which properties should be acquired. While this
land is already in County ownership, these checklists indicate whether the property has the
environmental values that would make it appropriate for preservation. Acquisitions are
recommended when properties are evaluated to have a rating of more than 25 points out of
a possible 100 points. Area A was rated at 18 points and Areas B through D were rated at
8 points. Therefore, none of the project site met the County’s criteria for recommendation
for acquisition for preservation purposes. Or stated another way, if this was vacant,
privately owned land, it would not meet the County’s criteria for acquisition for open
space purposes. Therefore, there is no reason to use it for that purpose because it is already
in public ownership. The County’s policy is not to preserve all vacant land from
development, but instead those parcels that have exceptional environmental, ecological,
aesthetic and/or recreational value.
It is also noted that 6,064 acres of land, or 27 percent, of all land within the 22,700-acre
Carmans River watershed have been preserved for conservation and open space purposes.
The draft Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan proposes the
acquisition of approximately 950 additional acres of land for permanent protection which
would increase land preserved to over 30 percent of the entire watershed area.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-32
Comment 31:
I suggest to anyone interested in our future on LI to just drive along Yaphank Ave. Yes
there are public buildings and yes there is a sod farm but it has a rural feel that should be
maintained. These kind of spaces will make areas around it just that much desirable and
in the long run good for the economy of Brookhaven. (Email from Jane Roe Tierney, April
29, 2011)
Portions of the land are in environmentally sensitive areas and others are in historically
important areas. Additionally, the area is very rural and any proposed development
MUST take that into consideration. The hamlet of Yaphank needs to retain its character
regardless of the land usage. (Email from Christopher Broszeit, April 29, 2011)
There are other similar problems occurring on East Main Street in Yaphank and residents
there have completely lost any semblance of quality of life due to day and night truck
traffic from eighteen wheelers marked "Solid Municipal Waste", Demolition and
Construction Materials and other huge trucks carrying demolition debris from the MTA
Second Avenue Subway project. (Email from Kathleen Madigan, April 28, 2011)
Response: The development in Areas B through F would be located on interior parcels,
i.e., removed from and not visible from Yaphank Avenue. The farmland in the vicinity of
the project would not be physically affected by the proposed development in Areas B
through F. Area A would, according to the development that is being evaluated, support a
new stadium and commercial uses. However, Area A currently supports vehicle
maintenance, bulk handling and storage operations and heavy vehicle/truck traffic. A fair
and objective analysis of the environmental impacts should consider the impacts of the
current as well as proposed uses of Area A in terms of their relative impact to the
community.
Comment 32:
The development areas do not correspond with present property boundaries shown on the
SCTM. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: It is acknowledged that the development areas do not correspond with present
boundaries shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map. Section 19.5.4 of the DGEIS
acknowledges that as currently drawn, the tax parcels do not align with the components of
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-33
the proposed development and recommends that at some future date, tax parcel lines be
redrawn in the future as to more closely match the actual development.
2.7. Zoning
Comment 33:
The residential portion of the proposal is zoned A1; one unit per acre in compliance with
SCDHS 208 wastewater drinking water study. However, the proposal plan calls for 1000
residential units, with additional accessory apartments. Clearly building 1000 units on
158 acres that are now zoned 1-unit per acre in compliance with Suffolk County's 208
study is simply not permissible. The power to rezone is delegated by state law exclusively
to the town of Brookhaven; not the County of Suffolk. The development of this project
exceeded the scope of authority granted to the County Executive by the County Charter.
Further, mitigation is impossible since the county cannot effectuate any change to the
present zoning. The EIS fails to reasonably or adequately address this issue. (Letter from
MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
Due process and accountability to current zoning along with approval of the existing
community have to be part of the process. (Email from Christopher Broszeit, April 29,
2011)
Response: The proposal being considered by the County would require a change of zone.
This is a process regulated by the Town of Brookhaven and the Selected Developer would
have to make an application to the town for this change of zone. Only if this application
were approved, could the project be built as contemplated in the DGEIS. It is anticipated
that as part of this approval, transfer of development rights would occur.
It is noted that Suffolk County Article 6 Transfer of Development Rights Standards state
that in sewered areas, Article 6 provides no density requirements as long as a sewage
treatment plant is provided. Therefore, any number of TDR credits could be transferred
into a sewered area; it remains a local planning and zoning decision as to the acceptable
numbers. Therefore TDRs would be based on Town requirements for a Planned
Development District (PDD).
Suffolk County currently has workforce housing development rights for the Town of
Brookhaven. There are approximately 185 credits (with an additional 153 pending the
closing of various open space acquisitions) available under the Drinking Water Protection
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-34
Program and another approximately 46.5 credits available under the Save Open Space
Program. Their use is subject to an act by the Legislature. Additionally, there are separate
Pine Barrens Credits for sale. The number of credits required would be determined by the
Town of Brookhaven at the time of the application. The Selected Developer would be
responsible for obtaining these credits, either from Suffolk County or by purchasing them
from private owners or through the Pine Barrens Clearinghouse.
The Town Code indicates that TDRs are not required for affordable housing units and that
for multi-family units one TDR is required for each two multi-family units above the yield
that exists on the property. For example, on a parcel where the yield is 50 single-family
homes, TDRs would be required for all units above 50 that are not affordable housing
units. If a developer wanted to increase the density to 200 multi-family units, 75 PBCs
would be required (200 minus 50 yield equals 150 units, or 75 credits at one per two
multi-family units).
However, the code also states:
If an applicant proposes to provide other special public benefits in exchange for a zoning
incentive, the actual zoning incentive decided upon by the Town Board will be based upon
the comparable economic value of PBC's, the importance of the proposed public benefits,
features or amenities to the accomplishment of the purposes and goals of this article, the
estimated economic cost to the applicant of providing the benefit feature or amenity, the
estimated economic gain to the applicant of obtaining the requested incentive and the
environmental impact of the requested density increase and/or land use change, including
considerations of sewage and traffic generation. The economic calculations will take into
account estimated changes in both land value and development cost. All special public
benefits for which zoning incentives are requested must be determined by the Town Board
to be beyond that which would customarily be provided by an applicant or required by
regulations of the Town of Brookhaven or other involved regulatory agencies.
Therefore, the number of credits that will be required cannot be determined at this time, as
there will be a calculation by the Town and the Developer which will consider the yield of
the property, the density proposed, the type of units (single-family, multi-family,
affordable) and the value of any public benefits.
In response to accountability to current zoning, as required by SEQRA, an As-of-Right
Alternative was analyzed in the DGEIS. This alternative evaluated the potential impacts of
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-35
developing the site in accordance with existing zoning. This alternative would consist of
approximately 2,500,000 sf of office (41 lots) and 50 single-family homes on one acre
lots.
2.8. Public Policy
2.8.1. General
Comment 34:
The recently released Carmans River Watershed Protection plan lists the Legacy Village
Property as a site proposed for acquisition; is it really prudent for one entity to deem
this property available for development while another recommends preservation? (Email
from Pauline A. Mize, April 29, 2011)
Brookhaven Town has just completed and released the Draft Carmans River Watershed
Protection and Management Plan which will have a direct impact on how and even if the
property can be developed. I believe that there should have been more discussion of
alternative uses of the property and even the possibility of no development. The property
is fully paid for by the taxpayers and should remain as open space or possible future use
by the County. (Email from Johan McConnell, South Yaphank Civic Association, April
28, 2011)
The Carmans River Watershed Protection Plan status should be updated in the FGEIS
and exactly how the proposed alternative compares with that plan should be done on a
parcel by parcel basis. Clearly, the proposed increased density development of parcel A
does not conform to the draft plan. In addition, the draft Carmans River Plan calls for the
rezoning of privately owned areas within the watershed area to 5 acre residential. The
DGEIS states that since the county property is publically owned, that it does not apply to
the Yaphank site. However, that statement is disingenuous since the county site is to be
sold to a private entity and developed privately in the future. (Letter from James F. Bagg,
Jr., April 28, 2011)
Response: The Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan was released
in February 2011 as a Draft Report. At a recent presentation on the Plan, the Town
indicated that they had received many comments and they were reviewing them prior to
preparing a Final Report. The Town will also have to prepare an EIS on the Plan prior to
its adoption. Their stated goal was to adopt a Final Plan sometime in the fall. Therefore it
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-36
is premature to address the impact of the Plan on the current proposal being analyzed in
this FGEIS.
The draft Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan proposes that
privately-owned residential-, commercial and industrial-zoned properties in the 0-to-2-
year groundwater contributing area and privately-owned residential-zoned properties in
the 2-to-5-year groundwater contributing area be rezoned to 5-acre residential (A-5).
There is also a proposal to re-zone all residential-zoned publicly-owned lands to 5-acre
residential (A-5), unless the land is already zoned 10-acre residential (A-10) without any
clarification of whether this also applies to the 2-to-5 year contributing area, or to other
areas. The re-zoning map provided in the plan does not delineate Areas B through F for 5-
acre rezoning, though these areas are currently in public ownership. Thus, should these
areas remain in public ownership there appears to be no change to zoning, and if Areas B
through F are deemed surplus, their present zoning would be unaffected by the
recommendations of the plan as they are outside of the 2-to-5 year contributing area.
As stated in section 10 of the DGEIS, the Draft Carmans River Watershed Protection and
Management Plan (February 2011) identified Area A for acquisition if declared surplus by
Suffolk County. This area is currently in County use and the site of two salt/sand storage
structures and five other Department of Public Works buildings and maybe of limited
conservation value. While this site is within the 0-2 year groundwater contributing area of
the river, other developed areas within this zone were excluded, so it is unclear why this
area was included. In fact this area was not included on the original maps in the report, but
was added to the map in the Errata pages. The County believes that this draft
recommendation should be reconsidered in view of the existing development on the
property and the fact that the planned development is proposed to be designed to have
minimal impact on the river by maintaining all stormwater onsite, sending all wastewater
to a wastewater treatment plant, and complying with the County’s stringent pesticide and
fertilizer requirements as described in Section 5.3 of the DGEIS. There appears to be no
scientifically based reason to target this developed area for acquisition while other
developed areas within the 0-to-2 year contributing area are excluded.
Should this recommendation remain in the Final Plan, this would not prevent the County
from developing the land, but could impact a potential purchaser of the property. There
could be several outcomes including the Town of Brookhaven purchasing this land from
the County for preservation, County preservation of the land, County development of the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-37
land, relocation of the planned elements of Area A to Areas B, C or D, or elimination of
some elements of the proposed development. At this time, the County is completing the
SEQRA process using the information available. Should the recommendations of the Final
Plan be in conflict, resulting in a material change to the proposal, the Selected Developer
may need to prepare a Supplemental EIS to address those changes.
Comment 35:
Preservation of Open Space and critical environmental areas has always been a priority
for our county government and our residents...that is no less true today than in the past.
We must keep faith with those promises to tomorrow’s children. Little open space remains
on Long Island today so we must not lose the Carmans to such shortsighted foolishness.
(Letter from MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29,
2011)
The supreme irony of the County offering this property for sale while other, more
fortunate, parcels are being purchased in the name of conservation is irrational. However,
all we can ask is that our request for an equitable use for the property is part of the sale.
(Email from Christopher Broszeit, April 29, 2011)
To state or believe that there is any such thing as "surplus" land, by any definition of the
word is ludicrous. The premise that CEQ accept or approve findings based on this initial
premise is ill advised and poorly reasoned and may be illegal. As long as Suffolk County
continues the voter mandated practice of open space preservation and acquisition,
declaring any County owned property surplus is in opposition to current policy. If we as
a community entity have voted and legislated to spend tax dollars protecting land by
purchasing land currently on the tax rolls, WHY would it be reasonable to sell land that is
currently in the public land bank exposing current environmentally stable areas to
degradation due to development which will certainly occur? (Email from Pauline A. Mize,
April 29, 2011)
Besides being in the Carmen's River watershed area , this land is basically open and not
developed - an increasingly rare and valuable commodity in Brookhaven. As the years go
by this area will only become more valuable to every resident in Brookhaven because it is
undeveloped. Mr. Levy says that it is developed and therefore open to further
development. I respectfully disagree. (Email from Jane Roe Tierney, April 29, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-38
I think it’s important to mention about the selling of this parcel, or whatever we decide to
do with it, that we all recognize that impacts of all the other projects in concert with the
Levy town proposal, and to realize that even if this project does, quote, unquote, die,
there’s still the potential for, if we do sell it, another proposal with even more density and
more intensive land use to be put there. The best option would be preservation of the land,
especially in such close proximity to the Carmans River Watershed … So my
recommendation is that we buy the parcel or we donate it to just open space, but not
charge the taxpayers for something that they technically already own. (Mr. Murdocco,
April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 30)
We do not think the SC property in Yaphank should be build or sold. We believe that all
public owned property on any level of government that is not currently developed should
be preserved and placed into the core of the LI Pine Barrens. (Email from Robert Liere &
Diane Ress-Liere, April 28, 2011)
Response: Several letters indicated support for preservation of this property. As described
in Section 10 of the DGEIS, Suffolk County and the Town of Brookhaven administer open
space acquisition programs that, collectively, have preserved tens of thousands of acres of
open space, thus permanently protecting these areas from future development. Suffolk
County open space acquisition efforts are organized according to three programs - New
Drinking Water Protection Program, Multifaceted Land Preservation Program and
Environmental Legacy Program. These programs were devised in accordance with a
number of open space preservation goals. These goals were described in the DGEIS and
the project site was evaluated in light of these goals, as follows:
Preservation of Groundwater
Area A lies within Hydrogeological Zone III; this is an important deep recharge
zone on Long Island. However, it is important to consider that most of Area A is
already developed. Only undeveloped areas within deep recharge zones are
deemed valuable for preservation. The remainder of the project area (including
Areas B through F) lies within Hydrogeological Zone VI which is not a deep
recharge zone.
As noted in the response to Comment 20, development of the property is not
anticipated to have a significant adverse affect on groundwater for the following
reasons. According to the SCWA, the proposed withdrawal from this project
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-39
would not be anticipated to have a significant effect on baseflow to the Carmans
River due to the size of the watershed recharging the aquifer and the fact that the
water supply would be from an interconnected system that draws from a large
area and from both aquifers. In addition, the wastewater generated by the project
will be treated and discharged to groundwater, thus maintaining the water table
over the long term. Therefore, additional groundwater withdrawals resulting from
the project will be mitigated by utilizing multiple supply aquifers and discharging
treated wastewater back to groundwater. Additional mitigation measures may
include the use of water conservation practices, limits on irrigation of turfgrass
areas and installation of water conserving fixtures in residential and commercial
facilities.
Preservation of Coastal Resources
The proposed project is not located adjacent to any shorelines. The Carmans
River, the nearest shoreline to the proposed project, is located over 600 feet from
the edge of Area A. Area A is presently more than half developed with County
maintenance facilities and storage yards.
Preservation of Wetlands
The DEIS studies determined that there are no wetlands in Areas A through F.
Preservation of Watershed and Stream Corridors
Field surveys determined that runoff from Area A – which is the closest area of
the project to a waterway – does not reach the Carmans River at present. The
proposed project would retain all runoff (up to an 8-inch storm event which is a
rare precipitation event) on site. Areas B through F are far removed from the
Carmans River and do not contribute any surface runoff to the river.
Preservation of Plant and Animal Habitats
An ecological survey of the site (Appendix E) indicated that there were no rare,
threatened or endangered species within the project area. Except for the developed
portions of Area A, the remainder of the study area is comprised almost entirely
of forested areas that are typical of the forest habitats found throughout Suffolk
County.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-40
Preservation of Scenic Vistas and Open Areas
Area A, which is mostly developed with maintenance facilities and storage yards,
has little scenic value other than along its north and west perimeter. Areas E and F
are forested, but limited in area and surrounded by industrial and municipal uses;
these areas have little scenic value given their setting. Areas C and D are forested
but adjacent to a sand mining operation; this use detracts from their scenic value.
Area B is the most isolated and internal of the study areas and is generally flat
topographically; it hosts a common forest type of Long Island and has no unique
scenic features. However, it is adjacent to the cultivated fields of the County Farm
and the forest provides a complementary natural background to the farm.
Farmland Preservation
None of the study areas are farmed at present. Significant portions of Areas B, D,
E and F comprise prime farmland soils. However, these areas, which are almost
entirely forested, would have to be cleared for farming.
Passive Recreation
Area A, which is mostly developed with County maintenance facilities and
storage yards, offers little value for passive recreation. Areas B through F are
almost entirely forested but have existing trails, most of which are used for
maintenance of the high-tension electrical towers. Other than their generally flat
forested areas, Areas B through F offer no other natural amenities, such as water
courses or water bodies, interesting topography, and scenic vistas. The proximity
of Area B to the County Farm can be considered as a cultural amenity.
Active Recreation
Area C would be dedicated to active recreation including baseball, soccer and
football fields. These recreational areas would enhance existing active recreation
amenities within the Yaphank area.
Preservation of Cultural and Historic Resources
According to a Phase IA Archaeological and Historic Resources Assessment
(Appendix I), Areas B through F contain no valuable cultural or historic
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-41
resources, and mitigation measures will address possible resources associated
with Area A.
Access to Shoreline
The parcels that comprise Areas B through F are neither adjacent to nor provide
any access to properties that are adjacent to shorelines. The northeastern corner of
Area A is adjacent to a parcel that encompasses a portion of the Carmans River
just south of Interstate 495. This access point is in an unfavorable location that
would require traversing the County storage yards. As such, it does not offer
viable and attractive access to the Carmans River.
Hamlet Park
Areas A through F are not situated in nor do they surround any downtown
districts.
Finally, the DGEIS stated that the Suffolk County Planning Department uses the “Suffolk
County Open Space Rating System for Natural Environments Checklist” to determine
which properties should be acquired. Although the County owns this land, the County
prepared two forms for the project site, one for Area A and one for Areas B through D, to
evaluate whether this land would be targeted for acquisition, if not already County
property. These forms were provided in the DGEIS. The County recommends properties
for acquisition that achieve a rating of more than 25 points out of a possible 100 points.
In addition, it is important to note that 6,064 acres of land, or 27 percent, of all land within
the 22,700-acre watershed have been preserved for conservation and open space purposes.
This is a remarkable achievement for any watershed and with few equals on Long Island.
The Carmans River is more heavily impacted at present by unsewered residences that are
very near or adjacent to the river than by the proposed project whose residential uses are
far removed from the river banks and whose wastewater would be treated by a sewage
treatment plant. The draft Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan
proposes the acquisition of approximately 950 acres of land for permanent protection. This
would be in addition to the existing 6,064 acres (approximately) of permanently protected
land within the 22,700-acre watershed. The 950 additional acres proposed for conservation
could include Area A if the County deems this property as surplus. If these acquisitions are
realized, the watershed would comprise approximately 7,014 acres of protected land, or
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-42
about 31 percent of the entire watershed area. Areas B through F were not proposed for
acquisition.
Comment 36:
Further, I believe that this attempt to sell or lease this land to reduce the county’s current
budget deficit is short-sighted and not in the best interest of the taxpayers. The proposed
action of our lawmakers is not within the fiduciary responsibility we entrusted to them to
safe guard our lands and resources. To manage a budget deficit by selling off “PUBLIC
– OWNED” lands is not what we elected them to do and quite frankly, with the exception
of few, the County Legislature has failed us. I ask that the CEQ not fail us as well
(Multiple Letters)
Response: The SEQRA process deals with the environmental aspects of a proposed
action. The SEQRA process provides information which the Suffolk County Legislature
will use in making their decision.
Comment 37:
As a Trustee of the Yaphank Historical Society, homeowner in the Yaphank historic
district for 30 years, and life-long resident of Suffolk County, I am appalled that this is
coming up without any notice or consensus from our community. We have been working
hard at preserving the history and architectural heritage of our 18th century
hamlet, restoring our Main Street historic district and trying to save our dying Yaphank
Lakes. It is well known that the residents of Yaphank responded unanimously and
negatively to the Legacy Village plan, and this proposal is so much worse, as it is to be
sited on the banks of the Carmans River. (Email from Tricia Foley, Yaphank Historical
Society, April 18, 2011)
Response: The project area is not within an historic district. Most of the project area, i.e.,
Areas B through F, are more than a mile – at a minimum – from Yaphank’s historic
district. Area A is approximately ¼ mile from the historic district, separated from
downtown Yaphank by the Long Island Expressway. Thus, there are no direct physical or
aesthetic impacts upon the district. The lake would not be affected by the proposed project
as both surface water flow and groundwater flow is directed in an easterly direction away
from the lakes. Moreover, any runoff from the project site would be directed to recharge
basins that would filter out contaminants. The present use in Area A, i.e., a vehicles
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-43
maintenance and bulk handling and storage yard, presently poses a greater threat to water
quality in the Carmans River than the proposed project.
2.8.2. Carmans River
Comment 38:
The Pine Barrens Society doesn't support selling the land for both environmental and
economical reasons. Government at every level is working to protect the Carmans River,
and this property is in the watershed. "A survey taken at the height of the recession
indicated that 4 out of 5 Long Islanders support preserving lands now, while prices are
down and sellers are eager. It will permit high density development at a time when it's
contemplating rezoning lands to limit the density to the Carmans River Watershed as part
of the Carmans River Watershed Protection Management Plan… So the Pine Barrens
Society believes that selling this land makes neither environmental nor economical sense.
Since it is clear that the County doesn't need it for any other purpose, these lands should
be put into permanent preservation." (Ms. Motschenbacher, April 12, 2011 Transcript
Page 9)
Response: Concerns over the environmental and economic aspects of the project are
noted. However, the County open space program does not find the parcels within the
project area of exceptional environmental, ecological or recreational value. In addition to
environmental concerns, there are other values that the County must balance in its
decision to deem the subject land as surplus. For example, there is a high demand for
affordable, multi-family housing that is going unmet in Suffolk County. It is unlikely that
all of the demand for multifamily housing can be accommodated within existing
downtowns. It is important to note that there are social, economic and employment
consequences for the failure to address these needs. Furthermore, the County must also
consider equity in its open space and its fiscal policies. Yaphank residents benefit from the
large expanses of existing open space and vacant land in their community.
Comment 39:
"Land Trust Development proposes several residential complexes, a sports arena, office,
and retail complexes, town square, recreation, light industrial structures, and so on.
"Although these plans are regarded as following the smart growth principles that have
been prioritized by Suffolk County, I do not believe they are being applied in such a way
as initially intended, nor in a sustainable fashion. "According to the smart growth
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-44
principles, areas that have already been developed should be those to which funding be
applied for renovation and improvement…"Therefore, it seems counterintuitive to take a
fundamentally undeveloped area outside of the existing downtown and develop it further.
"The 1970 plan published by the Suffolk -- the Nassau/Suffolk Regional Planning Board
designated the conservation of open space to be the highest priority in both Counties. I
cannot see how this has changed considering the continued increase in population density
and the associated loss of open space ... The environmental impact statement draft states
that the Carmans River, although in good health currently, has been affected in the past
by development and anthropogenic degradation, and continues to be vulnerable. "The
wetlands that boarder the river provide a natural water purification system, but is
currently being lost across Long Island and remains the topic of dispute between
developers and environmentalists. "Impacts of development are more often than not
conservative and underestimate a few professions. Increases of runoff, water
contamination, and road and foot traffic will very possibly degrade the areas surrounding
the region in question. "In conclusion, not only do these plans for development come
under much scrutiny of the public, but they also perpetuate the overdevelopment in
associated landscape (Ms. Hancock, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 14)
Response: At the time of the preparation of the 1970 plan, Suffolk County was growing
very rapidly. However, over the course of the next few decades, the growth rate slowed
considerably. Thus, the population levels projected by the 1970 plan were never realized.
Although, open space remains a high priority, there are now other pressing concerns that
must also be considered by the County, such as economic development and stabilization
of the tax base. In addition, as discussed in the response to Comment 37 above, there is a
high demand for affordable, multi-family housing that is going unmet in Suffolk County,
partly due to public opposition. It is unlikely that all of the demand for multifamily
housing can be accommodated within existing downtowns as a result of public opposition
and available land. (Some recent examples include the initial defeat of the Avalon Bay
proposal in Huntington which resulted in a significant decrease in units, the reduction in
units of the Signature Place/Avalon Bay project in the Village of Rockville Center where
density was only restored through litigation and the defeat of the conversion of the former
St. Paul’s School in the Village of Garden City for multi-family housing).
Regarding potential ecological impacts, the majority of the project area, i.e., Areas B
through F, is far removed (approximately one mile) from the Carmans River and its
wetlands. Area A is closer to the Carmans River, or approximately 600 feet, but this area
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-45
is also currently used as a maintenance and bulk material storage facility. The relocation
of this facility is likely to have a positive effect upon the Carmans River.
With respect to smart growth and the existing conditions in the vicinity of the proposed
project, the area is not “undeveloped” as it supports a number of significant uses,
including residences, County facilities and industrial uses. In addition, the area also has its
own train station, i.e., the Yaphank Station.
Comment 40:
I do agree that development needs to occur. However, I think that the Carmans River is
not the correct spot, mostly because of its uniqueness as a river on Long Island. Many
people know that there aren’t many rivers on Long Island, and wetlands are unique in
their ability to protect areas from floods and filter groundwater. And it just does not seem
like to correct spot for development because of its uniqueness. (Mr. Phinney, April 12,
2011 Transcript Page 26)
Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 38 above, the majority of the
proposed project is not located near the Carmans River. The portion of the proposed
project that is near – but not adjacent – to the Carmans River would replace an existing
use that may presently pose a threat to the River because of the vehicle maintenance and
bulk materials handling operations. Existing development along the Carmans River,
comprising thousands of unsewered residences that contribute high nitrogen loads, is a
present and significant threat to the river’s water quality. In contrast, the proposed project
would be served completely by a sewage treatment plant.
Comment 41:
I also oppose the Carmans River Watershed protection plan and – especially because in
the plan it notes about building – about constructing infrastructure especially to deal with
the mortality of wildlife from road kill. (Multiple Persons, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page
28)
Response: Table 8-3 of the DGEIS includes recommendations proposed by the Draft
Carmans River Protection Plan to protect the Carmans River. Among these
recommendations includes constructing infrastructure in order to reduce the mortality of
wildlife from road kill. The DGEIS indicates that this is achievable. At this time, the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-46
Carmans River Protection and Management Plan has not yet been finalized. Once the
Plan has been finalized, the Selected Developer will be required to comply with any
regulations or laws that result from that plan.
Comment 42:
The residential portion of the proposal is on underlying A1 zoning, but the proposal is for
1000 units. How do they intend on building 1000 units on 158 acres that should have 1-
unit per acre. The EIS does not adequately address this issue. Smart growth principles
approved by the county would require development credits from other areas, such as the
Pine Barrens, and the EIS does not address this.
Furthermore, the Carmans River Protection plan is calling for the exact opposite. These
areas in the watershed should be preserved and the credits redirected to commercial
areas away from the river. This project would be bringing the development credits to the
river’s watershed. (Multiple Letters)
The discussion of smart growth shows that one of the guiding principles is to preserve
open space. This is done by transferring development rights from sensitive environmental
areas into proposed smart growth areas. Since the preferred alternative for the county’s
Yaphank property has been purported to be a “smart growth” project, the proposed
increased density should only be allowed when development rights are brought in from
outlying areas… The number of development rights that currently have been acquired by
the county, as well as future ones, should be quantified in the FGEIS and transferred to
the site to accommodate the increased density called for in the preferred alternative. In
addition, there are Pine Barrens credits still left to be purchased in the Pine Barrens Core
Area and their number should also be ascertained, and if necessary, be required to be
moved to the site. Any developer proposing to build additional density at the county’s
Yaphank property should be required to purchase and transfer those development rights.
This would help to balance the county’s current deficit and minimize environmental
impacts. (Letter from James F. Bagg, Jr., April 28, 2011)
Response: It is anticipated that as part of the approval process, transfer of development
rights would occur. Suffolk County currently has workforce housing development rights
for the Town of Brookhaven. There are approximately 185 credits (with an additional 153
pending the closing of various open space acquisitions) available under the Drinking
Water Protection Program and another approximately 46.5 credits available under the
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-47
Save Open Space Program. Their use is subject to an act by the Legislature. Additionally,
there are separate Pine Barrens Credits for sale (approximately 245 within the Town of
Brookhaven as of June 1, 2011 http://pb.state.ny.us/pbc/registry.pdf). The number of
credits required would be determined by the Town of Brookhaven at the time of the
application. The Selected Developer would be responsible for obtaining these credits,
either from Suffolk County or by purchasing them from private owners or through the
Pine Barrens Clearinghouse.
Comment 43:
This proposal to sell 255 acres of publically owned land for the purpose of intense
development in the Carmans watershed flies in the face of 60 years of preservation efforts.
It is incomprehensible to me to be addressing a DGEIS concerned with things like traffic,
parking, jobs and payroll, entertainment, etc, when the whole concept of undoing past
preservation efforts is absurd. This is the very land that we are spending millions of
dollars to protect. (Letter from Martin Van Lith, Fire Place History Club, April 28, 2011)
I am very concerned about the sale of this land for development. Land that is near the
beautiful Carmans River as well as near the Pine Barrens needs to be carefully protected.
A casino where Legacy Village was to be is just ridiculous. This residential area will be
choked with traffic and will invite more problems to this beautiful area that are related to
such development. (Multiple Letters)
Response: Almost all of the remaining vacant land that is adjacent to the Carmans River
is in permanent protection (or planned for protection per the Draft Carmans River
Watershed Protection and Management Plan) as conservation land and open space. The
County has evaluated the parcels that comprise the project and has concluded that they do
not offer enough environmental, ecological and aesthetic value to meet the criteria for
preservation under the open space program.
2.8.3. Smart Growth
Comment 44:
There are some many other areas that should be revitalized instead of building new,
please look to preserving this area. (Email from Karen Palasek, April 29, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-48
So little open space remains on Long Island today. Any potential use of this land should be
carefully assigned so as not to duplicate similar commodities already in existence… This
proposal ignores the fact that there are countless acres of movie theaters, car dealerships,
retail stores, strip malls, offices, and other infrastructure lying vacant everywhere. I do
not feel these areas have been adequately addressed. (Multiple Letters)
Response: It is true that a portion of the demand for new development, including
affordable multifamily housing can be accommodated within existing developed areas.
However, there are limits to accommodating all new development within existing centers;
these include constraints on the adaptive re-use of existing structures, public opposition to
redevelopment (i.e., particularly multifamily housing projects) and insufficient space. In
addition, multi-family unit dwellers may also wish to experience a more suburban setting
as a lifestyle choice, one which is comparable to that enjoyed by single-family unit
occupants in Long Island’s many quaint suburbs.
Comment 45:
The Levy Town proposal is not smart growth. And I say that because smart growth is the
repurposing and the reuse of, say, an old commercial parcel, old industrial parcel. This is
creating a new destination center where there was not a destination, and that’s something
to realize. (Mr. Murdocco, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 31)
Smart growth principles require such building be constructed within an EXISTING
downtown community. This plan violates all smart growth concept principles presently
accepted or approved by the county. (Letter from MaryAnn Johnston, Affiliated
Brookhaven Civic Organizations, April 29, 2011)
Response: Section 8.2.4 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding the proposed
project’s conformity with Smart Growth principles and includes the following table which
addresses the proposed project’s conformance with Smart Growth principles. As
illustrated by this table, location within an existing downtown community is only one of
many criteria which contribute to Smart Growth. The proposed project meets many of the
requirements of a Smart Growth project.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-49
Table 2-1: Conformance with Smart Growth Principles (Table 8-2 of the DGEIS)
Smart Growth Principle
Conformance
Direct development to strengthen existing communities.
By directing development to local downtowns,
communities can maximize the capacities of their
existing infrastructure. In addition, development or
redevelopment within existing communities promotes
downtown revitalization.
Proposed site is not within an existing
downtown, however is has access to good
transportation infrastructure, and wastewater
treatment in an existing treatment plant can be
provided.
Encourage mixed land uses and mixed use buildings.
Mixed use development can help attain the land use
densities that are needed to sustain healthy communities
and promote walking between uses.
Proposed project includes a mix of uses that
will complement the existing government
complex by providing affordable housing for
the workface and new services in terms of
retail, recreation and entertainment.
Encourage consultation between communities. The
County recognizes that there are differences in resource
use and development approaches across communities.
However, communities should work together to resolve
these issues using smart growth as an organizing
framework.
The County’s RFEI and RFP process included
meetings with the local government and civic
groups. As the proposed project requires
project approvals from the Town of
Brookhaven and other government agencies,
and service providers, there will be significant
opportunity for continued coordination
through the SEQRA process and the approval
process.
Take advantage of compact building sizes and create a
range of housing opportunities. Higher-density, multi-
family housing – which typically comprises smaller unit
sizes – is appropriately situated in compact downtown
settings where buildings occupy smaller footprints and
host multiple stories.
The Proposed Project takes advantage of
compact buildings and creates a range of
housing opportunities in higher density
multifamily buildings.
Provide a variety of transportation choices. In order for
transit to be viable and affordable, it requires supportive
land use densities. By encouraging greater densities
within downtown settings and other existing activity
centers, transit services can be provided or enhanced.
A variety of transportation choices serve the
site including the LIRR Yaphank Station,
local buses and access to major roadways
including the Long Island Expressway and
Sunrise Highway. It is anticipated that
increased bus and train service co
uld be
supported with the proposed new activity. A
local shuttle service could be considered by
the Selected Developer to provide easy access
among the project components as well as to
the LIRR station.
Create pleasant environments and attractive
communities that are pedestrian-
oriented. Uniform
design conditions, i.e., for signage, awnings, and other
features, should be established to support pedestrian
access. Pleasant environments invoke pride in the
community and encourage walking and local shopping
and other commercial activity.
The Selected Developer’s proposal includes a
vision for an attractive community with a
Town Square, Great Lawn, trails, and other
visual and recreational amenities.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-50
Table 2 1: Conformance with Smart Growth Principles (Table 8-2 of the DGEIS)- continued
Preserve open space and natural resources. By directing
growth to areas that are already developed, the demand
for land in open, undeveloped sites is reduced.
The proposed project would remove
approximately 300 acres of
open space,
however this is open space that does not meet
the priorities of the County’s Open Space
Policy.
Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-
effective. Incentives can also be established to guide
development according to smart growth principles.
The Town of Brookhaven’s Planned
Development District Zoning provides for the
provision of public benefits and Pine Barrens
Credits in order to achieve zoning incentives
which would be required to obtain approvals
for the Proposed Development.
2.9. Transportation – Traffic and Parking
Comment 46:
And let's get real about Yaphank train station. We talk about improving that. This is
really, right now, next to no service. And as we all know, Long Island Rail Road has cut
service on the East End. So reality is, to think that they will improve the system in
Yaphank, I think, is a pipe dream. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011
Transcript Page 22)
Response: The DGEIS utilizes a conservative 3% transit credit in order to account for
alternative means of transportation other than passenger vehicles. This includes person
trips utilizing the Suffolk County Transit bus system, the Long Island Rail Road station at
Yaphank, along with potential jitney services provided by the developer as part of the
development. As demand for public transportation increase, providers typically make
modifications to accommodate the additional demand.
Comment 47:
The added traffic and noise pollution is something that will destroy our small town.
(Email from Chad Trusnovec, Yaphank Civic Association, April 29, 2011)
Response: Section 11.2.6 and Section 11.2.7 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding
the proposed project’s traffic impacts on the roadway system. As discussed, several
mitigation/improvement measures will be necessary to help alleviate any impacts to traffic
flow quality by the Proposed Action. However, due to the 15-year ambient growth rate, in
addition to trips generated by other proposed developments, intersections within the area
will already be experiencing high delays prior to the Proposed Action’s construction.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-51
Intersection and roadway improvements proposed by the Selected Developer will yield
improvements over this future scenario, without the Proposed Action.
Section 13.3 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding the proposed project’s impact on
the area’s noise level. As discussed in Comment 2’s response, potential impacts of the
project could only be estimated, and additional SEQRA analysis could be required once
more specific site plans exist. Site plans are subject to the Town of Brookhaven’s
approval, and the Selected Developer’s site plan must comply with the Town of
Brookhaven Code. Therefore, any negative noise impacts resulting from the project will
be mitigated to a level acceptable by the Town of Brookhaven.
Comment 48:
Traffic Mitigation at Yaphank Avenue and Gerard Road – I use this intersection every day
and cannot see how it would be safe to add an additional Northbound and Southbound
through traffic lane. If this was to occur there would not be enough room for the current
right turn lane from Yaphank Ave. onto Gerard Road. It would entail the removal of the
median, which now acts as a traffic calming device. (Email from Johan McConnell, South
Yaphank Civic Association, April 28, 2011)
Response: As detailed roadway improvement plans become available, the intersection’s
overall safety will remain a high priority. The intersection will be designed to operate at
an acceptable level of safety. At the time of detailed design, additional studies may be
conducted to determine if other intersection improvements are warranted, such as
installation of a traffic signal in conjunction with the adjacent proposed signal at Glover
Drive.
The existing median running along Yaphank Avenue currently functions to separate the
northbound and southbound traffic. In addition, it serves to provide westbound drivers
from Gerard Road a second location to stop at while executing a westbound left turn onto
Yaphank Avenue. It would be inappropriate to consider the Yaphank Avenue median, as
currently exists, a “traffic calming device” as these devices are typically utilized to slow or
reduce motor vehicle’s speed to improve safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Yaphank
Avenue is a relatively straight roadway with varying speed limits from 40 mph to 50 mph
within the project site, much higher than what is typically recommended within a
pedestrian crossing area. In addition, this intersection has no pedestrian facilities, such as
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-52
crosswalks, sidewalks, or bike paths. As previously stated, at the time of detailed design,
the intersection will be designed to operate at an acceptable level of safety.
Comment 49:
Chapter 11 Section 2.6 – 2025 Build Scenario Capacity Analysis: Can you please provide
clarification of mitigation #6? (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: It is proposed to widen the westbound approach at Yaphank
Avenue/Horseblock Road and Victory Road (labeled as Sunrise Highway Exit 57 within
the DGEIS) to include an additional right turn lane onto Yaphank Avenue/Horseblock
Road. It is not being proposed to construct an additional westbound right turn lane at
Sunrise Highway Exit 57’s off ramp. It is acknowledged that the Sunrise Highway
Corridor Sustainability Transportation Study recommends that a roundabout be
constructed at Yaphank Avenue/Horseblock Road-Victory Road, along with several
roadway modifications at the Sunrise Highway on and off ramps. As discussed below,
should these improvements be constructed, the DGEIS’s proposed westbound right turn
recommendation will not be necessary, and the Proposed Action will function
satisfactorily with the roundabout in place.
Comment 50:
Suffolk County is on the Project Advisory Committee with the Sunrise Highway Corridor
Sustainable Transportation Study. Please ensure consistency of mitigation strategies with
the findings of that study effort. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: A review of the April 2011 Draft Sunrise Highway Corridor Sustainable
Transportation Study, indicates a proposed roundabout at Yaphank Avenue/Horseblock
Road – Victory Road (labeled as Sunrise Highway Exit 57 in the DGEIS), one of this
project’s study locations. Should this improvement be constructed, the Proposed Action
will require no further mitigation measures at Yaphank Avenue-Victory Road. If the
corridor study’s mitigation measures are not constructed, the DGEIS’ recommendation for
an additional westbound right turn lane at this location should be implemented.
Comment 51:
Where infrastructure improvements are needed in order to insure that adequate capacity
exists to accommodate growth, consideration should be given to the creation of a
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-53
transportation financing district(s) to offset costs and facilitate the implementation of
identified mitigation measures. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: As summarized in the DGEIS, there will be potential impacts resulting from
the Proposed Action. Proposed mitigation measures to address these impacts are also
summarized in this section. Several mitigation measures will require infrastructure
improvements in order to accommodate the proposed project. Any necessary
infrastructure improvements will be paid for by the Selected Developer. The Selected
Developer will also coordinate with the appropriate authorities to facilitate
implementation of these mitigation measures.
Comment 52:
Consideration should be given to strategies aimed at reducing vehicular trip generation
such as parking management (priced parking and preferential parking for car/vanpools
etc), improved transit access, and provisions for bicycles and pedestrians. (Letter from
NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: As part of the future site plan review, these concepts will be explored by the
developer and can be required by the Town of Brookhaven as part of the approval process.
As the project will be required to be LEED certified, it is reasonable to expect that these
types of strategies will be employed to reduce vehicular trip generation and parking needs.
Comment 53:
Road widening, extensions and roadway additions in response to increased traffic density,
such as bus turnout lanes, parking facilities, etc., may require acquisitions. (Letter from
NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Traffic access, turn lanes, traffic signals/loops, etc. may require acquisition. (Letter from
NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Additional drainage, utilities, etc, to accommodate development expansion may require
acquisition of adjacent land. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: As previously mentioned in Comment 51’s response, there are several
proposed mitigation measures that may require infrastructure improvements to
accommodate the Proposed Action. These infrastructure improvements include roadway
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-54
modifications, and drainage system improvements, among other measures. Acquisition of
adjacent land may be required to construct these infrastructure improvements. As the
Proposed Action is conceptual in nature, specific details regarding possible land
acquisitions are not currently available. At the time of detailed design, acquisition of
adjacent land to accommodate the proposed project will be evaluated.
Comment 54:
An undeveloped bed of street (Grucci Lane) beginning at the southern project limit at the
corner of Horseblock Road, northeast of the intersection of Woodside Avenue and
Horseblock Road ends as a dead end. If the road is extended, acquisition of adjacent land
may be required. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: The site’s southern project limit currently terminates north of Grucci Lane,
which ends at a dead end. The Proposed Action does not propose to modify and extend
Grucci Lane beyond its current terminus to provide a second site access driveway along
Horseblock Road. Therefore, acquisition of the adjacent land in order to extend this
roadway is not anticipated. Should the Proposed Action change to include extending
Grucci Lane, future acquisition of adjacent land may be required.
Comment 55:
We didn’t see any indication of non-motorized transportation mentioned in this document.
Examples of what we would like to see include:
• Existing bike routes in the area and how the anticipated development may impact
them.
• Bus/rail routes and what opportunities exist for increasing their reach with bike/ped
improvements
• The potential for mitigating traffic impacts by the development of bike routes
• The potential to create/extend greenbelt hiking trails as part of the anticipated
development.
(Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: Please refer to Comment 2. As stated, detailed analysis for pedestrian and
bicycle analysis, was not performed due to the proposed development’s conceptual nature.
Additional pedestrian and bicycle analysis will be performed when a more defined plan is
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-55
in place. Any future pedestrian- and bicycle-related designs and accommodations will be
designed according to Chapters 17 and 18 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual and
Chapter 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 652.5.
2.10. Visual Quality
Comment 56:
In addition, the proposed stadium and other buildings would be very visible from the
Yaphank district both during the day and at night as a result of the intense light. (Email
from Daniel Pichney, dated April 5, 2011)
Response: Section 16.11 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding the building heights.
It is recommended that the project sponsors consult with NYSOPRHP on appropriate
mitigation options to lessen any visual impacts of the proposed projects on the Yaphank
Historic District.
Section 12.3 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding the visual character of the
proposed project. Due to the conceptual nature of the proposed project, there is no
detailed site plan to review for potential lighting impacts. However, the Selected
Developer’s site plan must comply with the lighting requirements and limitations of the
Town of Brookhaven’s “dark skies” ordinance. In addition, the site plan must comply
with Article XXXIX § 85-463 through § 85-475 of the Town of Brookhaven Code.
Therefore, negative lighting impacts resulting from the project will be mitigated to a level
acceptable by the Town of Brookhaven.
2.11. Air Quality
Comment 57:
Recently the American Lung Association gave Suffolk County failing grades for our air
quality and noted we had the dirtiest air in the state when measured for ozone. I think
Yaphank currently has enough things causing air pollutants – we have the power plant,
landfill and compost factory located here, their existence alone causes air pollution and in
the past few years the number of large trucks using our roads (Yaphank Ave & Horseblock
Rd) has quadrupled. (Email from Karen Palasek, April 29, 2011)
Response: It is not possible to quantify the increase in truck volume at the study
intersections in the DGEIS “over the past few years” because neither the County nor
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-56
Cameron Engineering performed truck traffic counts in or around the year 2005 (i.e., “a
few years” before 2010). The comment is acknowledged, with the note that this comment
would apply to any use of the County property since this reported truck increase is related
to other land uses.
Comment 58:
The NYSDOT EPM Air Quality Chapter 1.1 indicates that Regionally Significant Projects
must be included in the Transportation Conformity Regional Emissions Analysis for the
NYMTC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Plan. Criteria for
determining whether a project may be regionally significant, or require Interagency
Consultation Group (ICG) consideration of possible regional significance, are contained
in the NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 240 State Conformity Regulation. The DGEIS should
discuss the potential for regional significant and determine whether ICG consultation is
needed. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: The NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 240 defines a “regionally significant project” as
“a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves
regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region,
major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls,
sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves).”
The project has frontage on the LIE South Service Road, Yaphank Avenue, and
Horseblock Road, and includes a sports complex. It therefore constitutes a potentially
Regionally Significant project under the EPM criteria.
According to NYCRR Part 240 Section 240.6.h.11, Consideration of Regionally
Significant Projects that are not FHWA/FTA Projects, (i) states the following: “(i) The
affected MPOs and NYSDOT, as appropriate, shall work with the Department [of
Environmental Conservation] to identify regionally significant projects that are not
FHWA/FTA projects so that proper project information is included in the regional
emissions analysis. The MPO shall solicit the necessary information from agencies that
are recipients of federal funding…for any regionally significant projects, regardless of
funding, in conjunction with MPO transportation plan and MPO TIP updates. In non-
attainment and maintenance areas outside of MPO boundaries, NYSDOT shall solicit such
information.”
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-57
Therefore, the Findings will include the statement that the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC), the local MPO and/or NYSDOT, will need to consult
with the ICG regarding the potential for these land uses to constitute a Regionally
Significant Project that has the potential to affect the area’s conformity determination.
The Findings will also specify that, should the ICG confirm the regional significant nature
of this project, the project will need to be included with the TIP Transportation
Conformity Regional Emissions Analysis for the year 2025, despite the private (non-
Federal) funding source.
Comment 59:
The NYSDOT EPM Air Quality Chapter 1.1 indicates that projects meeting specified
criteria must undergo a mesoscale analysis. Potential criteria relevant to this project
include adding at least 10% vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or widening roadways affected
by the project by at least one mile cumulatively and directionally. The DGEIS should
conduct a mesoscale analysis if any of the criteria are met, or document that none of the
criteria are met. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: According to the NYSDOT EPM Air Quality Chapter 1.1, examples of
projects that could require a mesoscale analysis include “widening to provide additional
travel lanes more than a mile in length.” This same feature is listed in the 6 NYCRR Part
240 in §240.6.h(2)(i)(a).
The Suffolk County property development includes the proposal to widen Yaphank
Avenue between the LIE North Service Road and Glover Drive (0.95 miles), plus other
widenings (various auxiliary lanes, plus lane addition on Horseblock Road) totaling more
than 0.05 miles.
However, this is based on preliminary-level information. A mesoscale analysis would be
premature at the GEIS stage, since final project data and roadway improvement
information are not yet known. Therefore, the Findings will include the requirement that
the future site plan approvals process include an analysis of whether mesoscale analysis is
warranted. If it is, a mesoscale air quality analysis will be required.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-58
Comment 60:
The NYSDOT EPM Air Quality Chapter 1.1 indicates the carbon monoxide microscale
screening should be conducted for the project completion year (ETC) and for years ETC
+ 10 and ETC + 20. The DGEIS analysis, which appears to screen only year 2025,
should justify why screening was not conducted for the two additional years, or extend the
screening. (Letter from NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: The year 2025 represents the ETC and was the accepted scoped year of air
quality screening analysis. The following calculations illustrate that Year 2045 (ETC+20)
conditions would not require full microscale air quality analysis, and therefore, the DGEIS
ETC (2025) analysis is sufficient.
For the purposes of projecting traffic volumes to the year 2045 (ETC+20), the anticipated
volume increases past 2025 reflect ambient growth only, since there are no specific
identified projects which would generate traffic between 2025 and 2045 (ETC to
ETC+20). Applying the New York 2.04% ambient growth rate for an additional 20 years
would yield a 49.8% increase.
The microscale air quality impact results depend on whether critical approach volumes
would reach specific minimum thresholds - i.e. whether the third and final screening level
criteria is reached. The following table summarizes the Year 2025 projected critical
volumes from the screening analysis, and the required approach volumes for 2025.
Even with an additional 20 years of ambient growth, most of the critical volumes would
not reach the minimum thresholds. Two locations would exceed Year 2025 volumes in
the Year 2045 (albeit by minimal percentages below 4%).
However, this raw comparison is based on Year 2025 Emission Factors. Emission Factors
get smaller as time progresses, which corresponds to requirements for higher traffic
volumes to meet the threshold of Level 3 screening. As shown in Table 2 3, whereas the
required threshold volumes in 2025 will be 2,562 and 3,800 vehicles per hour, the
requirement in 2045 increases to 4,000 vehicles per hour.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-59
Table 2-2: Year 2025-2045 Emission Factors and Volumes
Speed Weighted CO
Emission
Factor
Minimum
Volume (vph) Corresponding Volumes:
Year 2025 / Year 2045 Volume
Met?
5 mph
10.74 (round to
15) 2,562 •
Yaphank Avenue at Area A Site Driveway (PM):
1,770 / 2,651
EXCEEDS THRESHOLD BY
89 VEHICLES (3.5%)
YES
10 mph 8.68 (round to
10) 3,800
• Yaphank Ave. at Horseblock Rd (SAT):
1,509 / 2,260
•
Horseblock at Town Landfill and Area D Driveway
(PM): 1,686 / 2,526
• Sunrise Highway Exit 57 (AM): 1,475 / 2,210
NO
NO
NO
15 mph
8.04 (round to
10)
3,800
• Yaphank Avenue at LIE SSR (PM): 2,589 / 3,878
EXCEEDS THRESHOLD BY 78 VEHICLES (2.1%)
YES
• Horseblock Road at LIE NSR (PM): 1,749 / 2,620 NO
20 mph 7.71 (round to
10) 3,800
• Yaphank Avenue at LIE NSR (MID, PM, SAT): 1,116
to 1,341 / 2,009
• Yaphank Avenue at LIE SSR (SAT): 1,413 / 2,117
•
Yaphank Avenue at Horseblock Road (PM): 2,454 /
3,676
• Horseblock Road at LIE NSR (SAT): 1,300 / 1,947
NO
NO
NO
NO
25 mph 7.52
(round to
10) 3,800 •
Horseblock at Town Landfill and Area D Driveway
(SAT): 939 / 1,407
NO
45 mph
7.94 (round to
10) 3,800 •
Horseblock Road at Bellport Road (MID, PM, SAT):
907 to 1,178 / 1,765 NO
The EPM only provides Emission Factors through the year 2035, so 2035 Emission
Factors were used to analyze Year 2045 conditions, which is conservative. The future
Emission Factors become small enough that the required traffic volumes are not met:
Table 2-3: Year 2045 Emission Factor Analysis
Weighted CO
Emission Factor
Minimum
Volume
Corresponding Volumes:
Year 2025 / Year 2045
Volume
Met?
5.52 (round to 7.5)
4,000
Yaphank Avenue at Area A Driveway (PM):
1,770 / 2,651
NO
2.84 (round to 5)
4,000
Yaphank Avenue at LIE SSR (PM): 2,589 / 3,878
NO
Since Year 2045 volumes would not meet the threshold, Year 2035 volumes would also
not meet the threshold since volumes would be smaller.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to perform further analysis to determine that ETC+10 (Year
2035) and ETC+20 (Year 2045) conditions will not require microscale air quality analysis.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-60
Comment 61:
Executive Summary Page 1.2.9 of the DGEIS states that carbon monoxide is the only air
pollutant typically studied at the project level. However there are substantial tailpipe,
engine, and tire erosion emissions of Fine Particulate Matter (PM25) from motorized
vehicles. In March 2006, EPA and FHWA issued Transportation Conformity guidance for
the evaluation of localized (hot-spot) mobile source emissions of PM25 in nonattainment
areas such as Suffolk County. The DEGIS should evaluate the guidance criteria to
determine whether the project is of air quality concern, and if so, conduct a qualitative
project-level hot-spot analysis according to the 2006 guidance document. (Letter from
NYSDOT, May 4, 2011)
Response: Suffolk County is in a PM2.5 non-attainment area. As stated in the
Transportation Conformity Guidance, projects of air quality concern are defined in 40
CFR 93.123(b)(1) as:
(i) New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant
increase in diesel vehicles*
(ii) Projects affecting intersections that are at Level-of-Service D, E, or F with a
significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to Level-of-Service D,
E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel
vehicles related to the project*
(iii) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of
diesel vehicles congregating at a single location [not applicable]
(iv) Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the
number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location [not applicable]
(v) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified
in the PM2.5 or PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan
submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation
* The main potential generator of trucks (diesel-fuel vehicles) is the 1.2 million s.f.
General Light Industrial use on Area D. According to the article titled, “Truck Trip
Generation Characteristics of Non-Residential Land Uses” in the Institute of
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-61
Transportation Engineers publication, ITE Journal, Light Industrial uses generate the
following breakdown of vehicles (based on each 1,000 square feet of area):
Automobiles 2-3 Axle Trucks 4-6 Axle Trucks All Trucks
83.9% 9.2% 7.5% 16.7%
Given that some 2-Axle trucks may not use diesel fuel, the 16.7% truck component of the
Light Industry use trips is the expected maximum. The external trips associated with the
General Light Industry use are (per the TIS):
Table 2-4: Maximum Potential Truck Trips (Trips per Hour/tph)
Peak Hour External Area D Trips Maximum Potential Truck Trips
Enter 1,075 tph 180
AM
Exit
146
tph
24
Total 1,221 tph 204
Enter
77
tph
13
Midday Exit 77 tph 13
Total 154 tph 26
Enter 172 tph 29
PM Exit 1,262 tph 211
Total
1,434
tph
240
Enter 77 tph 13
Saturday
Exit
77
tph
13
Total 154 tph 26
As detailed in the TIS in Figure 5-6, only some of these trips will be routed through
certain intersections. Apart from the “CR 16 at Town Landfill” intersection, the highest
per-intersection distribution is 40% at the “Sunrise Highway Exit 57” intersection.
Adding 40% of the above truck numbers to this location corresponds to the following:
o AM: 72 westbound (out of 930) and 10 southbound (out of 520) truck trips
o Midday: 5 westbound (out of 861) and 5 southbound (out of 646) truck trips
o PM: 12 westbound (out of 475) and 84 southbound (out of 1,488) truck trips
o Saturday: 5 westbound (out of 447) and 5 southbound (out of 696) truck trips
The highest percentage increase in truck traffic is either 72 trips out of 930 (AM
westbound) or 84 trips out of 1,488 (PM southbound) trips. Both increases are less than
8% per approach, and these numbers reflect the maximum expected numbers of new
diesel-fuel vehicles.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-62
Regarding item (v), the proposed land uses might constitute a “site of possible violation.”
Therefore, the Findings will require that the future developer commit to coordination
with NYSDOT and any other required party regarding associated methods and
assumptions to be used in a PM2.5 hot-spot analysis. If the hot-spot analysis is required,
that hot-spot analysis would need to be done as part of the site plan approvals process.
2.12. Cultural Resources
Comment 62:
The Yaphank Historical Society has worked very hard to improve the historical homes.
The County’s also budged to restore the Homan house, which is right near this proposed
development. The County Infirmary, which is over 100 years old, and nearby – and
there’s also the nearby cemetery were residents of the infirmary were laid to rest. The
Doctor's Cottage is a valuable structure to the Yaphank community. It was the residents of
the doctor who cared for the residents in the infirmary. There's a recommendation to
demolish the building. The Historical Society has a desire to restore the building. And
demolition is certainly not support in historical character of the community. (Suffolk
County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 19)
Response: Section 16.11.1 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding the Doctor’s
Cottage. The Doctor’s Cottage may be considered contributing resources to the overall
S/NRE Suffolk County Poor Farm Historic District. However, a comprehensive
evaluation of this district has never been conducted, due to its different resource locations.
If a new evaluation by the NYSOPRHP was completed, the Doctor’s Cottage, along with
the nearby garage and cemetery, may be included as part of the district.
The proposed project’s plans call for demolition of the existing Doctor’s Cottage and
garage and construction of a new Doctor’s Cottage and garage, to be used as office space
and storage. However, it is recommended that if the existing Doctor’s Cottage and garage
are structurally sound and could be usefully repurposed, that the buildings be relocated to
another location on the overall Suffolk County Poor Farm complex. If this option is not
feasible, it is recommended that the NYSOPHP be consulted prior to demolition for
additional documentation options.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-63
Comment 63:
Building a state-of-the-art 5,500 seat arena does not respect or coexist without conflict of
the historical community. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript
Page 19)
Response: The stadium is not located in the historic district and would be situated
approximately one-quarter mile from the Yaphank historic district. Moreover, the Long
Island Expressway – which accommodates heavy trucks and rush-hour commuter traffic,
separates the proposed stadium from the historic district. There are numerous examples
around the country where historic districts are situated adjacent to business districts,
entertainment facilities, etc. in a complementary manner. One example is the Saratoga
Race Track which is located less than a mile from the Broadway Historic District in
Saratoga Springs. The proposed stadium can be designed with sensitivity to the historic
district.
2.13. Community Services
2.13.1. Emergency Services
Comment 64:
The proposed facility doubles what the Yaphank Fire District currently serves and would
place a tremendous burden on the fire departments ability to protect its current
population. This has not been adequately addressed. (Multiple Letters)
Response: Section 17.1.3 of the DGEIS discusses mitigation measures to address the
additional burden placed on the Fire District to serve the proposed development. As
described, the emergency services would receive increased tax revenues from the
proposed development. In addition, the Contract of Sale between Suffolk County and the
Selected Developer shall provide preference for volunteer emergency personnel.
Therefore, it is projected that the site will accommodate a higher percentage of emergency
services volunteers than the area’s existing population and increase the district’s volunteer
ranks. Lastly, any resources and requirements of the emergency service providers shall be
negotiated between the Selected Developer and emergency services.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-64
2.13.2. School Districts
Comment 65:
And you also have to take into consideration the other developments within the Longwood
School District. There's one a little further southeast of that, off of William Floyd
Parkway, the AVR property, and there's a proposed, I believe, 800 units of housing. So
that will have an impact on the school district also. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning,
April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 22)
Response: Section 21.1 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding approximately 343
land use applications within the Longwood School District spanning 1987 through 2011.
These applications were reviewed and reduced to 144 applications after filtering out
several projects assumed to have been built. These applications were not classified as
active or inactive, residential or non-residential. Therefore, the number of additional
potential students generated from these applications could not be determined. It is beyond
the scope of this GEIS to perform a cumulative impact analysis of hundreds of possible
projects within the Longwood School District. This would best be performed by the
School District in order to plan appropriately for growth within the District.
Comment 66:
It costs approximately $17,000 to educate one child. And let's take about 785 of the
housing units. And if each one of those has maybe one child, that would be about $13
million a year to the Longwood School District. The average home has 2.5 children, and
how could this be a tax positive if there's 1,250 units? The taxes in one home doesn't pay
to educate one child. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript
Page 20)
The study says 207 students. I think that number is very understated. (Suffolk County
Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 21)
Response: A discussed in the DGEIS, population estimates were based upon multipliers
issued in 2006 by the. Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. These
multipliers are specific to New York and are derived from the 2000 U.S. Census 5-Percent
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). These multipliers take many factors into account
including the number of bedrooms, ownership versus rental, number of units per building,
and the rental or purchase costs. These multipliers show, that for the types of housing units
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-65
proposed, i.e. primarily one and two- bedroom units, the number of school children is very
low, significantly less than the one child or 2.5 children per unit mentioned in the
comment above.
The Long Island Housing Partnership prepared a report entitled Multifamily Housing on
Long Island: Its Impact on School-Age children and School District Finances. The report
states that “The failure to build multifamily housing is largely attributable to the mistaken
belief that such housing generates more school-age children than traditional single-family
homes and that the school taxes paid by multifamily housing complexes don't cover the
costs of educating the children these complexes generate. Many credible research studies
have debunked this myth but the myth persists.”
The study goes on to say that: “Several credible research studies have found that
multifamily housing, including rental housing, generates significantly fewer school-age
children than traditional single¬family homes. The explanation is that residents who favor
higher density condominium or rental housing tend to be young singles and couples
without children or seniors who no longer want the burdens of homeownership. By
contrast, households with school-age children generally prefer traditional single-family
houses with adequate yard space in which their children can play.”
This document analyzed 159 multifamily housing complexes in Suffolk County and found
an average of 0.18 children per unit. This would equal approximately 200 students from
the proposed development. The document also looked at whether these multifamily
complexes were tax positive or tax negative and found that 60% were tax positive,
although the reasons that some were tax positive and some were tax negative were not
determined.
Comment 67:
In light of this year’s budget cuts to education adopted by Albany, the projected school
district taxes should be revised to reflect the current reality of the situation. All of the
proposed increases in housing are in the Longwood School District and if any of the
proposed commercial and industrial development in that district does not take place, the
resulting impact on the school taxes should be calculated and made known. (Letter from
James F. Bagg, Jr., April 28, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-66
Response: Budget cuts will vary from year to year and the situation when this project
would be fully built out in 2025 is unknown. The DGEIS looked at the entire project
proposed. In the event that the mix of uses changes, the taxes would have to be
reanalyzed. As there are an unlimited number of variables, this analysis should occur at
the time when the actual proposal is known as part of the approval process through the
Town of Brookhaven.
Comment 68:
The position of the Longwood Board of Education is that the Legacy Village plan or any
similar plan would have an extremely adverse impact on the Longwood School District.
The calculations for number of students have a potential for greater variation then
projected by county planners and the claims of the plan being a tax positive were grossly
over stated. From the very beginning representatives of the developer indicated that area
A would never be built due to the proximity near the river, yet those tax revenues were
never excluded by county planners in figuring the total revenue projections. Our district
was never asked for meaningful input and was regularly told what to think. We are fearful
that any future development based on the merits of the DGEIS for Legacy Village will
have the same devastating impact on our school district. (Email from Daniel
Tomaszewski, Vice President, Longwood Board of Education, April 28, 2011)
Response: As discussed in the responses above the actual number of students can vary,
but multipliers based upon both census data and actual students living in multifamily
complexes in Suffolk County support a number in the range of 200 new students. The
actual tax revenue will depend on the mix of uses. As stated in the DGEIS, additional
analysis will be required if the proposed development is materially different from what
was analyzed in the DGEIS.
Comment 69:
The Longwood School Board of Education have long expressed that under the current
proposal, the 1,072 housing units will lie within the Longwood School District. The
commercial development that would help to mitigate the tax impact for the school district
actually lies outside the district’s boundaries. This will place excessive burdens on us, the
local taxpayers, as well as almost “double” the population of school age children in the
district. Our schools are already crowded. Are we to expect our district to be forced into
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-67
redrawing attendance boundaries or bus students from the proposed site to other schools,
further from their homes? This has not been adequately addressed. (Multiple Letters)
Response: As detailed in Section 19.5.4 of the DGEIS, taxes from the proposed
development for Areas A and B were allocated towards the Longwood School District.
Area A is projected to generate $3.49 million in real property taxes, while Area B is
projected to generate $5.6 million in annual real property taxes, tax revenues which are
expected to mitigate the impact of the additional students on the Longwood School
District. It is acknowledged that the existing tax parcels currently do not align with the
proposed development. The DGEIS recommended that the tax parcel lines be redrawn in
the future to more accurately match the proposed development.
As stated in Section 17.2.2, many Long Island schools are facing significant declining
enrollment. Based on a January 4, 2011 Newsday article, the Longwood School District
experienced a 6% enrollment decline between the 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 school year.
If this trend persists, the proposed development’s additional students may be less of a
concern.
2.14. Demographics and Economic Impacts
Comment 70:
I researched the building of a 5,500 seat arena, and what I've learned is that the size of
the arena cannot sustain itself. It can't attract the venues to bring in adequate revenue,
and the County would need to donate the land and make it tax free to the developer to
make it worthwhile to build. (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011
Transcript Page 20)
Response: Section 19.4.2 of the DGEIS includes discussion regarding an arena’s
economic benefits to their host cities and communities. Based on numerous published
studies for arenas with mixed-use development components, the arena generally provides
a net positive economic impact to their community.
Comment 71:
We need more farms, not more houses or casinos. Let’s develop this area to feed the
hungry with food prices going through the ceiling, people out of work and public
programs in danger of being slashed. (Email from Helen Sohne, April 29, 2011)
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-68
Response: Multifamily housing is in great demand on Long Island. The proposed project
does not include a casino. It is note that farming is an important component of local and
regional economies. However, it is also noted that there are few, if any, working farms
within the vicinity of the project area. A notable exception is the County farm, however,
the primary purpose of this farm is for educational and conservation purposes. The
economic viability of farming within the immediate project vicinity is questionable owing
to the high cost of land – as this is a medium-density suburban area. Farming is more
viable in the more eastern locations on Long Island, in particular the north fork, where
land costs are significantly lower. Farm employment is also a tiny fraction of employment,
approximately 2 percent, or less for the United States. Moreover, farm wages are
significantly lower than in other sectors. Thus, economic development of other
employment sectors, i.e., other than agriculture, would be more appropriate for this part of
the County.
Comment 72:
And since the population increase would be about one-third and -- you know, what
community wouldn't complain with that kind of an increase to the population in their
community? (Suffolk County Legislator Browning, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 21)
Response: As discussed in Section 8.4 of the DGEIS, Yaphank covers a large geographic
area which is bisected by the Long Island Expressway. The portion of Yaphank located
south of the Long Island Expressway has concentrations of activity such as the County
government complex and the Sills Industrial Park, alongside areas of vacant land and open
space. The population of Yaphank, at around 6,500 persons would increase by about a
third as a result of the proposed project. While the proposed project would effectively
increase the density of development in Yaphank, the mitigation measures discussed
throughout the document related to quality of life issues, such as traffic, air quality, and
noise, as well as the large areas of protected open space existing in the area will serve to
mitigate this increase in density. Additionally, this increase in density needs to be
balanced with the positive impacts of provision of affordable housing, new recreational
amenities, and significant economic opportunities in the form of jobs and taxes, stated
goals of several of the land use plans discussed in the DGEIS.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-69
Comment 73:
Whatever tax benefit may be perceived to be gained in the short term, will have
uncalculatable costs for future generations... There is NO financial impact to keeping this
land in the public trust as it is already being carried by the taxpayers; what will the costs
to those same taxpayers be if this land is developed? (Email from Pauline A. Mize, April
29, 2011)
Response: The financial impact to the public from land preservation has to consider the
lost opportunities for tax revenues in terms of property taxes and sales taxes. The potential
tax revenues and costs were discussed in Section 19.5 of the DGEIS.
2.15. Cumulative Impacts
Comment 74:
I think it’s important to mention…that we all recognize that impacts of all the other
projects in concert with the Levy town proposal, and to realize that even if this project
does, quote, unquote, die, there’s still the potential for if we do sell it, another proposal
with even more density and more intensive land use to be put there. The best option would
be preservation of the land, especially in such close proximity to the Carmans River
Watershed. (Mr. Murdocco, April 12, 2011 Transcript Page 30)
Response: Section 21 of the DGEIS includes discussion for the projected short-term,
long-term, cumulative, and environmental impacts for any proposed projects in the
geographic area around the project site. These cumulative effects were further broken
down into three separate data sets: 1) school district impacts within the Longwood School
District; 2) groundwater and surface water impacts with the Carmans River Watershed;
and 3) projects within a one mile radius of the project site.
As mentioned in Section 26.2, it is anticipated that a supplemental EIS will be required
should the project remain the same in order to evaluate more detailed site design plans.
Should another proposal be proposed at the project site, an initial evaluation would be
performed to determine if the potential impact is significant and warrants additional
review, as determined by the Lead Agency in effect at the time.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-70
2.16. Alternatives
Comment 75:
A revised Draft EIS must also reflect the recently released Draft Carmans River
Watershed Protection and Management Plan by including a more robust comprehensive,
not a cursory, discussion of the No Development Alternative. The Town of Brookhaven
(Town), as well as Suffolk County, has clearly made preserving the Carmans River
watershed, and improving management of all its resources, a top priority. This should be
reflected in a revised Draft EIS. The cursory discussion of the preservation alternative in
the Draft EIS, as it stands now, is insufficient. A comprehensive evaluation of turning the
undeveloped land in the Yaphank County Center into a nature preserve or into parkland is
critical to fully comparing this option with the Proposed Plan, a municipal build-out plan
and an as-of-right build-out plan. The preservation option should also be considered in
the context of ongoing New York State, County and Town efforts to preserve the land in
the Carmans River watershed. It makes little sense for the County to be selling off such a
large parcel of land when the Town and New York State are investing millions of dollars
in watershed protection. (Letter from James Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund, dated
April 26, 2011)
Response: All of the alternatives that were required to be examined in accordance with
the Final Scope were examined to the same level of detail for the purposes of comparing
impacts across alternatives. One of the alternatives that the scope specified for
investigation was the preservation of the site as open space. The scope of the RFP did not,
however, require an analysis of turning the undeveloped land in the Yaphank County
Center into a nature preserve or into parkland. It is noted that a nature preserve typically
requires long-term maintenance of trails and limited facilities and the provision of staff;
parkland – which is an active recreational use – typically comprises outdoor and, in some
instances, indoor facilities. Analyses of impacts were not required for a nature preserve or
a parkland alternative; instead, the RFP required an open space alternative, i.e., effectively
a no-development alternative.
As discussed in the DGEIS, the open space alternative does not provide any of the social
and economic benefits that were outlined in the goals of the RFP. None of the alternatives
met the county’s goal for the site as established in the RFP for the sale of the property. As
stated in Section 25.4.14 of the DGEIS, “in all environmental areas the No Further
Development Alternative would have lesser impacts. However this alternative would not
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-71
generate any affordable housing, economic development, jobs or taxes, and would not
serve to address the County’s goals as set forth in their Request for Proposals for the
Yaphank site. The Yaphank site has been identified in studies since at least the 1970s as a
prime location for economic development. The County will need to weigh the social and
economic considerations against land preservation for this site, and determine whether
preservation of other lands could provide an equal or greater environmental benefit.
Comment 76:
The EIS does not consider doing nothing as an option. Why can we not preserve this
environmentally sensitive land that is publicly owned? The land is in the Carmans River
Watershed where the County, the State and the Town of Brookhaven have spent millions of
taxpayer dollars to preserve this beautiful River. (Letter from Robert/Audrey Kessler)
Response: Section 25.3 of the DGEIS describes the No Development alternative, which
evaluated the potential impacts of preserving the site as open space. A comparison of the
No Development alternative was performed in Section 25.4 of the DGEIS.
Comment 77:
The Table 25-14 gives a square foot/acre density for the various alternatives, however,
this should be expanded to specifically show how many residential, industrial and
commercial units could be built on a parcel by parcel basis. For example, the amount of
residential units proposed clearly exceeds the number of units allowed under the current
zoning. This should be clearly shown so the residents of the Yaphank community
understand the proposal. (Letter from James F. Bagg, Jr., April 28, 2011)
Response: Table 2-5 shows the proposed uses, floor areas and parking required for each
of the six areas studied as well as the total for the entire property. DGEIS Table 25-14 was
updated to provide this information individually for Areas A through F and is provided as
Table 2-6 below.
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-72
Table 2-5: Project Data by Area
Units
Unit
Size Seats
Hotel
Rooms Fields Square Feet Parking
Area A
Residential (Rental)
72
650
46,800
144
5,500 Seat Indoor Arena*
5,500
160,000 2,750
Hotel
90
70,000 90
Health Club
50,000 333
Restaurants
1,200
35,000 600
Retail
25,000
167
Office
50,000
333
5,000 Seat Outdoor Stadium*
5,000
152,160 Shared
Subtotal 72
11,700 90
588,960 4,417
Area B
Residential (Condos/Townhouses)
785
1,100
863,500
1,570
Residential (Condos/Townhouses) 215 1,600
344,000 645
Day Care Center
20,000 50
Subtotal
1,000
1,227,500
2,265
Area C
Recreational Fields
3
167
Subtotal
3
167
Area D
High-Tech Industrial*
1,200,000
3,000
Subtotal
1,200,000 3,000
Area E (Relocate Section A)
Ten acres of County highway yards
13,000 SF public works
13,000
87
16,600 SF road salt building
16,600 8
90 parking spaces County Board of Elections
90
New/relocated doctor’s cottage and shed
3,000
20
Subtotal
32,600 205
Area F
STP Expansion/Biomass Clean Energy Facility
20
Subtotal
20
Total
1,072
11,700
90
3
3,049,060
10,074
*Square footage estimated as not specified in contract documents
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-73
Table 2-6: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives (Revised DGEIS Table 25-14)
Proposed
Development
Area A
Proposed
Development
Area B
Proposed
Development
Area C
Proposed
Development
Area D
Proposed
Development
Area E
Proposed
Development
Area F
Proposed
Development
Total
No Action/
Municipal
Build-out
As-of-Right
Build-out No Further
Development
Area (acres) 34.16 121.13 28.32 94.75 15 10.49
303.85
including 14
acres already
developed
303.85
including 14
acres already
developed
303.85
including 14
acres already
developed
299.85
Housing Units
72
1000
0
0
0
0
1072
0
50
0
Square Feet
588,960
1,227,500
0
1,200,000
32,600
TBD
3,049,060
2,000,000
2,750,000
0
Parking Spaces
4,417
2,265
167
3,000
205
20
10,074
13,333
16,767
0
Geology
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Soils
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
Minimal
change
No change
Topography
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
Possible minor
impact
No change
Surface and
Subsurface
Environmental
Conditions
Remediation Remediation Remediation Remediation Remediation Remediation Remediation Possible
remediation Remediation No
remediation
Groundwater Average Nitrate Concentration (m g/l)
Immediate
Downgradient
Area
Not analyzed separately by area 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7
Complete
Downgradient
Area
Not analyzed separately by area 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.7
Stormwater
Management
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Contained on
site
Continued
runoff
Ecology
17 acres
cleared
83 acres
cleared
21 acres
cleared
94 acres
cleared
15 acres
cleared
10 acres
cleared
240 acres
cleared
Up to 240
acres cleared
Up to 240
acres cleared
No change
Land Use
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Land Use
Density
17,241
sf/acre
10,134
sf/acre
0
sf/acre
12,665
sf/acre
2,173
sf/acre
0
sf/acre
10,035
sf/acre
6,582
sf/acre
9,051
sf/acre
0
sf/acre
Zoning
Change of
Zone to PDD
Change of
Zone to PDD
No Change No Change No Change No Change
Change of
Zone to PDD
Not applicable No change No change
Public policy
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
Conforms
No change
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-74
Table 2-5: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives (Revised DGEIS Table 25-4) - continued
Proposed
Development
Area A
Proposed
Development
Area B
Proposed
Development
Area C
Proposed
Development
Area D
Proposed
Development
Area E
Proposed
Development
Area F
Proposed
Development
Total
No Action/
Municipal
Build-out
As-of-Right
Build-out No Further
Development
AM Peak Hour
Trips
269 546 0 1,221 No Change Negligible 2,036 3,910 2,500 0
Midday Peak
Hour Trips
2,236 749 63 154 No Change Negligible 3,202 5,042 565 0
PM Peak Hour
Trips
2,186 642 1 1,262 No Change Negligible 4,264 5,042 2,938 0
Saturday Peak
Hour Trips 2,236 749 63 154 No Change Negligible 3,202 0 565 0
Truck Trips
Low in
Residential
areas, higher
in Industrial
areas
Low Low High Low Low
Low in
Residential
areas, higher
in Industrial
areas
Higher than
Residential
part of the
Proposed
Action;
Similar to
Industrial part
of Proposed
Action
Less than the
Proposed
Action due to
decrease in
Industrial use
0
Visual Quality,
and impacts to
Cultural
Resources and
Suffolk County
Farm
Arena visible
from a wide
area; rest
similar to
surrounding
areas
Similar to
surrounding
areas
Similar to
surrounding
areas
Similar to
surrounding
areas
Similar to
existing
County
facilities
Similar to
existing
County
facilities
Arena visible
from a wide
area; rest
similar to
surrounding
areas
Similar to
existing
County
facilities
Similar to
surrounding
area No change
Noise change
from No Build
to Build
< 6 dBA
change < 6 dBA
change < 6 dBA
change < 6 dBA
change Similar to
existing
County
facilities in
Area A
Similar to
existing
County
wastewater
treatment
facilities
< 6 dBA
change < 6 dBA
change < 6 dBA
change No change
AM
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.6-2.1
2.3-3.9
1.7-2.9
0
Midday
3.9
3.7
3.7
1.0
1.0-3.9
3.2-6.1
0.5-1.3
0
PM
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.4
2.4-3.0
2.6-4.6
1.8-3.3
0
Saturday
4.7
4.3
4.3
0.9
0.9-4.7
0
0.5-1.6
0
Air Quality
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening
No
exceedance of
screening No change
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP 2-75
Table 2-5: Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives (Revised DGEIS Table 25-4) - continued
Proposed
Development
Area A
Proposed
Development
Area B
Proposed
Development
Area C
Proposed
Development
Area D
Proposed
Development
Area E
Proposed
Development
Area F
Proposed
Development
Total
No Action/
Municipal
Build-out
As-of-Right
Build-out No Further
Development
Cultural
Resources
Mitigation to
Cemetery and
Phase 1B
testing
Low sensitivity Low sensitivity Low sensitivity Low sensitivity Low sensitivity
Mitigation to
Cemetery and
Phase 1B
testing
No change
Mitigation to
Cemetery and
Phase 1B
testing
No change
Emergency
Services
Greatest
need, but
potential for
private
security
Similar to
other
residential
developments
Similar to
other
recreational
fields
Similar to
other office
parks
Similar to
existing
County
facilities in
Area A
Similar to
existing
County
wastewater
treatment
facilities
Greatest
need, but
potential for
private
security
About double
of existing Second
greatest need No change
Schoolchildren
19
188
0
0
0
0
207
0
57
0
Water Supply
141,400
384,700
3,200
55,200
Relocated
Negligible
548,500
293, 500
106,000
0
Wastewater Treatment
Design Flow for
STP (gpd)
122,875 303,000 2,790 48,000 Relocated Negligible 476,665 255,000 91,800 0
Projected Flow
(gpd)
92,150 227,250 2,100 36,000 Relocated Negligible 357,500 189,000 68,850 0
Solid Waste
(lbs/day)
28,400 9,000 600 12,000 Relocated Negligible 50,000* 20,000 13,000 0
Electricity (KVA)
2,775
6,285
Negligible
6,140
Relocated
Negligible
15,200 KVA
14,000 KVA
10,150 KVA
0
Natural Gas
200 therms
450 therms
Negligible
450 therms
Relocated
Negligible
1100 therms
700 therms
508 therms
0
Total Property
Taxes
$3,485,837 $5,671,984 0 $2,896,592 0 0 $12,054,413 $0 $10,834,245 $0
County
$400,331
$651,399
0
$351,277
0
0
$1,403,007
$0
$1,309,579
$0
Town
$227,092
$369,512
0
$199,365
0
0
$795,969
$0
$743,221
$0
Longwood SD
$2,363,297
$3,845,441
0
0
0
0
$6,208,738
$0
$454,760
$0
South Country
SD 0 $1,893,809 0 0 $1,893,809 $0 $6,644,944 $0
Other Districts
$495,118
$805,631
0
$452,141
0
0
$1,752,890
$0
$1,681,741
$0
Construction
Dispersed
over 15 years
Dispersed
over 15 years
Within 5 years
Dispersed
over 15 years
Within 5 years Within 5 years
Dispersed
over 15 years
Unknown time
frame
Unknown time
frame
None
*Corrected from DGEI
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP Appendix
APPENDIX A
SEQRA DOCUMENTS
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP Appendix
APPENDIX B
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
Commenter
Comment Location
1. Beth Motschenbacher, Long Island Pine
Barrens Society
Comment # 38
2. Dibser Abreu
Comment # 20
3. Natalie Hancock for Amanda Stewart
Comment # 39
4. Legislator Kate Browning
Comments # 3, 4, 8, 20, 26, 27, 46, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 72
5. Emmett Phinney
Comment # 40
6. James Zarvos
Comment # 18
7. Fedora Ferrao
Comment # 41
8. Zorina Razack
Comment # 41
9. Richard Murdocco
Comments # 35, 45, 74
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP Appendix
APPENDIX C
COMMENT LETTERS
Author
Comment Location
1. Rosemary W. Albanese
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
2. Ms. Donna Andrea
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
3. James Bagg
Comments # 17, 34, 42, 67, 77
4. Christopher Broszeit
Comments # 6, 31, 33, 35
5. James & Christine Burke
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
6. Linda Caldwell
Comments # 30
7. Heather Champion
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
8. Gary Clevidence
Comments # 12
9. Ellen Clyne, Director, Brookhaven Village
Association
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
10. Jim and Barbara Curto
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
11. Laura Day
Comments # 12, 20, 28, 44
12. Lillian and Nick Depaolo
Comment # 12
13. Carol Dooley & Jim Gamaldi
Comment # 1
14. Diane English
Comment # 1
15. Bob & Donna Esp
Comment # 1
16. Alan & Mary Anne Feinstein
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
17. Tricia Foley, Trustee, Yaphank Historical Society
Comments # 12, 23, 37, 44
18. Claire Goad
Comments # 1, 7, 12, 17, 23, 29, 36, 42, 44
19. Frances E. Goldhorn
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
20. Margaret Hart
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
21. Jan Harting-McChesney
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
22. George Howarth
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
23. Gerry/Geraldine Hummel
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
24. Charlotte Jacob
Comments # 11, 16, 20
25. Charlotte Jacob (2 letters)
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
26. MaryAnn Johnston, President, Affiliated
Brookhaven Civic Organizations, Inc.
Comments # 7, 11, 17, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, 69
27. Robert Kessler
Comment #28
28. Robert/Audrey Kessler
Comments #1, 76
29. Ronald M Kinsella
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
30. Robert Liere & Diane Ress-Liere
Comment # 35
31. LI Pine Barrens Society
Comments # 38
32. Consuelo G. Ludlam
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
33. Edward P. Luke
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
34. Mrs. Marybeth Lyons
Comments # 1, 12, 23, 29, 36
35. Kathleen Madigan
Comments # 1, 27, 31
36. Liz Marcellus
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
37. Linda McCarthy
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
38. Johan McConnell, President, South Yaphank Civic
Association
Comments # 6, 14, 15, 34, 48
Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Declaration as Surplus and Sale of 255 Acres of County Owned
Land in Yaphank for Mixed Use Development Purposes July 2011
Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP Appendix
39. Joann & Francis McLoughlin
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
40. Pauline A. Mize
Comments # 34, 35, 40, 73
41. Frederick S. Mohlmann
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
42. Glenn Murrell, P.E., Acting Regional Planning and
Program Manager, NYSDOT
Comments # 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61
43. John Palasek
Comments # 5, 12
44. Karen Palasek
Comments # 12, 44, 57
45. Ralf Petersen
Comments # 12, 33, 44
46. John Petraglia
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
47. Daniel Pichney
Comments # 2, 24, 25, 56
48. Daniel Pichney (2 letters)
Comment # 24
49. John T. Rauh
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
50. Karen Rowley
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
51. Kathleen Scheibel, President, Brookhaven Village
Association, Director, Brookhaven Free Library
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 28, 42
52. Helen Sohne
Comments # 1, 12, 71
53. Tom Stock
Comment # 19
54. Jane Roe Tierney
Comments # 12, 31, 35
55. Daniel Tomaszewski, Vice President, Longwood
Board of Education
Comment # 68
56. Werner & Marieanne Tramm
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
57. James T.B. Tripp, Senior Counsel, Environmental
Defense Fund
Comments # 13, 75
58. James T.B. Tripp, Senior Counsel, Environmental
Defense Fund (2 Letters)
Comments # 6, 13, 75
59. Chad Trusnovec
Comments # 12, 28, 47
60. Steven Trusnovec
Comment # 12
61. Carol Tucher
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
62. Martin Van Lith
Comments # 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 43
63. Sharon A. Wiesmann
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
64. Thomas B. Williams
Comments # 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 42, 44, 64, 69
YAPHANK HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Po box 1111 Yaphank NY 11980
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mule, Enviromental Projects Coordinator
Suffolk County Planning Department
PO Box 6100
Hauppauge NY 11788
Dear Mr. Mule
THE Yaphank Historical Society has been working very hard along with Suffolk County Historical Services
to create a beautiful Historic downtown. We have been renovating the Mary Louise Booth house and we
about to start on the Homan-Gerard house. We are also the caretakers of the Hawkins House which is a
beautifully restored 1850 house.
Two of these houses, the Hawkins House and the Homan-Gerard House are on the National Register of
Historic Places.
The action of the CEQ will have a huge impact on the Yaphank Historic District which is less than a mile
from the property that the County wants to declare surplus.
We urge the CEQ to look long and hard before taking any action on this property.
Sincerely
Robert Kessler
President
Yaphank Historical Society
Michel Mule, Environmental Projects Coordinator
Suffolk County Planning Department
PO Box 6100
Hauppauge NY 11788
Mr. Mule
The people of Yaphank have been under siege for a long time from developers, the Compost facility, the
jail, the Town dump, the Trap and Skeet and now Steve Levy. His Legacy Village Plan was a horrible idea
and his Casino idea is even worse.
The CEQ should seriously contemplate taking any action that will lead to this land being declared surplus
or offered for sale.
The people of Yaphank are against any attempt to put a casino on this property. This is a very historic
town and we do not want the town destroyed by this type of development.
The EIS does not consider doing nothing as an option. Why can we not preserve this environmentally
sensitive land that is publicly owned? The land is in the Carmans River Watershed where the County, the
State and the Town of Brookhaven have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to preserve this beautiful
River.
I urge the CEQ to be very careful before it takes it,s next step.
Sincerely
Robert/Audrey Kessler
9 Private Road
Yaphank NY 11980

Navigation menu