Country Pointe at Plainview FEIS

Transcription

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COUNTRY POINTE AT PLAINVIEW TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, NASSAU COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION: 143.25± acres located on the south side of Old Country Road, west of Round Swamp Road, Plainview/Old Bethpage, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County NASSAU COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS: Section 47 – Block E – Lots 747B, 747D, 747E, 748A and 748D
Beechwood POB LLC c/o The Beechwood Organization 200 Robbins Lane, Suite D‐1 Jericho, New York 11753 APPLICANT: Contact: Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP (516) 248‐1700 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Oyster Bay Town Board 54 Audrey Avenue Oyster Bay, New York Contact: Neil O. Bergin, Commissioner Department of Environmental Resources John Ellsworth, Environmental Quality Review Division PREPARER & CONTACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. 100 Motor Parkway, Suite 135 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal Robert Eschbacher, Principal Gail A. Pesner, Senior Project Manager (631) 787‐3400 DATE OF PREPARATION: AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: DATE OF FILING: With technical input from: Legal Counsel Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Suite 1010 Uniondale, New York 11553 Civil Engineer Nelson & Pope Engineers and Surveyors 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Architect‐Site Planner Axelrod & Cherveny 66 Harned Road Commack, New York 11725 January 2015 This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It has been prepared for the Lead Agency. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency and the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Public Library. This FEIS is also available electronically at the following address: http://www.vhb.com/countrypointeatplainviewfeis February 3, 2015 This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Country Pointe at Plainview. This FEIS incorporates, by reference, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this proposed action, dated March 2013. The above‐referenced DEIS was the subject of a Town of Oyster Bay Town Board Public Hearing on February 4, 2014, and written comments on the DEIS were accepted until April 20, 2014. The Written Correspondence and Public Hearing Transcript are provided in Appendices A and B of this FEIS, respectively. Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Format of FEIS........................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Revised Site Plan.............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
Description of Revised Site Plan................................................................................ 5
2.3
Comparison of DEIS Plan v. FEIS Plan ................................................................... 10
3.0 General Support and Opposition Comments .............................................................................. 27
3.1
Comments in General Support of the Proposed Action ........................................... 27
3.2
Comments in General Opposition to the Proposed Action ...................................... 37
4.0 Responses to Substantive Comments ......................................................................................... 39
4.1
Process .................................................................................................................... 43
4.2
Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 52
4.3
Ecology .................................................................................................................... 58
4.4
Zoning and Land Use............................................................................................... 73
4.5
Transportation and Parking...................................................................................... 98
4.6
Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................................. 123
4.7
Community Facilities and Services ........................................................................ 128
4.7.1 Educational Facilities/School-Aged Children ............................................ 128
4.7.2 Recreation/Parkland.................................................................................. 134
4.7.3 Emergency Services ................................................................................. 138
4.7.4 Other Services .......................................................................................... 140
4.7.5 Solid Waste ............................................................................................... 142
4.8
Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 143
4.9
Aesthetics and Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 154
4.10
Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 160
4.11
Energy.................................................................................................................... 162
4.12
General .................................................................................................................. 164
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Written Correspondence
A-1 – General Support Correspondence (on CD)
A-2 – General Opposition Correspondence (on CD)
A-3 – Substantive Written Correspondence
Appendix B – Public Hearing Transcript
Appendix C – Proposed Zoning Designation Map and Revised Site Plan (FEIS Plan)
Appendix D – Supplemental Traffic Data
Appendix E – Comparison of Property Tax Revenue
Appendix F – School District Agreement and Fire District Agreement
Appendix G – Ecological Data
Appendix H – Correspondence Regarding ShopRite
Appendix I – Visual Simulations
Appendix J – NCDPW Traffic Signal Warrant Approval
Appendix K – Updated Sewer Availability Correspondence and Request for Water Availability
Update
Table of Contents List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map ..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Revised Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables
Table 1 – Comparison of DEIS Plan Unit Mix and FEIS Plan Unit Mix...................................... 7
Table 2 – Proposed Distribution of Parcels (Acreage, Zoning and Use) ................................... 8
Table 3 - Comparison of DEIS Plan and FEIS Plan Land Coverage (in Acres) ........................ 9
Table 4 - Comparison of DEIS Plan and FEIS Plan ................................................................ 11
Table 5 – Updated Net Trip Generation-Overall Project .......................................................... 17
Table 6 – Proposed Traffic Mitigation ...................................................................................... 19
Table 7 – Comparison of Land Coverage of Ecological Communities .................................... 59
Table 8 – Revised Unit Mix with Proposed Sales Prices ......................................................... 82
Table 9 – No Build, Build Mitigation Comparison – AM Peak Hour ....................................... 104
Table 10 – No Build, Build Mitigation Comparison – PM Peak Hour ..................................... 105
Table 11 – No Build, Build, Build Mitigation Comparison-Sat Peak Hour .............................. 107
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in response to comments received by the lead agency, the Town of Oyster Bay Town Board (hereinafter the “Town Board”), on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed action, dated March 2013. The proposed action consists of several Town Board actions that, upon approval, would culminate in the development of Country Pointe at Plainview, a mixed‐use community, containing both age‐restricted and non‐age‐restricted residences, retail facilities (including a supermarket) and recreational facilities, which comprise 143.25± acres located on the south side of Old Country Road, west of Round Swamp Road, Plainview/Old Bethpage, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County (see Figure 1). As presented in the DEIS, the proposed action was described as follows: The rezoning of 63.64± acres of property zoned R1‐1A and 23.54± acres of property zoned Office Building (OB) (total 87.18± acre) to Multi‐Family Residence (RMF‐16) to permit the construction of 800 market rate age‐
restricted and non‐age‐restricted multifamily dwelling units. Of this total, 4.0 acres are proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay – 3.0 acres adjacent to the recreational facilities and 1.0 acre at the corner of Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road. The rezoning of 3.60± acres of property from OB to Multi‐Family Senior Citizen Residence (RSC‐25) to permit the construction of 90 senior affordable units. The rezoning of 8.68± acres of property from OB and 3.79± acres of property from R1‐1A (total 12.47± acres) to the General Business (GB) Zoning District to permit the construction of 118,450 square feet (SF) of retail space. Several area variances associated with the residential development. Subdivision approval. 1
Introduction
Long Island Railroad
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
SITE NAME: Country Pointe at Plainview
LOCATION: 143.25± acre property located on the south side of Old Country Road, west of
Round Swamp Road
MUNICIPALITY: Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York
SCALE: As Shown
SOURCE: 2009 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
N
In addition, approximately one third of the 143.25±‐acre subject property (30.7± percent) was proposed in the DEIS to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster for recreational facilities, buffers, etc. Specifically, 43 acres were proposed to be dedicated to the Town for use as soccer fields and other recreational fields. This area is generally situated in the location of the existing western soccer fields. A 100‐foot‐
wide, eight‐acre buffer along Round Swamp Road was proposed in the DEIS to contain a portion of a proposed walking/fitness trail, which encircles the site and connects to Trail View State Park. Ownership of the eight‐acre buffer would be retained by the Applicant or a successor in interest, and it would be maintained by the Applicant or a successor in interest. However, as part of the rezoning, the Applicant would place covenants and restrictions on the property to ensure public access to and over the walking/fitness trail. Finally, one acre of land located at the intersection of Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road was proposed in the DEIS to be dedicated to the Town. This parcel would be landscaped and maintained by the Applicant (or successor in interest) and used for signage, most likely on a masonry wall, introducing the entranceway to Plainview‐Old Bethpage. The aforesaid DEIS was accepted by the Town Board as complete and adequate for public review, the DEIS was circulated to all the involved agencies and interested parties and posted on VHB’s website on April 11, 2013, and a public hearing was held on February 4, 2014. The DEIS comment period was held open until April 20, 2014. In accordance with 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(8): 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 agencyʹs 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 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. Since the time of the close of the public comment period on the DEIS, and based on various comments made, the Applicant has modified its proposed action to, among other things, reduce the proposed density and increase open space. The plan modifications will be discussed in detail in Section 2.0 of this document. 3
Introduction
1.1
Format of FEIS As evidenced by review of written comments received (see Appendix A), many of the commentators expressed support for the proposed action. Accordingly, while these comments are included in the aforementioned appendices, they are not “substantive comments” as contemplated in 6 NYCRR §617.9(b)(8), and are not individually addressed in this FEIS. These comments are designated as “GS” (General Support). In addition, some of the written comments received by the Town expressed general opposition to the proposed action (e.g., the project is too big, there will be too much traffic). While these comments are included in the appendices, they are also not “substantive comments” and, thus, are not individually addressed. These comments are designated as “GO” (General Opposition). Comments of General Support and General Opposition are set forth in Section 3.0 of this FEIS. Various substantive comments were received on the DEIS. Written correspondence containing substantive comments are addressed in Section 4.0. Written comments are designated with the letter “C.” Substantive comments made at the public hearing are also addressed in Section 4.0 of this FEIS. Each speaker at the public hearing was assigned a number preceded by the letter “H.” The substantive written comments have been coded by commentator and are included in Appendix A of this FEIS. The coded comments from the public hearing transcript are included in Appendix B of this FEIS. 4
Introduction
2.0 Revised Site Plan 2.1
Introduction Based upon comments received during the public comment period for the DEIS, the proposed Site Plan was revised. The revised site plan (hereinafter “FEIS Plan” or “Revised Site Plan”) maintains the mixed‐use concept that was presented in the DEIS, but addresses various salient comments regarding density and design. A comparison of the two plans is presented in Section 2.3, below. The FEIS Plan is shown in Figure 2 and contained in Appendix C of this FEIS. 2.2
Description of Revised Site Plan As indicated above, the proposed FEIS Plan was developed to address comments raised at both the public hearing held on February 4, 2014 and the written comments that were received during the comment period on the DEIS, which ended on April 20, 2014. The number of residential units has been reduced from 890 to 792, with the following proposed distribution amongst unit types (see Table 1): 5
Revised Site Plan
LO
EX NG I
S
PR
ES LAN
SW D
AY
SCO
AMFE
MERG
DR
ALER
ENTH
NEW
DR
TON
ROAD
BE
TH
PA
GE
RO
OLD
COUN
TRY
ROAD
AD
MO
DR RRIS
ON
SITE
AD
RO
P
AM
SW
D
EN
D
AV
OO
KW
IR
M
Y
Y
COUNT
COUNT
UN
UE
LK
U
RO
SUFFO
NASSA
OLD
BETHPAGE
VILLAGE
RESTORATION
LO
CU
EN
IS
ST
RD
AR
G
LE
SITE DATA:
D
NM
OR
DR
E
E
IV
DR
AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:
LOT A: 79.99 ACRES
LOT B: 3.19 ACRES
LOT C: 16.07 ACRES
TOTAL : 99.25 ACRES
UE
EN
KEY MAP
SCALE :1"=600'
D
AV
OO
K
KW
WO
OA
LN
IR
OD
M
LA
ND
DR
E
TH
AREA TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF OYSTER BAY:
LOT D: 3.00 ACRES
LOT E: 40.00 ACRES
LOT F: 1.00 ACRES
TOTAL : 44.00 ACRES
E
IR
SH
E
DL
ISENGARD DRIVE
E
ID
M
IV
DR
TOTAL AREA OF SITE: 143.25 ACRES
EXISTING ZONES: R1-1A RES. AND OB OFFICE BLDG.
PROPOSED ZONES: GENERAL BUSINESS, RSC-25, RMF-16, R1-1A RES.
AND OB OFFICE BLDG.
N.C.T.M.: SECT. 47 - BLK. E - LOTS 747B, 747D, 747E, 748A, 748D
SCHOOL DISTRICT: PLAINVIEW-OLD BETHPAGE
WATER DISTRICT: PLAINVIEW
FIRE DISTRICT: PLAINVIEW
POST OFFICE: OLD BETHPAGE
SEWER DISTRICT: DISPOSAL DISTRICT No. 3
LOT D - 40 ACRES FROM C AND R'S PLUS ADDITIONAL 3 ACRE DEDICATION = 43 ACRES
LOT E - 1 ACRE PARCEL PARK DEDICATION ( PASSIVE PARK AND SIGNAGE )
H
RT
EA
E
IV
DR
BO
BIL
UE
CO
EN
D
AV
UR
OO
T
KW
IR
M
PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL AREA
DO
O
FR
REQUIRED:
RETAIL:
115,450 x 1/200
BANK:
3,000 x 1/200
(ASSUME 3 TELLER STATIONS @ 5 PER STATION)
= 577.25 STALLS
= 15.00 STALLS
E
IN
G
G
TOTAL REQUIRED:
NE
LA
BA
ISENGARD DRIVE
S
LL
DE
EN
RIV
T
UR
CO
IV
DR
592.25 STALLS
PROVIDED:
661 STALLS (INCL. 26 H.C. STALLS)
ID
M
* VARIANCE REQUIRED: A PORTION OF THE SUPERMARKET LOADING DOCKS FACE
ROUND SWAMP ROAD.
E
DL
RT
EA
H
DR
ES
HIR
ED
RIV
E
E
IV
RO
HA
NR
OA
D
PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA
TH
REQUIRED:
RSC--25 FLATS
DETACHED TOWNHOUSE
ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE
FLATS / VILLAS:
RMF-16 CONDO FLATS
W/ AGE RESTRICTION:
RMF-16 CONDO
W/ AGE RESTRICTION:
79 UNITS X 1.3 STALLS/UNIT =
24 UNITS x 2 STALLS/UNIT =
86 STALLS
435 UNITS x 2 STALLS/ UNIT =
870 STALLS
MO
1,529 STALLS
OR
RD
TOTAL REQUIRED:
ROHAN ROAD
Y
WA
PROVIDED:
RSC - 25 FLATS
104 STALLS
RMF-16 CONDO W / AGE RESTRICTION
INDOOR GARAGE PARKING
29 BLDGS AT 18 STALLS/ BLDG =
522 STALLS
DRIVEWAYS (2 CAR DRIVEWAY / UNIT)
TOWNHOUSE
208 STALLS
DRIVEWAYS (1 CAR DRIVEWAY / UNIT)
FLATS / VILLAS
131 STALLS
RMF-16 CONDO FLATS W/ AGE RESTRICTION
62 STALLS
REC BUILDING PARKING
142 STALLS
375 STALLS
STREET PARKING
TOTAL PROVIDED:
1,544 STALLS
E
RIV
ED
HIR
ES
TH
103 STALLS
48 STALLS
160 STALLS
262 STALLS
+
(208 GARAGE SPACES)
+
+
(131 GARAGE SPACES)
(62 GARAGE SPACES)
+
(401 GARAGE SPACES
ALSO AVAILABLE)
RESIDENTIAL
RO
AD
CLE
CIR
OR
ND
GO
RSC-25 FLATS:
RES A
PROPOSED 12 UNIT BUILDING
RES B
RES C
4 BUILDINGS/
2 BUILDINGS/
1 BUILDING/
TOWNHOUSES & MARKET RATE FLAT / VILLAS
48 UNITS
20 UNITS
11 UNITS
79 UNITS
UNITS 503 - 713
211 UNITS
DETACHED TOWNHOUSE
RMF-16 CONDO FLATS
FLATS / VILLAS (AGE RESTRICTED)
UNITS 436 - 459
24 UNITS
UNITS 460 - 502
43 UNITS
RO
HA
N
RMF-16 CONDOMINIUMS W/ AGE RESTRICTION
15 UNIT BUILDINGS
(29 BUILDINGS)
UNITS 1 - 435
TOTAL
435 UNITS
792 UNITS
BUILDING LEGEND
E
CL
CIR
ROHAN ROAD
R
O
ND
O
G
COMMERCIAL
TYPE No. OF BLDGS.
A
4
B
2
C
2
D
1
E
1
F
1
1
G
ROHAN ROAD
EMERGENCY ACCESS
PROPOSED 3,000 SQ.FT. RETAIL
= 12,000 SQ.FT.
= 12,000 SQ.FT.
= 5,000 SQ.FT.
= 7,000 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED 3,000 SQ.FT. BANK
= 3,000 SQ.FT.
= 8,000 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED 68,750 SQ.FT. SUPERMARKET = 68,750 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED 2,700 SQ.FT. MEZZANINE
= 2,700 SQ.FT.
TOTAL = 118,450 SQ.FT.
ZONING REQUIREMENTS: RMF-16 (83.99 ACRES) (79.99 AC. LOT A) (3 AC. LOT D) (1 AC. LOT F)
FRONT YARD:
REAR YARD:
SIDE YARD:
MAXIMUM BLDG COVERAGE:
MINIMUM LOT AREA:
MAXIMUM HEIGHT:
REQUIRED:
25'
25'
25'
25%
5 ACRES
2 STORIES / 30'
PROVIDED:
130'
40'
25' MIN.
20%
83.99 ACRES
*45' ~ 3 STORIES
MAXIMUM DENSITY:
16 UNITS/ACRE = 1343 UNITS
24 DETACHED TOWNHOUSES
80 ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES
131 FLATS / VILLAS
43 RMF-16 CONDO FLATS W/ AGE RESTRICTION
435 RMF-16 CONDO'S W/ AGE RESTRICTION
713 UNITS TOTAL
MAXIMUM UNITS PER BUILDING:
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS:
MINIMUM GARAGE SETBACK:
16 UNITS
50'
25'
** 15 UNITS
*15.0'
*20'
MINIMUM HABITABLE AREA
HABITABLE AREA REQUIRED
PER DWELLING UNIT (S.F.)
1
2
3
4 OR MORE
300
500
750
750, PLUS 200 FOR EACH
HABITABLE ROOM IN EXCESS OF 4
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE & OTHER RECREATION AREA
(AS PER T.O.B. ZONING REGULATION 246-5.4.2.5)
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:
83.99 ACRES x 0.25 (25%) = 21.0 ACRES
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
POND
ROUND SWAMP ROAD BUFFER
OPEN SPACE AND DEDICATED AREAS
TOTAL
3.4 ACRES
8.55 ACRES
13.93 ACRE
25.88 ACRES
ZONING REQUIREMENTS: GENERAL BUSINESS (16.07 ACRES) (LOT C)
FRONT YARD:
REAR YARD:
SIDE YARD:
MAXIMUM HEIGHT:
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH/FRONTAGE:
PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING:
PROVIDED:
PASSIVE RECREATION - 1.65 ACRES
TENNIS COURTS 0.33 ACRES
PLAYGROUND 0.04 ACRES
0.52 ACRES
POOL
2.54 ACRES
TOTAL
REQUIRED:
10% OF PARKING AREA:
0.10 x 517 (9' x 20') = 9,306 SQ.FT. ~ 0.21 ACRES
PROVIDED: 0.25 ACRES
PROVIDED:
50'
29'
67' MIN.
21%
35'
1585'
0.5 AC
ZONING REQUIREMENTS: RSC-25 (3.19 ACRES) (LOT B)
ACTIVE RECREATION & CHILD PLAY AREAS:
REQUIRED:
MIN. 150SF/UNIT x 713 UNITS = 106,950 SF ~ 2.46 ACRES
REQUIRED:
10'
20'
0'
80%
35'
40'
0.10 x 661 (9' x 18') = 10,708 SQ.FT.
~ 0.22 ACRES
FRONT YARD:
REAR YARD:
SIDE YARD:
MINIMUM LOT AREA:
MAXIMUM HEIGHT:
MAXIMUM DENSITY:
MAXIMUM UNITS PER BUILDING:
MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS:
MINIMUM INDOOR RECREATION AREA:
REQUIRED
25'
25'
20'
35%
2 ACRES
30' ~ 2 STORIES
25 UNITS/ACRE = 79 UNITS
16 UNITS
40'
10 S.F./UNIT = 790 S.F.
0.10 x 93 (9' x 18') = 1,506 SQ.FT.
~ 0.03 ACRE
PROVIDED
25'
25'
20'
26.5%
3.19 ACRES
30' ~ 2 STORIES
79 UNITS
**12 UNITS
*25.0'
800 S.F.
NO.
DATE:
REVISIONS:
BY:
PROJECT NO.:
0.35 ACRE
* VARIANCE REQUIRED
** WAIVER REQUIRED
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
* VARIANCE REQUIRED
** WAIVER REQUIRED
DATE:
SCALE:
OWNER:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING, SECTION 7209 FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS HE IS
ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LAND
SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL OF AN ENGINEER
OR LAND SURVEYOR IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR SHALL
AFFIX TO THE ITEM HIS SEAL AND NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS SIGNATURE
AND THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.
BOUNDARY INFORMATION WAS COMPILED FROM A SURVEY
OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLAINVIEW PREPARED BY
NELSON & POPE ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS,
0
DATED MARCH 14, 2011.
PLAINVIEW PROPERTIES, SPE, LLC
1600 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
SUITE 101
PLAINVIEW, NY, 11803
SCALE: 1" = 100'
50
100
200
APPLICANTS:
400
PLAINVIEW PROPERTIES, SPE, LLC
1600 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
SUITE 101
PLAINVIEW, NY, 11803
FILE NO.:
NELSON
BEECHWOOD POB, LLC
500 NORTH BROADWAY
SUITE 240
JERICHO, NY 11753
Figure 2 - Revised Site Plan (FEIS Plan)
&
POPE
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747
PHONE (631) 427-5665 FAX (631) 673-4163
WWW.NELSONPOPE.COM
CADD:
10193
LB
JM
NOVEMBER, 2014
1"=100'
--------10193FDR
DRAWING NO.:
SHEET NO.:
1 OF 1
G:\projects\10193\dwg\2014 FINAL\10193 FDR.dwg, feis plan, 1/12/2015 10:28:56 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
NUMBER OF HABITABLE ROOMS
IN DWELLING UNIT
Table 1 – Comparison of DEIS Plan Unit Mix and FEIS Plan Unit Mix
Unit Type
Senior Condominiums
Senior Flats
RSC-25 Senior Units
Townhouses
Duplexes
Zero Lot Lines
(Detached)
Flats
Number of Units
(DEIS Plan)
414
122
90
34
18
4
Number of Units
(FEIS Plan)
435
43
79
80
-24
Size Range (SF)
Age Restriction/Cost-Controlled
1,500 – 2,400
1,500
950
2,950
2,950
2,950
Age-Restricted
Age-Restricted
Age-Restricted/Cost-Controlled
Non-Age-Restricted
Non-Age-Restricted
Non-Age-Restricted
208
131
1,500
Non-Age-Restricted
As can be seen by this chart, the number of age‐restricted units has been reduced from 626 to 557 and the number of non‐age‐restricted units has been reduced from 264 to 235. The percentage of senior housing versus non‐aged‐restricted housing remains the same at 70.3 percent. Accordingly, over 70 percent of the proposed units at Country Pointe at Plainview are proposed to be age‐restricted. In addition to the reduction of the number of total units, the RSC‐25 residential development has been relocated to the west of the main driveway along Old Country Road to address comments received regarding the original placement of the RSC‐25 community (i.e., adjoining the proposed retail development). Access to this development would still be from the interior driveway to the community, and not directly from Old Country Road. The relocation of the RSC‐25 residential development to the west side of the main driveway requires that residents in that area who wish to walk to the commercial/retail portion of the site cross the driveway on foot. To facilitate safe crossing the location of the proposed crossing has been modified on the Revised Site Plan (see Appendix C of this FEIS). Specifically, the crosswalk has been shifted south and the median island on the south leg of the driveway has been extended such that the crosswalk crosses the island, which would be constructed flush in this area. This would provide a refuge for pedestrians who choose to use it. In addition, crosswalk warning signing, in conformance with the current Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), will be provided on the main driveway approaches to the crosswalk to increase visibility and driver awareness to the presence of pedestrians. The ability of large tractor‐trailers to make deliveries to the proposed supermarket located at the east end of the site has been evaluated through the performance of truck turning template runs performed and recorded on the site plan. A graphic depiction of these truck turning template runs is contained in Appendix D of this FEIS. The truck turn analysis utilizes a WB‐67, the largest available semitrailer and represents the worst case scenario for a delivery truck access to the supermarket. The analysis results in interference with adjacent lanes at the ingress. The encroachment on adjacent lanes is generally considered acceptable as long as it occurs infrequent and at times during which the traffic volume at the site is low. 7
Revised Site Plan
As various components of the proposed development have been slightly shifted within the site and additional open space created, a revised Proposed Zoning Designation Map has been prepared to reflect the revisions to the proposed zoning lines (see Appendix C of this FEIS). The Proposed Zoning Designation Map indicates the following: Table 2 – Proposed Distribution of Parcels (Acreage, Zoning and Use)
Lot
A
B
C
D
E
Size (in
acres)
79.99
3.19
16.07
3.00
40.00
F
1.00
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Use
RMF-16
RSC-25
GB
RMF-16
R1-1A and OB
(existing to remain)
RMF-16
Multi-Family Residential and Open Space/Buffers*
Senior (Golden Age) Residential
Commercial/Retail
Open Space - Dedicated to Town
*Approximately 18.9 acres of open space/buffers at the southeastern portion of the site are proposed to be owned by the Homeowners
Association, but can be dedicated to Town of Oyster Bay, should it be requested.
The recharge basin originally located along Old Country Road, west of the main access, in the DEIS Plan has been relocated to the area behind (to the south of) the proposed retail stores in the FEIS Plan (see Figure 2 and Appendix C). This proposed recharge basin would not be visible from Old Country Road. It would be located downslope from the adjacent on‐site residences, as it is on the other side of the ridge that separates the on‐site residences along Mirkwood Avenue from the commercial component. The recharge basin would be fenced and evergreen plantings would be installed around the perimeter for screening. Furthermore, the retention area that was located in the southeastern portion of the site, within the buffer, has been removed. The area is now proposed to remain in its natural condition with the exception of the installation of the fitness/walking trail. The alignments of the internal roadways have also been revised. For example, whereas the RMF‐16 clubhouse was previously off‐set from the main entrance to the development, it now forms the terminus of main entrance drive (Middle Earth Drive) and drivers can now turn either left or right on The Shire Drive to access the interior of the site. Also, in the DEIS Plan whereas Frodo Avenue previously formed the northern perimeter of residential development and separated the commercial component from the residential component on the southern side of the ridge, this internal roadway has been eliminated, the residential units realigned, and access to these northernmost units would now be from Mirkwood Avenue to the south (see Appendix C). Revised land coverages have been calculated for the FEIS Plan. Table 3, below, shows a comparison between the coverages of the DEIS Plan and the FEIS Plan. 8
Revised Site Plan
Table 3 - Comparison of DEIS Plan and FEIS Plan Land Coverage (in Acres)
Type of Coverage
Meadow or Brushland
(Non-Agricultural)
Forested
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (rock, earth, fill)
Roads, Buildings and Other Paved
Surfaces
Present Land Coverage
(Entire Site)
Proposed Land Coverage
(DEIS Plan)
Proposed Land Coverage
(FEIS Plan)
16.77±
53.26±
0.00±
1.46±
1.00±
37.39±
5.40±
0.00±
1.00±
44.50±
3.40±
0.00±
13.40±
44.78±
42.83±
57.67±
27.70±
23.50±
0.69±
0.00±
143.25±
23.80±
3.18±
143.25±
25.53±
2.49±
143.25±
Turf Grasses (fertilizer-dependent)
Other Landscaping Vegetation (lowmaintenance)
Other (recharge basin only)
TOTAL
As can be seen in Table 3 and Table 4, the amount of pervious area has been increased from 93.07± acres to 97.02± acres, thus decreasing the amount of impervious area and associated stormwater runoff. The amount of open space to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay for recreational (active and passive) and open space purposes has been maintained at 44 acres1 However, the amount of overall open space (outside of the development area) has increased from approximately 57 acres to approximately 63 acres. In addition, the overall amount of open space, buffers and outdoor recreation areas on the site have increased from approximately 65 acres to approximately 69 acres. The closest building to the southern property line is approximately 360 feet in the FEIS Plan, whereas in the DEIS Plan it was approximately 230 feet, an increase of 130 feet. However, the buffer at the southeast corner of the property (along Cedar Drive East and a portion of Beatrice Lane) has been significantly increased to a minimum of 320± feet, with the closest residence located approximately 600 feet from the property line in this area (see Figure 2 and Appendix C of this FEIS). 
1
However, as noted in Table 2, approximately 18.9 acres at the southeastern portion of the site that would be retained as undisturbed open space
may be dedicated to the Town, if requested.
9
Revised Site Plan
2.3
Comparison of DEIS Plan v. FEIS Plan It is evident from the comparison of the two plans, that the revised FEIS Plan addresses the various substantive issues raised on the original plan included in the DEIS. The FEIS Plan reduces the number of units and overall density, as well as increases buffer areas, provides for more open space and relocates the RSC‐25 senior development away from the commercial component of the project to an area adjoining the proposed market‐rate units. Table 4 provides a comparison of the quantifiable impacts of the DEIS Plan and those of the FEIS Plan. 10
Revised Site Plan
Table 4 - Comparison of DEIS Plan and FEIS Plan
PARAMETER
Type of Development
Number of Units/Type of
Building/Gross Floor Area
(SF) of New Development
DEIS PLAN
FEIS PLAN

Townhouses, Flats, Condominiums, Duplexes,
Detached Zero Lot Line Units, Senior Affordable Units

Townhouses, Flats, Condominiums, Detached Zero Lot
Line Units, Senior Affordable Units

Clubhouse/Recreation Building

Clubhouse/Recreation Building

Retail

Retail

Recreational Uses

Recreational Uses

414 Age-Restricted Condominiums (700,000 SF)

435 Age-Restricted Condominiums (735,150 SF)

122 Age-Restricted Flats (295,850 SF)

43 Age-Restricted Flats (86,000 SF)

90 Golden Age RSC-25 Units (105,000 SF)

79 Golden Age RSC-25 Units (79,000 SF)

34 Townhouses (164,900 SF)

80 Townhouses (240,000 SF)

18 Duplexes (87,300 SF)

0 Duplexes (0 SF)

4 Detached Zero Lot Line Units (19,400 SF)

24 Detached Zero Lot Line Units (72,000 SF)

208 Flats (504,597 SF)

131 Flats (262,000 SF)

Clubhouse/Recreation Buildings (26,010 SF**)

Clubhouse/Recreation Buildings (25,000SF**)

Supermarket (71,450)

Supermarket (71,450)

Retail (44,000)

Retail (44,000)

Bank (3,000)

Bank (3,000)
Gross Floor Area (SF)
2,021,507 (new development)
1,617,600 (new development)
Outdoor Recreational
Facilities/
Open Space
Soccer Fields, Parks, Walking/Fitness Trail, Tennis Courts,
Decorative Ponds, Undesignated Open Space/Recreation Areas
Population (persons)
1,687
1,518
School-Aged Children
38 – 56
36 – 50
Permanent Employment
504 jobs
500 jobs
Domestic Water/Sewage
457,590 gpd
411,040 gpd
Solid Waste
12,937 lbs./day
12,346 lbs./day
Annual Gross Tax Revenue
Generation
$19.77± million***
Pervious Surfaces
66.5%
67.7%
Impervious Surfaces*
33.5%
32.3%
528 vehicle trips
939 vehicle trips
973 vehicle trips
499 vehicle trips
904 vehicle trips
943 vehicle trips
Soccer Fields, Parks, Walking/Fitness Trail, Tennis Courts,
Decorative Ponds, Undesignated Open Space/Recreation Areas
$18.74 million
Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak Hour
*Includes proposed ponds.
**The SF covered porch of the main clubhouse is considered as part of the gross floor area.
***Updated to reflect 2014 tax rates for comparison purposes.
11
Revised Site Plan
The following is a summary of the impacts associated with the FEIS Plan, by topic, and how they compare to those of the DEIS Plan. Subsurface Conditions, Soils and Topography With respect to impacts to soils and topography, as with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.1 of the DEIS), implementation of the proposed FEIS Plan would result in disturbance to soils and topography. In this regard, the major difference between the DEIS Plan and the FEIS Plan is that the FEIS will disturb less natural area especially along Round Swamp Road and in the southeastern portion of the site , and will result in less impervious area being installed (i.e., 46.23± acres versus 50.18± acres in the DEIS plan). With respect to mitigation of impacts to soils and topography, implementation of the FEIS Plan will include the same mitigation measures as proposed for the DEIS Plan as follows (see Section 5.1 of the DEIS): Development and implementation of a Facility Work Plan to address typical environmental issues, if and when, they are encountered during the redevelopment of the site. The Facility Work Plan would provide protocols to address typical environmental issues such as buried drums, underground storage tanks, and any associated impacted soils, impacted bottom sediments, containers and their contents, etc. The Erosion Control Plans developed for the proposed development will include the following erosion and sedimentation control measures to be employed prior to and during construction:  All existing vegetation to remain will be appropriately identified and protected.  The clearing and grading of the site will be scheduled in order to minimize the size of the exposed area and the duration of time that areas are exposed.  Sediment barriers (silt fences and hay bales) will be installed prior to any earthwork, along the limits of clearing and disturbance and will be inspected and maintained for the duration of the work.  The length and steepness of cleared sloped areas will be minimized to reduce stormwater runoff velocities and, therefore, the potential for any gully‐type erosion.  Stormwater runoff will be diverted away from cleared slopes until temporary or permanent stabilization is completed. 12
Revised Site Plan
 Graded and stripped areas and stockpiles will be kept stabilized through the use of temporary seeding, as required.  Drainage inlets, installed as part of the project, will be protected from sediment build‐up through the use of sediment barriers, sediment traps, etc., as required.  Appropriate means will be used to control dust during construction, including the staging of a water truck to wet soils during dry periods. In addition, wind screening on the construction fencing would be considered for use, as needed, for fugitive dust control during construction.  A stabilized, gravel‐bed construction entrance will be maintained to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto area roads.  The proposed project would include sweeping and general maintenance in order to minimize the potential for sediment to be tracked off‐site onto Old County Road. In addition, should sediment be transported onto Old Country Road, it will be promptly cleared. The grading of the site has been designed to generally follow the slope and natural character of the land and, to the extent practicable, cut and fill of soil/earth would be minimized. Within areas of steep slopes, the appropriate stabilization methods would be employed, including retaining walls, the establishment of landscaped ground cover and planting of trees. Although the proposed action requires a significant amount of cut, in order to minimize potential impacts from material transport, approximately 30 percent of the material will be reused on the site. To mitigate the impacts associated with the transport of material off‐site, gravel‐
bed construction driveways would be established to prevent soils from being transported on to local roadways. In addition, watering during dry periods would limit fugitive dust during earth moving activities. Water Resources The impacts to water resources associated with the FEIS Plan would be reduced from those discussed in Section 4.2 of the DEIS. While there would still be an increase in water demand and sewage disposal, it would not be as great as in the DEIS (over 46,000 gpd less as noted in Table 4). As indicated in the DEIS (see Appendix J), the Plainview Water District and the NCDPW indicated that they could provide water and sewer services, respectively. Based upon the revised site plan, an updated letter of availability from the NCDPW has been obtained (see Appendix K of this FEIS). The Plainview Water District provided a Conditional Certificate of Water 13
Revised Site Plan
Availability on November 1, 2012, which was contained in Appendix J of the DEIS, and is valid through November 2015. A request for an extension/renewal of the Certificate was sent in correspondence dated January 6, 2015 (see Appendix K). The request must go before the Board of Commissioners, and the Town will be provided with documentation of the extension/renewal, once it is granted. In addition, the FEIS Plan includes less impervious area as compared to the DEIS Plan (see Table 4). Therefore, less stormwater runoff would be generated, and there would be less impact to the aquifer. With less development and more open space in the FEIS Plan, the impact to groundwater resources would be less than the DEIS Plan. With respect to mitigation, those measures proposed in the DEIS Plan (see Section 5.2 of the DEIS) would be the same for the FEIS Plan, as follows: The proposed development would be connected to both the public water and sewer systems. The proposed landscaping plan includes the planting of native and low‐
maintenance vegetation to reduce irrigation demand and fertilizer needs. Water conservation measures will be incorporated into the project design, including low‐flow fixtures, EnergyStar appliances, high‐ efficiency washing machines, and high‐efficiency showerheads. Prior to construction, a detailed SWPPP will be prepared and implemented to ensure there will be no significant impact to surrounding properties or roadways. Stormwater runoff generated on the property would be captured and recharged on‐site with an integrated stormwater management system, including a recharge basin, retention ponds, a retention area, leaching pools and drywells. The proposed project will adhere, to the maximum extent practicable, to the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, the NURP Study, and the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook as well as the relevant prevailing regulations regarding the protection of surface and groundwater resources. Ecology The impacts to ecological resources associated with the FEIS Plan would be similar to those of the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.3 of DEIS). However, since the proposed action includes fewer residential units, more open space and less impervious area, there would be fewer impacts to ecological resources with implementation of the FEIS Plan. More specifically, there would be less clearing of the existing wooded area in the southeastern portion of the site, as the buffer area in this location has been 14
Revised Site Plan
substantially increased to address concerns that were raised during the comment period. With respect to mitigation for ecological resources, the measures proposed for the FEIS Plan would be the same as those for the DEIS Plan (see Section 5.3 of the DEIS) although the vegetated buffers would be increased in size:  A landscape plan will be implemented that provides for the replanting of areas with native and low‐maintenance vegetation to the maximum extent practicable.  Vegetated buffers will be maintained and/or supplemented around the perimeter of the property. The proposed stormwater ponds would provide new habitat area that has not previously existed on the site. These ponds would encourage the use of the site by different species of wildlife upon completion of construction. Zoning and Land Use As with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.4 of the DEIS), the land use and zoning of the much of the site would be modified in order to implement the FEIS Plan. The major difference between the DEIS Plan and the FEIS Plan with respect to land use is that the number of residential units and residential density has been reduced (from 890 units to 792 units and from a density of 6.8± units per acre to 6.1± units per acre), the amount of dedicated and publicly‐accessible open space has been increased from 57± acres to 63± acres, and the amount of overall open space, buffers and outdoor recreational facilities has been increased from 65± acres to 69± acres. In addition, the buffers along the eastern and southern property lines have been increased and the proposed residences relocated farther away from the property lines. However, with the exception of the RSC‐25 development, discussed below, the proposed land uses have been maintained in the locations, as discussed in the DEIS. Thus, the relationships between the on‐site and off‐site land uses, and the transitional nature of the development from more intense (to the north) to less intense (to the south) has been maintained. As indicated in Section 2.2, and shown on Figure 2 and the Revised Site Plan in Appendix C of this FEIS, the RSC‐25 senior housing development has been relocated from the area behind the commercial component of the project to the west of the main entrance along Old Country Road. Based upon the FEIS Plan, one of the previously requested variances (maximum number of units per building in the RMF‐16 zoning district [16 units per building]) has been eliminated, since the largest building now contains 15 units instead of the one building containing 18 units and three buildings containing 36 units in the DEIS Plan. Since eight units per building are permitted (with up to 16 units via a waiver 15
Revised Site Plan
from the Town Board) a waiver, and not a variance, will be requested for the 15‐unit buildings. As discussed in the DEIS (Section 2.3.3), the property is subject to Restrictive Covenants. Just as for the DEIS Plan, the FEIS Plan would require the rescission of certain covenants and their replacement with other protective covenants. Finally, with respect to the Oyster Bay Final Groundwater and Open Space Protection Plan (FGOSPP), due to the decrease in density of the residential component of the development and the increase in buffers and open space on the property, the FEIS Plan would be somewhat more protective of the groundwater and open space resources in the area as compared to the DEIS Plan. There would be less water demand and sewage generation, and more open space and recreational land would be maintained and dedicated to the Town, in conformance with the recommendations for the FGOSPP. The measures employed to minimize potential impacts to zoning and land use impacts that were outlined in Section 5.4 of the DEIS, would also be implemented as part of the FEIS Plan, including the increase of open space, as follows:  The proposed development is a re‐use of a formerly fully active site with commercial and residential uses that fulfill a housing need that has been identified by the County (senior and senior affordable housing)  The proposed mix of land uses on the site creates a compact, walkable development, allowing the opportunity for people to live and shop within a cohesive community. Land uses have been placed within the proposed development to relate to the surrounding properties (i.e., residences oriented toward existing residential neighborhoods, retail uses oriented toward Old Country Road, and recreational uses maintained adjacent to residences and Trail View State Park). The clustering of the residential and commercial uses on the northern, southeastern, and eastern portions of the property allows for the retention of 43 acres of contiguous open space and recreational areas on the western/ southwestern portions of the property that would be dedicated to the Town. Clustering of the new development would assist in minimizing the amount of impervious surface across the site. Over two thirds of the site would be pervious. Approximately 44 acres of the subject property (43 contiguous acres) are proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay, a large portion of which would be maintained in recreational use. 16
Revised Site Plan
The total amount of open space to be maintained outside of the development area is proposed to be approximately 63 acres, 44 of which would be dedicated to the Town, as noted above. Recreation and open space within the development area includes an additional six acres (comprised of playgrounds, tennis courts, ponds, pool, etc.), for a total of 69± acres of open space, buffers and outdoor recreational space on the overall subject property. Vegetative screening will be provided throughout the site and along the perimeter of the site to buffer the proposed uses from each other and from neighboring properties. Furthermore, the berm along Round Swamp Road will be maintained and supplemented with vegetation. Appropriate lighting will be provided throughout the site in order to enhance both the aesthetics, as well as safety of the residents, employees and visitor, while not allowing light trespass off the property. Transportation and Parking The traffic impacts associated with the FEIS Plan are slightly less than those associated with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.5 of the DEIS), based upon lower trip generation. A revised trip generation analysis was prepared (see Appendix D). As with the DEIS Plan, net vehicle trips were calculated, based upon the incorporation of the pass‐by credit for the commercial component of the project. The net vehicle trips are shown in Table 5, below and as comparison to the DEIS Plan is included in Table 4. Table 5 – Updated Net Trip Generation-Overall Project
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Sat Peak Hour Trips
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
Primary Trips - Commercial Space
165
108
319
312
361
343
Trips - Residential
61
165
174
99
121
118
226
273
493
411
482
461
Trips
Totals
499
904
943
There have been no significant changes that have occurred in the study area that would affect traffic conditions as evaluated within the DEIS. The proposed traffic mitigation associated with the FEIS Plan would be the same as that associated with the DEIS Plan (see Section 5.5 of the DEIS). The proposed mitigation measures described in the DEIS are discussed below and Table 72 from the DEIS is reproduced herein as Table 6. “The types of mitigation consist of a) capacity increases by widening and/or changes in lane configuration, b) changes in signal timing, phase‐ splits and offsets or, c) both a and b. 17
Revised Site Plan
The proposed recommended mitigation is summarized in Table 72… …construction to provide additional travel lanes and capacity are identified for three of the seven intersections. At the remaining three, changes in the signals operation through adjustments in signal timing are recommended. At the Round Swamp Road intersections with the LIE North Service Road and South Service Road, the improvements identified will restore the intersection to levels of service that are equal to or better than those that would exist without the development. Consideration was also given to the need for a dual northbound right turn lane at this intersection. However, due to the proximity of the LIE entrance ramp to the Round Swamp Road intersection, the dual right turn could result in unsafe crossing conflicts involving turning vehicles trying to enter the ramp. The cost of the improvements at this location as estimated to be in the range of one million dollars. The Applicant has committed to fully fund the design and construction of these improvements, subject to approval of the NYSDOT, Nassau County and the Town of Huntington. 18
Revised Site Plan
Table 6 – Proposed Traffic Mitigation
Capacity
Location
Existing Conditions
Signal Timing Changes
Proposed Mitigation
Northbound – One left-turn lane, two through
lanes.
Add a second left-turn lane.
New configuration: Two left-turn lanes and
two through lanes
Southbound – Two through lanes and a rightturn lane
Add a third through lane to facilitate SB
queuing. New configuration: Three through
lanes and a right-turn lane
Eastbound – One left-turn lane, one shared
left-turn and through lane and one right-turn
lane*
Add a second left-turn lane with storage of
400 feet. New configuration: Two left-turn
lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane
Northbound – Two through lanes and rightturn lane
Add a third through lane and extend right
turn lane to provide additional storage. New
configuration: Three through lanes and one
right-turn lane
Existing Conditions
Proposed Mitigation
AM/PM/SAT Signal operates at a cycle length
of 80 seconds
Change AM-cycle length to 95 seconds, PMcycle length to 100 seconds.
LIE North Service Road & Round
Swamp Road
LIE South Service Road &
Round Swamp Road
Northbound left-turn operates on a protectedpermissive phase
AM/PM/SAT Signal operates at a cycle length
of 80 seconds
Change to fully protected northbound left-turn
phase
Optimize phase-splits to correlate to future
volumes
Change AM- cycle length to 95 seconds, PMcycle length to 100 seconds.
volumes
Change PM – cycle length to 90 seconds.
Old Country Road & Round
Swamp Road
All time periods operate at a cycle length of
87 seconds(Actuated)
Old Bethpage Road & Round
Swamp Road
60 seconds.
Optimize phase splits to allow more green
time for southbound left-turn movement in
order to improve level of service.
Change PM – cycle length to 75 seconds
*Please note correction in Response No. TP‐9. 19
Revised Site Plan
Optimize phase-splits to correlate to the
volume
Capacity
Location
Existing Conditions
Proposed Mitigation
Old Country Road & Manetto Hill
Road / Plainview Road
Old Country Road &
NB Ramp
Old Country Road &
SB Ramp
NY 135
NY 135
Southbound – One left-turn lane and one
shared through and right-turn lane
Add one right-turn lane, shared lane
reconfigured as shared left-thru-right turn
lane. New configuration: One left-turn lane,
one shared left-through-right-turn lane and
one right-turn lane
Signal Timing Changes
Existing Conditions
Proposed Mitigation
100 seconds.
volumes
100 seconds.
Change PM -cycle length to 110 seconds.
volumes, optimize intersection offset to
ensure signal progression
100 seconds.
Change PM -cycle length to 110 seconds.
volumes, optimize intersection offset to
ensure signal progression
Notes on Signal Timing Changes Descriptions: 1.
2.
3.
Optimize phase splits to correlate to future volumes – This is an adjustment to signal timing parameters whereby green time allocated to one intersection movement (or phase) is reduced in favor of an increase in another movement. This is done as the relative volume levels on the two approaches change either due to background growth or development that induces traffic growth. This is a reallocation signal timing among phases. Optimize phase‐splits to correlate to the volume ‐ This is an adjustment to signal timing parameters whereby green time allocated to one intersection movement (or phase) is reduced in favor of an increase in another movement. This is done as the relative volume levels on the two approaches change either due to background growth or development that induces traffic growth. This is a reallocation signal timing among phases. Optimize intersection offset to ensure signal progression – This is an adjustment in the coordination that exists between adjacent signals in a coordinated signal system. In a coordinated signal system, main road approaches (or phases) are coordinated in respect to specific approaches so that ideally, a motorist could travel along the main roadway and not be stopped by a red signal at each successive light but encounter a green light based on the time it takes to travel from one intersection to the next. With varying levels of congestion, volume, phasing or signal cycle length, the offsets are adjusted to optimize the ability of main roadway vehicles to travel of “progress” through the system of intersections and minimize stops. 20
Revised Site Plan
While the LIE Service Roads are maintained by the NYSDOT, Round Swamp Road in this location is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Huntington. NYSDOT has jurisdiction over the intersection and has the final authority implement improvements, it will typically give the local jurisdiction the opportunity for input. The intersections of Old Country Road with the NY 135 northbound and southbound exit ramps form a diamond interchange which spans the bridge over NY 135. The analyses performed indicate existing problems related to capacity on this section of Old Country Road due to the constraints imposed by the bridge structure. These problems within the interchange (particularly during the weekday PM peak period) are expected to deteriorate further over time due to normal background growth, with or without the development of Country Pointe at Plainview. The proposed improvement would add a third approach lane on the NY 135 southbound exit ramp approach to Old Country Road. This provides additional capacity and allows a reallocation of green time among the movements at both of the intersections that form the diamond interchange. This improvement will provide intersection levels of service that are equal to or better than those that would exist without the development. The cost of improvements at this location is expected to be in the range of a half million dollars. The developer of Country Pointe at Plainview has committed to fully fund the design and construction of these improvements, subject to approval of the NYSDOT, Nassau County and the Town of Oyster Bay.” The developer of Country Pointe at Plainview has committed to fully fund the design and construction of all mitigation identified in the DEIS, in addition to all improvements along the site frontages and improvements required for site access. Air Quality and Noise With respect to impacts to air quality, as with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.6 of the DEIS), implementation of the proposed FEIS Plan (which would generate less traffic and produce lower mobile emissions) would not result in any significant adverse impacts since: 1) all one‐hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS), 2) the eight‐hour CO concentrations are well below the NAAQS, the 24‐hour PM2.5, PM10 and annual PM2.5 concentrations are well‐below the NAAQS. In addition, the PM10 and PM2.5 air quality results demonstrate that the increases in PM concentrations due to the proposed development do not meet or exceed the NYSDOT potential significant impact thresholds. No violation of the NAAQS would be expected to be created, no increase in the frequency or severity of any existing violations (none of which are related to this development) would be anticipated to occur and no delay in attainment of any NAAQS would be expected to result due to the implementation of the proposed action. In addition, with regard to noise impacts, as with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.6 of the DEIS), implementation of the proposed FEIS Plan (which would generate less traffic and would contain fewer residential buildings) results of the noise analysis demonstrated that the proposed development would not exceed the Town of Oyster 21
Revised Site Plan
Bay’s maximum permissible sound levels, and would meet the NYSDOT’s and the FHWA’s noise impact criteria for all of the receptor locations. With respect to mitigation of air and noise impacts, implementation of the FEIS Plan will include the same mitigation measures as proposed for the DEIS Plan (see Section 5.6 of the DEIS) as follows: The Applicant will ensure that diesel construction equipment used on‐site will be contain the appropriate after‐engine emission controls and ensure that these controls have not been removed from such construction equipment. Fugitive dust emissions will be mitigated by wetting and stabilizing soils to suppress dust generation. Other dust suppression methods would include the spraying of soil stockpiles during dry periods and covering trucks carrying solid and other dry materials. Construction equipment would be required to have installed and properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems. Construction activities would be performed at the times permitted by the Town of Oyster Bay, in accordance with the noise ordinance. Loading and service activities for the proposed supermarket will be located such that the buildings and retaining walls will screen the loading activities from the surrounding neighborhood. Loading activities will only be conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM during the weekday and 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM on Saturdays and Holidays, as required by the Town Code. Community Facilities and Services For the most part, with respect to community facilities and services, the impacts associated with the FEIS Plan are slightly less than those associated with the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.7 of the DEIS). The differences in quantitative impacts associated with the two plans are illustrated on Table 4, above. Based upon the new unit mix, the number of school‐aged children would decrease slightly (from 38‐56 to 36‐50), but there would be no change in the proposed monetary contribution to the school district, the amount of solid waste generated would decline from 12,937 pounds per day to 12,346 pounds per day. In addition, as noted above, the amount of water demand and sewage disposal would decrease by over 46,000 gpd. As the population and number units would be lower than analyzed in the DEIS (see Section 4.7), there may be an associated decrease in the amount of emergency services required by the development. Since the amount of open space and recreational land would be increased and the on‐site population decreased with implementation of the FEIS Plan, the impact on overall recreational resources would be decreased. In addition, 22
Revised Site Plan
the amount of electricity and natural gas resources required by the development would be decreased from the DEIS Plan, since the number of units would be lower than was analyzed. With respect to mitigation, the measures proposed to be implemented in association with the FEIS would be similar to those outlined in Section 5.7 of the DEIS, as follows:  In addition to the annual property taxes to be paid to the School District, the Applicant has an agreement with the School District to provide an additional voluntary monetary contribution to off‐set potential capital improvement needs (see Appendix F of this FEIS).  With respect to fire protection, the buildings will be sprinklered, as required by the New York State Building and Fire Code and the condominium buildings.  Systems such as alarm panel systems, Knox Boxes and standpipes will be installed to facilitate the Plainview Fire Department response to the buildings.  All access drives will be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting equipment.  Based upon a meeting with the Plainview Fire Department on February 21, 2013, the Fire Department requested that the Applicant consider the installation of emergency vehicle pre‐emption devices at the signalized intersections along Old Country Road. The Applicant explained that it would be willing to install these pre‐emption devices; however, the approval of same is under the purview of the NCDPW. The Applicant will consult with the NCDPW prior to the finalization of site plans to confirm whether it will permit the installation of these devices. In addition, the Applicant has an agreement with the Plainview Fire Department to provide knox boxes for multi‐family buildings, continue to work with the Department and Nassau County to obtain approvals for the pre‐emption system, provide a monetary donation to the Department in connection with fire safety, etc. (see Appendix F of this FEIS).  On‐site security will be provided for the RMF‐16 community by personnel manning the gatehouse and by a vehicle patrol that will traverse this community. Security within the commercial area will be provided by cameras and by specific security personnel hired by the retail establishments. The supermarket will have its own interior and exterior security measures.  On‐site security will be provided during construction.  As requested by NCDPW, in order to minimize the impact of sewage flow on one sewer line, the Applicant will divide the sewage flow between the lines in Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road. 23
Revised Site Plan
 The Applicant proposes to dedicate approximately 44 acres of the site (i.e., 30.7± percent) to the Town for public use. This would include 43 contiguous acres of soccer/ball fields and one acre of land at the intersection of Round Swamp Road and Old Country Road for community use (e.g., signage). A 1.2‐
acre, 2.0‐mile walking/fitness trail, which encircles the site and would connect to Trail View State Park, while not proposed to be dedicated to the Town, would be open and accessible to the public. An additional 25± acres (for a total of approximately 69 acres) is proposed to comprise other privately‐owned open space and outdoor recreational facilities, bringing the total open space, buffers and recreational areas to 44 percent of the overall site.  A significant amount and variety of on‐site recreational opportunities would be provided, including both indoor and outdoor, active and passive facilities. Socioeconomics The impacts associated with socioeconomics would be similar between the DEIS Plan (as discussed in Section 4.8 of the DEIS) and the FEIS Plan. However, since the number of residential units would decrease from 890 to 792, the associated population and number of school‐aged children would decrease (from 1,687 to 1,518 and from 38 ‐ 56 to 36 ‐ 50, respectively). Table 4 shows the comparison between the DEIS Plan and FEIS Plan with respect to population and school‐aged children. In addition, since the number of residential units and the unit mix has changed, the property taxes have changed. For comparison purposes, the property taxes discussed in Section 4.8 of the DEIS have been modified to account for the difference in tax rates from 2012 to 2014. Based upon this modification, the equivalent property taxes for the DEIS Plan would be $19.77± as compared to the $18.74± million in property tax revenue associated with the FEIS Plan (see Appendix E for a comparison of taxes from the DEIS Plan to the FEIS Plan). Thus, there would be approximately $1.03 million less property tax revenue generation associated with implementation of the FEIS Plan; however, there would be approximately 169 fewer residents and 98 fewer units. Additionally, as with the DEIS Plan, the tax analysis for the FEIS Plan indicates that there would net property tax surplus to the Plainview‐
Old Bethpage Central School District of over $11.5 million, annually. Moreover, the Applicant has agreed to a $6.0 million contribution to the school district, over and above the property taxes to be paid. This $6.0 million figure has not been reduced from the original agreement, although the number of market‐rate, non‐age‐restricted units has been reduced from the DEIS Plan (264) to the FEIS Plan (235). As there would be no change in the commercial component of the project, the number of retail jobs would remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS. With respect to mitigation, since no significant adverse impacts involving socioeconomics have been identified, no mitigation measures were proposed for the DEIS Plan, and similarly, none are proposed for the FEIS Plan. 24
Revised Site Plan
Aesthetics and Cultural Resources Similar to the DEIS Plan (see Section 4.9 of the DEIS), implementation of the FEIS Plan would alter the visual characteristics of the subject property. However, the major difference is that there would be wider buffers along Round Swamp Road and along the southern property line, which would assist in further screening the development from public roadways and nearby residences. The exception to this is that while there will be screening along Old Country Road, the relocation of the RSC‐
25 senior development along this roadway would increase its visibility from the public roadway greater than that depicted in the DEIS Plan, since it was located to the rear of the commercial development and not visible from the street. Furthermore, with respect to views, there would be fewer residential buildings and these buildings would be clustered more toward the interior of the site, thereby reducing their visibility from public roadways and nearby residences. As with the DEIS Plan, the FEIS Plan would continue to have no impact on cultural resources, as discussed in Section 4.9.2 of the DEIS. With respect to mitigation, the measures proposed for the DEIS Plan (see Section 5.9 of the DEIS), would essentially be the same as those for the FEIS Plan, with the exception that the widths of the proposed buffers along the eastern and southern property lines would be increased. These measures are as follows:  The majority of the taller and larger residential buildings will be situated at the interior of the subject property. Buildings would also be screened from view of existing off‐site residences by strategically placed evergreen and deciduous landscaping.  Additional screen plantings (i.e., six‐foot‐tall Leyland Cypress trees or equivalent) are proposed to be installed on top of the existing berm along a portion of the southern property line, in order to screen the views from the existing residences to the proposed residences (see Appendix I of this FEIS). 
Additional evergreen and deciduous vegetation will be placed within the buffer area along Round Swamp Road, where it is determined that the existing vegetation would not be sufficient to screen the proposed two‐story residences from easterly views. 
Perimeter landscaping and the retention of natural vegetation along the property boundaries would assist in screening the development, including the majority of the taller residential buildings located near the center of the site, from surrounding properties. A vegetated buffer is proposed along the southern portion of the property between the proposed residences and the existing residences on Beatrice Lane/Cedar Drive East in order to minimize potential visual impacts. 
25
Revised Site Plan

The design of the smaller commercial buildings on the site would echo the style of the proposed townhouses, flats and zero‐lot‐line units within the RMF‐16 portion of the site, with pitched roofs, dormers and similar architectural features along the facades. 
Lighting will be designed to ensure that there is no light spill‐over from the subject property onto neighboring properties, including the residences to the south and east, or from the commercial portion of the site onto the residential portion of the site. Energy The FEIS Plan will result in an increase in energy, but the energy use will likely be somewhat less than that projected in the DEIS, due to the reduction in the number of residential units by 11 percent. Implementation of the FEIS Plan will incorporate the same mitigation measures as proposed for the DEIS Plan (see Section 10.3 of the DEIS and Response No. EN‐1 of this FEIS), as follows: Installation of wind and draft barriers in required locations. Additional R‐11 insulation wrapped around the basement perimeter, hanging from the sill plate four feel down, with the exception of the common wall. Additional air sealing between the floors and along the exterior perimeters of homes. Spray foam insulation in appropriate locations to prevent air leakage and heat loss. Blown fiberglass insulation in the attic areas, as required, meeting the R‐38 value. Installation of EnergyStar compliant windows and doors. Installation of EnergyStar compliant appliances. Engineered installation of energy efficient HVAC system(s) and ventilation system(s) (exhaust fan).Caulking and sealing of top plates on all floors to eliminate air gaps prior to sheet rock installation to better prevent air loss. Use of energy efficient light bulbs in all fixtures. Implementation of infiltration tests. Seams of all exterior house wraps would be taped and additional sealant/tape would be used at all windows and doors. Exhaust fans would be provided to ensure proper exchange of all interior air. Spray foam would be installed around all electrical boxes. Programmable thermostats would be installed. Split zone HVAC(s) would be installed to better control usage of heat and air conditioning. Energy efficient hot water heaters and furnaces would be installed.
26
Revised Site Plan
3.0 General Support and Opposition Comments 3.1
Comments in General Support of the Proposed Action The petitions and written correspondence received during the comment period that ended on April 20, 2014 that are in general support of the proposed project are designated with a “GS” before the comment number and have been grouped. These comments are contained on a CD in Appendix A‐1. A list of the coded written support comments on the DEIS follows. There were over 5,300 petition signatures, letters, and e‐mails in general support of the project, which are included in categories GS1 and GS2, below. GS1 – Form Letters and Petitions in General Support (Letter and Petition Language, Below) “I am a resident of Plainview Old Bethpage [or Town of Oyster Bay]. I am aware of the current application of Beechwood POB LLC for rezoning and subdivision approval for a mixed use community known as Country Pointe at Plainview. I support the application and the proposed community. Thank you.” “We the undersigned, are aware of the current application of Beechwood POB LLC for rezoning and subdivision approval for a mixed use community known as Country Pointe at Plainview. We support the application and the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview community. Thank you.” “I have been informed about the February 4th, 2014 Town of Oyster Bay hearing on the Country Pointe at Plainview application for rezoning, site plan and subdivision approval. I support this application.” GS2 – E‐Mails in General Support GS3 through GS24 – Letters and E‐Mails in Support, With Comments 27
General Support and Opposition Comments
The following is a summary of the comments contained in the letters and e‐mails received by the Town in support of the project (GS3 through GS24). GS3 – Doris and Bernard Roth  Do not want to leave area and adult children have returned to Plainview  Enhance appearance of neighborhood without causing traffic problems  Alternative is an office building that would cause traffic problems  Consider that downsizing the development excessively would raise the cost per unit, making it unaffordable GS4 – James M. Filonuk  Do not want to leave the area, and there are few housing opportunities for people 55 and older in the area  There is a great need for this type of housing along with its amenities GS5 – Helen Levy  The project would be a positive thing and continue to make our town desirable  Do not feel that an office building and 45 one‐million dollar homes (which would bring in more school children) would be a better choice  Development will let longtime residents remain in Plainview GS6 – Shelley Feigelson  Resident and local business owner who welcomes this type of community and the lifestyle it offers  Although the development will not bring in school children, the homes that sell to young families will, but we need the enrollment and the tax dollars  Traffic is minimal on Old Country Road in area of site. Traffic that is most affected during rush hour is at Seaford‐Oyster Bay Expressway, and Beechwood has addressed that to my satisfaction  Do not want a commercial [office] building on the site that would affect rush hour traffic GS7 – Carol and Bruce Meyeroff  Lived in Plainview for 31 years and roots planted there. Want to downsize and enjoy life in adult active community with amenities, and there are very few options available  Development would be a tremendous asset to the community  Do not want another office building GS8 – Marsha and Joe Elowsky  When a town stops growing, it shrinks and fades away  Want new young family to live in our big house and love it  Want a new place to live where no need to think about caring for large rooms, maintenance, lawns, shoveling snow 28



Want enough school children to warrant the high school tax with more young families to help pay them Want new large ShopRite and walkable paths to get to it. Don’t want office building that will bring in more traffic GS9 – Howard Schwartz  Longtime resident, but retired and want to stay in the community, family is there  Country Pointe could be a proto‐type for future development in Oyster Bay and on Long Island  Plainview needs development, not NIMBYism  Keep the community vital with increased property values, additional tax revenue, new ideas, place for seniors who want to remain in the area  A mixture of older and younger residents offers an opportunity for new ideas and fresh starts GS10 – Randy Shotland  Development allows young people to buy houses sold by people like me who want to downsize yet live near our children  Older residents sometimes spend more that the young  Restaurants, clothing stores, supermarkets will be a benefit to all  Long Island needs places that older people can live without the upkeep of a private home GS11 – Ellen and Joe Gottdank  Lived in Plainview for 34 years and moving out of the area would be heartbreaking  Additional office building would not be beneficial and would cause more traffic and congestion than what is proposed  Property is now an eyesore and the new community would only increase the home values in our area GS12 – David S. Bensol, R.Ph.  It is time for the next young family to move into our house and create their own legacy and memories  Long Island population seems to be moving away and we cannot afford to lose our tax base as people migrate to the south  Country Pointe is a viable alternative to southern migration.  Want to stay, since family and friends are on Long Island GS13 – Jane and Barry Goldblatt  Residents in Town for 32 years. Want option to stay since family and friends remain  Would like to stay in the area that we feel we have contributed to over the years 29

There is a big need for this type of housing in Nassau and in Oyster Bay in particular GS14 – Scott Boudin  Lifetime resident with two children in the schools and my family and I welcome the development  Build it as big as the plan calls for  People my age have parents that are aging and no longer need the huge house, but want to stay in the community  This community needs an economic shot in the arm and some freshening up.  Acres of overgrown trees have be here long enough  As far as the traffic, school and utility concerns, I’m sure the Town would not allow the project if Beechwood didn’t address and satisfy them GS15 – Steven Ressel  25‐year resident with children in the school district and is for the development  If we don’t have more affordable housing here, the future of the area is at stake  Housing is one of the biggest problems on Long Island, especially for seniors and new generation of young people  Wants to be able to stay in Plainview after retirement GS16 – Mark and Jodi Scully  Development will increase taxes to school district, with minimal student increases. Net gain for our children’s education and suppress future school tax increases  Will create a positive effect on surrounding real estate valuations in the School District  Will provide alternate living choices for those close to retirement, who want to remain on Long Island  Will provide commercial and retail improvements, including the relocation of ShopRite, that are a win‐win for all residents  Traffic mitigation needs to be well designed and communicated to residents and businesses or it could be a concern  Proposed number of units should be decreased to lessen congestion and would create more green space GS17 – Donna Starr  Longtime residents of Plainview and would love to have a place to move to in a gated community and live near children, who also live in Plainview  Much prefer a gated community with multiple homes and condos along with apartments for lower income residents and a shopping area including ShopRite to office buildings, which would increase rush hour traffic more than a condo development.  Development would make Plainview an even more desirable place to live 30

Would not negatively affect immediate surrounding area as there is no entrance on Round Swamp Road GS18 – George and Ellen Rosenbaum  Longtime residents of Plainview who believe that the projected plan provides the best opportunity to remain in Plainview in the retirement years  Many over 55 communities in New Jersey and Connecticut, but almost none in Nassau County  We want to continue paying taxes to the Town of Oyster Bay GS19 – Barbara Drossman  Longtime Plainview resident who wants to remain in Plainview because of family  No longer need or want to stay in house with shoveling, maintenance, lawn mowing GS20 – Isabelle and Howard Belman  No longer need a home and would benefit from on‐site events and socialization in adult community  Don’t be swayed by NIMBYism  Community would increase the value of homes in the area and would service Long Island seniors GS21 – Mike Paradiso  Development would provide an upgrade to the dilapidated buildings on the site  Would bring much needed tax revenue to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage community GS22 – Stuart Linzer  Concerned that a density reduction would increase the prices and the ability to afford to live there  Longtime residents who have contribute to the development of the community want to stay (don’t want to move south like other friends have done), but would like the lifestyle these types of communities have to offer  Ideal location for someone who still commutes to work in NYC. Moving further out on Long Island would make commute more difficult  As life changes from “work” to “leisure” look forward to clubhouse, gym, pools, organized events and the ability to make new friends  Buildings at Seasons at East Meadow area three stories and do not look out of place. That development provides a sense of community  Happy that the soccer fields remain since grandchildren play there  Can’t imagine anyone preferring 420,000 square feet of office buildings with all the rush hour traffic 31

School district will benefit from $8,000,000 in additional tax revenue. Can’t imagine young families with children buying a two‐bedroom house in a community full of older residents GS23 – Gail Kaden  Longtime residents of Plainview and Old Bethpage, have business and deep roots in the community  Need for housing attractive to empty‐nesters  Land is not pristine and is zoned for office development up to three stories in height. Proposed community would increase the value of nearby real estate as owners would live there and have a vested interest in maintaining property values  Driving past the new development will say “affluent” and “nice neighborhood”  It is good that the developer has consulted with the community (e.g., school board, sports clubs, emergency personnel, water district)  Satisfied with the proposed use of the 40‐45 acre zone for Town of Oyster Bay parkland GS24 – Erica and Jay Cohen  Longtime residents that want to stay in Plainview  Great need for this kind of housing in Plainview  No need for more office buildings and don’t want ShopRite to move out of Plainview As with the written comments, each person commenting during the public hearing held on February 4, 2014 has been assigned a number in the order in which each comment was received and is preceded with the letter “H,” as noted above. The DEIS Public Hearing transcript in Appendix B of this FEIS includes the comment numbers. This section of the document provides a list of each commentator and a summary of the comments received in general support during the public hearing on the DEIS. A list of the coded general support comments from the DEIS public hearing follows: H1 – Linda Ressa  Economic benefits, including jobs, tax revenue  Increase property values H6 – David Lebowitz  Likes the lifestyle community H7 – Matt Davie  General support  Likes the lifestyle H8 – Todd Fabricant, Cerro Wire Coalition  General support 32
H9 – Alan Feldberg  Option of a beautiful gated community H10 – Paul Leo  Creates construction and permanent jobs and dollars stay on Long Island  Supportive of putting in more fields H11 – Gerald Lauber  General support H12 – Meredith Goldfarb  Similar to Meadowbrook Pointe, which is great  Builder’s reputation ‐ goes above and beyond commitment  Need for affordable senior housing  Good for the schools H13 – Barry Ballen  Similar to Meadowbrook Pointe, likes that type of lifestyle  Builder’s reputation is great H14 – Barbara Greenspan  Not destroying pristine land or wildlife preserve, getting rid of dilapidated, non‐historic buildings  Beautiful planned community makes more sense than office complex or commercial endeavor  Better fields for children  Housing alternative for those who wish to downsize H15 – Mike Stella  Likes type of lifestyle the development provides  Wants to stay in the area  Builder’s reputation – top quality work H16 – Tony Rodriguez  Will create construction and permanent jobs  Good for people who want to stay in the community  Builder’s reputation – quality work H18 – David Girard  Positive for people who want to stay in the Town/area H19 – Lawrence Rabinowitz  Likes the lifestyle aspect  Older people have difference time schedules than others, won’t impact traffic 33
H20 – Joseph Trainor  Quality of the buildings/builder  Provides option to stay on Long Island H21 – Isabelle Belman  Good for people that don’t want to own single‐family homes  Increase school tax revenue with no children to school district  Create prestigious housing that allows seniors to stay in Plainview  Don’t believe traffic would be a problem – compared it to The Greens (with a lot of snowbirds)  Increase value of homes in area being next to quality development  Don’t want office building and single‐family alternative, have Canon already H22 – Mark Vejack  Applicant came to doors in neighborhood and explained the project, answered questions  High proportion of senior housing is good, especially for school district  Open space/parks would be a great addition H23 – Harold Kestenbaum  Provides option to stay in the Town/Plainview  Tremendous need for developments like this on Long Island H24 – Merg Bazhdari  Good developer who will build project to benefit the community  Will eliminate existing unseemly condition of site  Creation of housing for various populations  Need a new, larger ShopRite H25 – Rick Lewis  Great things will come with development – soccer fields, new ShopRite, support for the fire station  Good developer. If not approved, someone else can come in that does not care about the community H27 – Marcia Goldberg  Meadowbrook Pointe resident who wanted to stay in Plainview, but did not have the option of this type of community  Likes the proposed lifestyle H28 – Marc Breier and Andrew Feldstein (Representatives of the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Soccer Club)  Board of Plainview‐Old Bethpage Soccer Club supports the development  Provides large, contiguous open space – chance for top‐notch recreational park with a community building  Community exactly what is needed for an aging population 34


There will be traffic (as with any development), but it will be mitigated Benefit to the school district, without being a burden with additional children Addresses needs of changing population and recreational needs 
H29 – Randy Levy  Improve the neighborhood and blend nicely  Retail will be anchored by a local business (good neighbor)  Will create additional full‐time and part‐time jobs  Balanced and sensible development H31 – Warren Brand  General support H32 – Angel Cepeda  Project is good locally, for the Town, County, Region  Create jobs  Improve quality of life for children and elders  There will be challenges, there are always challenges, but good for the community H33 – Bruce Ritter  Builder has exemplary track record, wants to put in a mixed‐use community  Commitment to soccer clubs, schools, other community organizations H38 – Ken Pritchard  Monetarily good for the school district H39 – Randy Cohen  Will help the children in school and in sports  Developer knocked on doors, explained project, answered questions  Good option for parents to remain in the Town H40 – Geri Fuller  General support H41 – Michael Lichtenstein  Looking forward to the dedicated open space  In favor of new restaurants H42 – Pam Harris  Other of developer’s projects have not negatively impacted their areas  Developer has spoken and reached out to many groups in the community  General support 35
H43 – Helene Levy  Schools will not be negatively impacted  Don’t need another office building  Need community who will support residents who supported the community  Will be for greater good of the entire community H44 – Marsha Elowsky  Likes the walking path  Change is not bad.  Thinks 890 units is just about perfect  Wants new young family to live in her big house  Want school district to have enough children to warrant the high taxes paid  Want a new, better ShopRite, not new office buildings H46 – Shelley Feigelson  If older people sell their homes and more children come in ‐‐ great  Perfect spot for community like this H47 – Steve Feldberg  Don’t want to leave Town, but don’t want responsibilities of single‐family home ownership  Values have gone up in Beechwood communities H48 – Janet Reilly  In favor of affordable senior housing  General support H50 – Daniel Costa Braga  Supports the development of fields, brings communities together  Likes walking/fitness trail for health reasons H51 – Edward Glassgold  Good lifestyle option to stay on Long Island to be close to family  Thinks the proposed homes will sell easily  Seniors on a different schedule than others, traffic should not be a problem  Thinks the prices are OK based upon what people would sell their houses for to buy into this community 36
3.2
Comments in General Opposition to the Proposed Action The written correspondence in general opposition is designated with a “GO” before the comment number. The petitions and correspondence in general opposition to the project are contained on a CD in Appendix A‐2. A list of the coded written general opposition comments on the DEIS follows. Included in categories GO‐1 through GO‐
4, below, there were approximately 630 petition signatures, letters, e‐mails and telephone communications in general opposition to the proposed project. GO1 – On‐line Petition in General Opposition “Say No to Country Pointe at Plainview, NY” Petition signers were able to add comments to the general statement, above. Such general comments contained in this petition include the following: 






Proposal does not belong on Long Island Too dense, too many units Area is too congested already Roads cannot accommodate new traffic Infrastructure cannot accommodate the new development Will burden the school district Will be an eyesore and lower property values GO2 – Petition in General Opposition with Overall Comment from the Plainview‐
Old Bethpage Senior Club (Petition Language, Below) “…As active senior citizens from the community we look forward to a suitable plan for ‘Golden Age’ S‐2 housing to serve the Plainview‐Old Bethpage community, however we find that this proposal does not offer a suitable use of this property and would impact many of the reasons we choose to remain in our community. The traffic impacts, over‐development of this open space, destruction of natural resources, and loss of recreational facilities for our children and local families, is not in the community’s best interest. We are confident that as our duly elected Town Supervisor and Town Board, that you will find a suitable location for our long awaited ‘Golden Age’ development on this property, but this is not the right proposal and should not be approved.” GO3 – Petition in General Opposition with Overall Comment (Petition Language, Below) “…We look forward to a reasonable plan for our community that requires the least amount of disturbance to forested land, natural habitat, and open space for 37
the former County Land that is consistent with the Plainview‐Old Bethpage community. We are deeply troubled that this proposal does not offer a suitable use of this property and are most concerned its high density would impact many of the reasons we choose to raise our families in the area. Of particular concern is maintaining the character of our community that offers children of the District a treasured suburban quality of life to grow and flourish. The traffic impacts, over‐development of this open space, destruction of natural resources, and loss of recreational facilities for our children and local families, is simply not in the community’s best interest. We are confident that as our esteemed Town of Oyster Bay Supervisor you will see there are minimal merits to the applicant’s change of zone request and see a far more beneficial use of this open space for our community.” GO4 – Letters, E‐mails and Telephone Communications in General Opposition This section of the document also provides a list of each comment received in general opposition during the public hearing on the DEIS. As above, these comments are designated with the letter “H.” A list of the coded general opposition comments from the public hearing follows: H2 – Debra Baer H69 – Sante Nardulli 38
4.0 Responses to Substantive Comments All of the Written Correspondence that contains substantive comments is included in Appendix A‐3 of this FEIS. The Public Hearing Transcript is included as Appendix B. This section contains a response to all substantive comments contained in the written correspondence (including electronic mail) as well as those made at the public hearing. The following is the list of commentators whose substantive comments are addressed herein. Written Correspondence C1 – Nassau County Department of Public Works C2 – Bessie Casale C3 – Eileen Supran C4 – Maria Pascarella – Plainview Little League C5 – Rosalie Brinn C6 – Richard Brummel, Planet‐in‐Peril.org C7 – Brad Levin C8 – Harold Lash C9 – Concerned Citizens of the POB Community Inc. – Carol Meschkow C10 – Eileen Dershowitz C11 – Anne Malitzis C12 – Robyn and Stewart Abelow 39 Responses to Substantive Comments C13 – Wende Berkowitz C14 – Harvey and Myra Schermer C15 – Fred Fiordimondo C16 – Marni Ferencz C17 – Anna Ensmenger C18 – Glenn Ferretti C19 – Richard Siegelman C20 – Kevin Rea C21 – Huntington – Oyster Bay Audubon Society C22 – Plainview – Old Bethpage Senior Club C23 – Plainview – Old Bethpage SEPTA C24 – Plainview – Old Bethpage Mattlin MS PTA C25 – Plainview – Old Bethpage JFK HS PTA C26 – David Kislik C27 – Bruce Miles C28 – Donna Borruso C29 – Sante Nardulli C30 – Debra and Dennis Baer C31 – Susan Stewart C32 – Gina Boccio C33 – Valerie and Timothy Kovel C34 – Bob Vissichelli C35 – Garry Zweig 40 Responses to Substantive Comments C36 – Jana Kron C37 – Laura Campbell C38 – Ronald Ganz‐Trail View State Park C39 – Ronald Barsky C40 – Lewis Yevoli C41 – John and JoAnn Eterno C42 – Linda Rosen C43 – Louise Tinebra C44 – Carol and Barry Goldstein C45 – Anita Arrigo C46 – Meredith Radisch C47 – Marta Giovagnoni C48 – Jodi Kreshover C49 – Lenord Meisels C50 – Howard Starr C51 – Gerald Halpern C52 – Anita Megeff C53 – Mrs. Arugo C54 – Jennifer Novis C55 – Ivy Chasan C56 – Frank Casale C57 – Joanne Casale C58 – Gail Kaden 41 Responses to Substantive Comments Public Hearing H3 – Alissa Sue Taff H4 – David Kaufman H5 – Susan Stewart H17 – Margaret Berk H26 – Marc Brody H30 – Sharon Brody H34 – Donna Borruso H35 – Norman Powell H36 – Allan Lerner H37 – Joe Scimone H45 – Eileen Supran H49 – Jeffrey Marin H52 – Jane Siegel H53 – Mark Siegel H54 – Adam Kusinitz H55 – Glenn Denton H56 – Susan Naftol H57 – Carol Meschkow (and Lance Meschkow) H58 – Adam Adler H59 – David Kirschner H60 – Matt Fineman H61 – Lydia Wieselthies 42 Responses to Substantive Comments H62 – Liz Fox H63 – Melissa Greenberg H64 – Michael Todisco H65 – Larry Sklar H66 – Melissa Levine H67 – Vincent Casale H68 – Larry Weiss H70 – Mike O’Connor H71 – Jeffrey Girsky All of the comments made have been compiled and arranged by topic. The code(s) that follows each comment identify the commentator and the comment number as set forth in Appendices A and B of this FEIS. 4.1
Comment No. P‐1 I sent this letter after the scoping meeting two years ago. Since nothing has changed, I again submit this for consideration (C3‐5) Response No. P‐1 The above‐referenced letter (see Appendix A‐3, Comment Letter C3‐5) regarding the scope of the DEIS was submitted during the scoping process that was held by the Town. The Final Scope, which was issued by the Town Board, as lead agency, incorporated the Draft Scope that was prepared by the applicant and the substantive and relevant comments that were received during the scoping process (which included a Scoping Meeting held on March 13, 2012, and a written comment period for the Draft Scope that closed on March 23, 2012). The comments raised by this commentator were included in the Final Scope that was promulgated by the Town Board and addressed in the DEIS. Each topic raised in the comment letter is listed below, along with the section of the DEIS/FEIS in which that topic was addressed. Process 43 Responses to Substantive Comments Topic from Scoping Comment Letter (C3-5)
Residents not asked about community needs*
Proposal does not adequately address overwhelming need for golden
age housing in the Town*
Dollar figures for school district are not accurate enough. How were they
calculated, is the money guaranteed, if it is less, what are the
ramifications?*
Downsized, smaller units for open-market senior units are priced too
high*
Fate of space and shopping center that currently contains ShopRite*
Proposal will overcrowd Plainview with respect to traffic
Covenants and restrictions ran with the sale of the land and were written
for a reason – in part to keep density down
Location in DEIS/FEIS or Notation
DEIS – Section 2.7 and Appendix F and FEIS –
Section 4.12
DEIS – Section 2.5 and FEIS Sections 4.4 and 4.8(se
DEIS – Sections 4.7.1 and 4.8.3 and Appendix Q and
FEIS – Section 4.7.1
DEIS – Section 2.4 and FEIS – Section 4.4 and 4.8
DEIS – Section 2.5 and FEIS – Section 4.8
DEIS – Section 4.5 and FEIS – Section 4.5
DEIS Sections 2.3 and 4.4 and FEIS Section 4.4
*Commentator indicated information cited in the comment letter is based upon a review of the Country Pointe at Plainview website.
Comment No. P‐2 We are also formally re‐submitting our comments from Scoping, because the Applicant has failed to address our issues, which were derived from a compilation of concerns presented to us from residents across our community. (C9 – 1) Response No. P‐2 Similar to the Response No. P‐1, the scoping comments from this commentator (Appendix A‐3, Comment Letter C9‐1) that were included in the Town Board’s Final Scope were addressed in the DEIS, and some are also addressed in this FEIS. Each topic and substantive comment raised in the comment letter is listed below, along with the section of the DEIS/FEIS in which that topic was addressed. Topic from Scoping Comment Letter (C9-1)
Location in DEIS/FEIS and/or Notation
Description of Proposed Action
a. Change in unit type (lowering age restriction,
DEIS – Section 2.5: discussion of residential market
rental)
conditions
b. Store laying fallow as empty shell/leased for
DEIS – Sections 2.5 and 4.4.2: discussion of ground
box chain
lease
c. No commercial /office use
DEIS – Section 7 .2: discussion of office/commercial
use under prevailing zoning
d. Placement of RSC-25 units
FEIS – Section 2.0: relocation of RSC-25 units
e. Addressing affordable housing for next
FEIS – Section 2.2: next generation housing is not
generation
part of the proposed action. See Response No. ZLU24
f. Is 8 acres offered for dedication to the Town
DEIS – Sections 2.4, 4.4.2, 4.7.4: 2.0-mile public
comprised of a 100-foot buffer along Round
perimeter walking/fitness trail is partially located in the
Swamp Road in addition to or in-lieu of the
8-acre buffer area. Buffer area to be owned and
fitness trail
maintained by applicant, but accessible to the public
g. Is one acre unused parcel a proposed
DEIS – Sections 2.4, 4.4.2 and 4.7: the unused
mitigation for loss of POB Soccer Club Fields? parcel is proposed to be dedicated to the Town for its
use, but would be landscaped and maintained by the
applicant. The soccer fields currently located in the
44 Responses to Substantive Comments Topic from Scoping Comment Letter (C9-1)
h.
i.
Is the 36% of site dedicated to open space
being proposed to achieve more dense
development with waivers and variances in
RMF-16 zone?
Building for community center
Water Resources
a. Mitigation for recharge in deep water recharge
area (part of 400+ acres of contiguous natural
open space)
b.
On-site investigation for VOCs and possible
plumes
Ecology
a. Disruption of birds and other natural habitats,
red fox, foliage indigenous to Pine Barrens,
aesthetic value of maintaining land that has
been passive parkland
Land Use and Zoning
a. Snapshot of number of homes available that
cannot be sold
b. Provisions for seniors to age in place
Transportation
a. Incorporation of other planned developments
into traffic study
d. Inclusion of accident data from strip mall lot?
Not included in Nassau County Data Bank, but
critical.
e. Include intersection of Washington Avenue
and Manetto Hill Road and other entrances
and exits to shopping areas along Manetto Hill
Road.
f.
Impacts to parking at Bethpage, Farmingdale
and Hicksville train stations
Community Facilities and Services
a. What facilities that are not within dedicated
parkland will be open to POB residents?
b.
c.
Will development be gated?
Potential reduction of age restriction effect on
education costs and facilities, recreational
resources needed on-site, impact on
community services
45 Location in DEIS/FEIS and/or Notation
northeastern portion of the site would be relocated to
the southern and southwestern portions of the subject
property
DEIS – Section 4.4.1: discussion of proposed waivers
and variances.
DEIS – Section 2.3.3 and FEIS – Response No. ZLU26
DEIS Sections 4.2, 4.7, 5.2 and 5.7. Proposed
project will be connected to public sewer and water,
and stormwater would be collected and recharged to
the groundwater through recharge basins, ponds and
drywells. Project will use low-maintenance
vegetation. In addition, applicant proposes
contiguous open space dedication.
DEIS – Sections 3.1 and 4.1: subsurface conditions
DEIS – Sections 3.3 and 4.3: ecological resources
and FEIS Section 4.3 discusses ecological impacts.
Land is privately owned, and has been since 1998
DEIS – Section 2.5: analyzes residential market
conditions
DEIS – Section 4.4.2: discusses residential designs to
allow seniors to age in place and indicates the
handicap-adaptability features of the units
DEIS – Section 4.5.1 and FEIS – Sections _4.5 –
Response No. TP-35 and 4.12 – Response No. G-5
Accident data from private properties such as strip
mall lots are not available.
DEIS – Sections 3.5 and 4.5. The intersection of
Washington Avenue and Manetto Hill Road was
included in the traffic study. The entrances and exits
to shopping areas along Manetto Hill Road were not
included in the Final Scope and generally are not
examined in traffic studies
DEIS – Section 4.5.11
DEIS – Sections 2.1, 2.3.3, 2.4, 4. 4. and 4.7.4,
among others. The walking/fitness trail and the
community building will be open to the public
DEIS – Section 2.4, amongst others
DEIS – Section 2.5: indicates that Town requirements
will, in all cases, be applicable. The age-restrictions
would be in perpetuity, unless an application is
submitted to the Town, which will be subject to further
municipal approval and public hearings. The age
Responses to Substantive Comments Topic from Scoping Comment Letter (C9-1)
d.
How will loss of POB Soccer Club fields be
compensated/mitigated?
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures
a. Old Plainview as alternative is moot
b.
Location in DEIS/FEIS and/or Notation
restriction will be set forth in deeds running with the
land and, as required by the Fair Housing Act, the
managing agent/HOA will be required to maintain
records, including proof of age of homeowners.
DEIS – Sections 2.5 and 4.4: Plainview-Old Bethpage
Soccer Club has a rent-free lease. The soccer fields
currently located in the northeastern portion of the site
would be relocated to the southern and southwestern
portions of the subject property. FEIS – Section 2.2:
Additional land will be dedicated to the Town of
Oyster Bay for recreational purposes
Required by Final Scope promulgated by the Town;
analyzed in Section 7.3 of DEIS
DEIS – Section 5.5 with respect to jurisdiction and
approval of proposed roadway improvements
What would constitute any other party than the
developers to be held responsible for
mitigation?
Reasonable Alternatives to be Considered
a. Former “Old Plainview” should not be
Required by Final Scope promulgated by the Town;
considered
analyzed in Section 7.3 of DEIS
Comment No. P‐3 The Applicant did not provide adequate updated Environmental Studies, did not offer a suitable alternative other than “Old Plainview” which had already been withdrawn by the property owner (please see a petition opposing “Old Plainview” to refresh your memory), and did not bring any environmental experts to the Hearing other than the attorney with an outdated traffic study to educate our community how they plan to mitigate the significant Environmental Impacts. As such, we are not going to debate point‐to‐point outdated or irrelevant data. (C9 – 2) Response No. P‐3 The environmental studies contained in the DEIS, which was the subject of the public hearing on February 4, 2014, were based upon the requirements of the Final Scope issued by the Town Board on May 25, 2012 (see Appendix A of the DEIS). Specific studies were done for this proposed action as part of preparation of the DEIS. The DEIS, which was accepted as complete and adequate for public review on April 9, 2013, contained studies that were conducted for the SEQRA process for the instant application. For example, the traffic study was completed in March 2013, based on traffic counts collected in November 2010 and June 2011. In addition, VHB conduced travel time studies on January 30, 2014 along two routes from the Long Island Expressway at Round Swamp Road to Route 110 at Spagnoli Road (see Response No. TP‐34 for further discussion). Additional traffic counts were performed on March 4, 2014 for the a.m. and p.m. weekday peak periods at the Canon Offices on the Long Island Expressway and Old Walt Whitman Road in order to gauge the actual trip 46 Responses to Substantive Comments generation versus the projections (see Response No. TP‐6 for discussion regarding traffic related to Canon). As an additional example, to assess school district impacts, correspondence was sent to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Central School District (POBCSD) in July 2012. Additional correspondence was sent to the School District in August 2012. Moreover, the Applicant met with the POBCSD Superintendent of Business and the attorney for the School District on April 4, 2011 and with the School Board on June 6, 2011. An agreement for a voluntary payment of $6.0 million was reached with the School District as of October 10, 2013 (see Appendix F of this FEIS). Further, in order to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project to the Plainview Water District, consultations began in July 2012. Correspondence from the Plainview Water District was received by the Applicant in August 2012. The Applicant then had meetings with the Water District and formally submitted an application for water service in October 2012. Conceptual certification was granted in November 2012, which was five months before the DEIS was submitted to the Town (see Appendix J of the DEIS). Therefore, there has been ongoing correspondence with the Plainview Water District throughout the DEIS process. Moreover, a written request for an extension/renewal of the Certificate was requested on January 6, 2015 (see Appendix K of this FEIS). The request must go before the Board of Commissioners, and the Town will be provided with a copy of the extension/renewal, once it has been granted. As another example, in preparing the analysis of the proposed project on fire protection services, correspondence regarding the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview began with the Plainview Volunteer Fire Department in January 2012, and the Applicant and its consultants met with the Fire Department on several occasions, including March 7, 2011, February 21, 2013 and April 11, 2013. In addition, the Applicant also met with the Nassau County on February 25, 2014. As evidenced from the above, none of the environmental studies presented in the DEIS were outdated. Moreover, multiple alternatives were presented in the DEIS (see Section 7.0 of the DEIS), and such alternatives conformed to the requirements of the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board. These alternative consisted of: No‐Action (site remains as it currently exists); Development Pursuant to Prevailing Zoning (office and residential); and Development of Previously‐Proposed Planned Unit Development: Mixed Use Project). Accordingly, not one, but three alternatives were analyzed. With respect to attendance at the hearing, the applicant’s technical experts (environmental, engineering, traffic) were all present at the hearing, along with the project attorney. The hearing that was held was a combined hearing, where the public hearings on the DEIS, change of zone, site plan, rescission and replacement of 47 Responses to Substantive Comments declaration of restrictive covenants, and waiver for number of units per building in the RSC‐25 zoning district, were combined. The project attorney made a comprehensive presentation of the change of zone and site plan applications. The main purpose of the DEIS public hearing was for the Town Board and the applicant to hear the comments of involved agencies and interested parties so that they could be addressed in an FEIS. The DEIS, which is an expansive document (two volumes, almost 500 pages of text (including the Executive Summary) and hundreds of pages of appendices, the most voluminous of which was the traffic impact study and its associated analyses), addressed myriad impact issues, including:  Subsurface Conditions, Soils and Topography  Water Resources  Ecology  Zoning and Land Use  Transportation and Parking  Air Quality and Noise  Community Facilities and Services  Socioeconomics  Aesthetics and Cultural Resources  Use and Conservation of Energy. Thus, it was not practical for the applicant’s experts to provide testimony regarding the specific analyses presented in the DEIS. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the Town Board accepted the DEIS as complete and adequate for public review on April 9, 2013, and the public hearing on the DEIS was held on February 4, 2014 (the close of the public comment period of the DEIS was April 20, 2014). Thus, involved agencies and interested parties had ten months (as opposed to the minimum required 15 days per 6 NYCRR §617.9[a][4][ii]) to review the DEIS prior to the public hearing, and had over two months after the hearing (as opposed to the minimum ten days per 6 NYCRR §617.11[a]) to continue the review of the DEIS (a total of over 12 months, as opposed to the minimum required 30 days per 6 NYCRR §617.9[a][4][iii]) and provide comments to the Town Board. Availability of the DEIS was widespread as copies were available at the office of the Town of Oyster Bay Town Clerk and the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Public Library, and it was also available electronically at http://www.vhb.com/countrypointeatplainviewdeis, since mid‐April 2013. In addition, there has been a link to the DEIS on the website of Country Pointe at Plainview (http://www.countrypointeplainview.com) since the DEIS was accepted as complete by the lead agency. Furthermore, the organization that made the comment was on the distribution list of organizations/agencies that received a disk containing the entire DEIS. Comment No. P‐4 The Applicant did not even make a full presentation to help inform the entire community of the sheer girth of their proposal, which is of greater density than “Old 48 Responses to Substantive Comments Plainview” on 22 less acres. Never in my nearly two decades of attending Town Hearings have I ever seen such divisive measures. Engage further when the fate of the property and Plainview‐Old Bethpage rests upon the strength of that relationship? One should come to a Hearing able to learn, listen and synthesize all that transpires that evening along with the detailed review of the DEIS and other available documentation. From the onset, the mere fact that the first Hearing which was postponed, was set prior to the Town’s acceptance and circulation of the DEIS, was troubling and seemed to set the tone. (C9 – 3) Response No. P‐4 With respect to the comment regarding the applicant’s presentation and the information included in the DEIS, please see Response No. P‐3. With respect to the postponement of the hearing, as explained in a prior comment, the DEIS was accepted on April 9, 2013, and the public hearing was originally scheduled for April 29, 2013. The Notice of Completion of the DEIS (see Appendix A of the DEIS) set forth the date of acceptance and set of the date of the public hearing simultaneously (the hearing date was not set prior to the acceptance of the DEIS). The public hearing on the DEIS was postponed from April 29, 2013 to February 4, 2014, partly because of requests from interested parties that the Town Board should allow more time for review of same. The applicant voluntarily agreed to the postponement and continued community outreach. Moreover, logistical considerations require the hearing date to be selected prior to the meeting at which the DEIS is accepted, so that the necessary arrangements can be made for the hearing venue and so that the Town Board’s resolution accepting the DEIS can specify the date and location of the hearing. As noted in Response No. P‐3, the accepted DEIS was available for review at the office of the Town Clerk, the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Public Library, on‐line since circa April 11, 2013, two days after it was accepted for public review as well as on‐
line through a link on the developer’s website (see Response No. P‐3). As the hearing did not occur until 10 months after the DEIS was originally accepted by the Town Board, and it was available on‐line and circulated for review, there was more than adequate time for review of the document, which comprehensively and explicitly set forth the history of the site and project, the nature of the proposed project, the environmental setting, the potential impacts and proposed mitigation, among other issues, in accordance with the Final Scope, promulgated by the lead agency. 49 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. P‐5 Individual commentators should have a time limit, so that everyone could have an opportunity to speak. (C43 – 3) (C49 – 2) Response No. P‐5 Everyone who signed up to speak at the hearing of February 4, 2014 was given the opportunity to speak. The Town Board did not want to set a time limit, as it wanted to provide everyone who wished to speak the opportunity to fully express their opinions to the Town Board. In addition, it has been the policy and practice of the Oyster Bay Town Board for the duration of Supervisor Venditto’s administration not to impose time limits on speakers at hearings, or even on speakers during the Board’s voting on resolutions during its meetings, so that members of the public are provided with a full and fair opportunity to be heard on issues of concern. Also, see Responses to Comment Nos. P‐3 and P‐4 regarding the extensive public comment period that the Town Board provided for receipt of written comments on the DEIS. Comment No. P‐6 I sat in that meeting for two hours and heard nothing but rhetoric from the developers who bussed in hundreds of people to fill the room. I understand that you stayed to hear every last speaker, however most of those people (who actually live in the community) have to go to work or care for children and had already left when you call on them. When can you arrange for a real meeting in the community for the real residents to participate in the process? (C55 – 2) Response No. P‐6 As explained in Response No. P‐3, the Town Board held a combined public hearing on the change of zone, site plan, rescission and replacement of declaration of restrictive covenants, and waiver for number of units per building in the RSC‐25 zoning district, as well as on the DEIS so that all involved agencies and interested parties could express their comments on the pending applications and the DEIS. The hearing commenced at 7:00 p.m. and ended at 3:05 a.m. the following day. The Town Board administered the hearing until every person who wished to speak was heard, and it established a public comment period on the DEIS, which began on April 9, 2013, with the issuance of the Notice of Completion and extended over a year, until April 20, 2014 (well over the minimum 30‐day requirement set forth in 6 NYCRR §617.9[a][4][iii]). Also see Response No. P‐3. 50 Responses to Substantive Comments Moreover, (a) an applicant is not precluded from actively seeking public support for its proposed project and, in fact, the Oyster Bay Town Board encourages applicants to conduct outreach to establish that their development proposals have public support; and (b) the Town Board is well versed in reviewing and evaluating all public commentary received regarding any development application in order to arrive at a fully considered decision which places the greatest weight on input received from those who would be most impacted by the project, particularly the residents of the affected community. 51 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.2
Water Resources Comment No. WR‐1 Do all of the ponds overflow into the single recharge basin located along Old Country Road? (C1 – 13) Response No. WR‐1 The single recharge basin located along Old Country Road has been relocated to an area to the south of the proposed commercial shops. Runoff from the commercial component will go to this relocated recharge basin. The pond overflow in the residential components will go to diffusion wells located throughout these areas of the site (see Appendix C). Also, see Response No. WR‐2, below. Comment No. WR‐2 The Overall Drainage Plan shows that both stormwater collection systems from the commercial parcel and from certain residential areas are interconnected. This may be problematic from an ownership and maintenance standpoint. Also, the residential portion of the development should not be burdened with the costs associated with future repairs to the stormwater infrastructure located on a commercial lot. (C1 – 12) Response No.WR‐2 As discussed in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, stormwater runoff is proposed to be collected via several methods. The revised plan proposes a redesigned recharge basin located behind (to the south of) the retail stores (see Appendix C), which will handle only stormwater runoff from the commercial portion of the property. The residential components will capture and store stormwater separately utilizing various methods, including subsurface leaching structures, and, potentially, off‐site storage using excess capacity in the existing Nassau County recharge basin located on the northwest corner of Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road (which is currently being explored). In any event, all stormwater would be handled in accordance with prevailing regulations. The proposed on‐site recharge basin would not be dedicated to the Town or County, but would be controlled and maintained by) the Master Homeowners Association. Comment No.WR‐3 This property, which is atop the Deep Water Recharge Area, could have conceivably been included in that plan with its proximity to the SGPA. As an environmental 52 Responses to Substantive Comments enthusiast and longtime supporter of the Town of Oyster Bay, I suggested not delaying the Overlay Plan feeling confident that the new document would meet our expectations. The Ground Water and Open Space Plan document is excellent, and does suggest where possible to seek maximum preservation of this property. The fragility of the aquifer has been cited numerous times. There is an aquifer underneath the land and so it cannot be built upon. How is this going to affect our water ‐‐ the aquifer? (C9 – 9) (C43 – 1) (C44 – 2) (H30‐2) Response No. WR‐3 The commentator is correct that the subject property is within a Deepwater Recharge Area. As explained in Section 3.4 of the DEIS, recommendations for this property were identified in the Town of Oyster Bay’s Final Groundwater and Open Space Protection Plan. A consistency analysis with those recommendations was provided in Section 4.4 of the DEIS. The consistency analysis stated, in pertinent part: “The FGOSPP contains recommendations specific to the subject property, identified as the “Plainview Properties Site.” The Plainview Properties Site was identified as an underdeveloped property that has the potential for open space, parkland, resource protection and growth management opportunities…several of the recommendations are related to general development of the property itself, rather than the specific application. These recommendations and the project’s consistency therewith are discussed below. Furthermore, the FGOSPP notes that ‘ideally, future development of the Plainview Properties Site would involve an open space preservation component, in the form of a…PUD or cluster development. This could include...100‐foot wide vegetated buffers along the adjoining roadways, a 200‐foot buffer along the south side of the main tract… and a pedestrian/trail access to Trailways [sic] State Park and the Old Bethpage Restoration area.’ “In addition, ‘a minimum of 40 acres…should be preserved and dedicated as public parkland/open space in accordance with the restrictive covenants governing the previous zoning approval for the site. However, additional acreage of open space should be pursued…’ [A] 200‐foot buffer has been retained along the southern portion of the site, in accordance with the Restrictive Covenants. Further, a 100‐foot vegetated buffer is proposed along Round Swamp Road. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to dedicate 44 acres to the Town. Approximately 43 contiguous acres, located in the western and southwestern portions of the subject property, adjacent to Trail View State Park (which would connect to the proposed on‐site walking/fitness trail), would be maintained in their current form (i.e., open space and recreational uses) and are proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay... Also, one acre at the corner of Round Swamp Road and 53 Responses to Substantive Comments Old Country Road is proposed to be dedicated to the Town. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with this recommendation of the FGOSPP. Also, as noted above, while providing recreational facilities for the proposed residential developments on the subject property, the Applicant is proposing to dedicate approximately 44 acres of land (30.7 percent of the overall property) to the Town, the majority of which is for recreational purposes. This exceeds the recommended 40.11 acres of recreational areas cited above, which the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (Covenant 6) set forth at the time the northern 45.9 acres of the subject property was rezoned from Residence B (currently R1‐1A) to O‐1 (currently OB) (see Section 2.3.3 for discussion of the Restrictive Covenants). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed action complies with the goals of the FGOSPP related to the acquisition of additional recreational facilities. The FGOSPP further recommends: ‘Landscaping within interior areas of the [subject] property should include the use of indigenous or well‐adapted/low maintenance plants to help limit the need for fertilizer (i.e., nitrates) and pesticides and irrigation which can affect groundwater quality and quantity, respectively…Development proposed in this area should include efforts to preserve mature native trees and native shrubs and groundcover to the extent practicable.’ Upon implementation of the proposed action, landscaped areas within the subject property would increase from approximately 0.69± acre to 23.8± acres, not including turf grasses. To the maximum extent practicable, the comprehensive landscaping plans incorporate the use of native and/or low‐maintenance species (see Appendix C). Based on the foregoing, the proposed action complies with this recommendation of the FGOSPP. The FGOSPP also states: “Development (or redevelopment) of the [subject] site, as with any significant construction project, should include submission of a letter of water availability from the Plainview Water District. Moreover, future construction should include plans to conserve water to the extent practicable.” ‘Future development projects at the [subject] site will be required to discharge wastewater in the Nassau County sewer system which would also help to ensure local groundwater quality. Approvals should be preceded by assurance from the County that public sewage facilities are adequate and have sufficient capacity to accept the anticipated wastewater generated by the proposed project.’ A letter of water availability has been requested from the Plainview Water District. Based upon this request, the Plainview Water District has issued a Conditional 54 Responses to Substantive Comments Certificate of Water Availability, which indicates that “the District will be able to supply the project known as ‘Country Pointe at Plainview’ with water provided the applicant satisfies [certain] conditions,” as outlined in the November 1, 2012 Conditional Certificate (see Section 4.2.3 and Appendix J of this DEIS). In addition, water conservation measures, including use of native and low‐maintenance vegetation (which requires less irrigation) and use of low‐flow fixtures within the residential units, have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development, which would assist in reducing the water demand. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with this recommendation. With respect to sewage, the buildings on the subject property are currently connected to the Nassau County sewer system (with treatment provided by the Cedar Creek Sewage Treatment Plant). Such connections and service would continue upon implementation of the proposed action. In correspondence dated August 30, 2012 (see Appendix J), the NCDPW confirmed that it has the available capacity at the Cedar Creek WPCP to accommodate and treat the projected wastewater generation from implementation of the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this recommendation of the FGOSPP. Finally, the FGOSPP recommends: ‘If the Town Board is amenable to entertaining a zone change to permit the proposed Plainview Properties development, it should pre‐establish buffer and open space standards and the general and open space standards and the general requirements to be incorporated into the site plan as a condition of any such zoning approval. These requirements, as mentioned above, must take into consideration the minimum 40‐acre open space standard established by previously filed covenants, but also weigh the various site‐
specific conditions and needs including a balance among economic growth, environmental protection, and neighborhood preservation which are becoming increasingly important to the community as valuable resources are further diminished.’ In consideration of the this recommendation, and as required by the covenant, as part of the requested rezoning, portions of the subject property, the Applicant has proposed the dedication of 44 acres to the Town of Oyster Bay, which is 3.89 acres in excess of the 40.11 acres set forth in the recommendation. In addition, the proposed action includes a 100±‐foot vegetated buffer in the eastern portion of the subject property along Round Swamp Road and a 200‐foot buffer along the southeastern portion of the property, directly adjacent to the existing residences along Cedar Drive East and Beatrice Lane. As previously discussed, a large portion of the subject property, currently used for open space and recreational purposes, would be maintained and is proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay. This open space would provide a buffer between the proposed residential development and residential uses to the south. In addition, the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview development is providing significant open space and recreational facilities for the 55 Responses to Substantive Comments future residents of the RMF‐16. Based on the foregoing, the proposed action is consistent with this recommendation.” Based upon the FEIS Plan (see Appendix C of this FEIS), the amount of open space to be dedicated to the Town is 44 acres, which is 3.89 acres in excess of the 40.11 acres set forth in the recommendation and covenant. In addition, The buffer area along Round Swamp Road has been increased from 100 feet to 125 feet, and, further, along the southeasterly corner of the site approximately 5.3 acres, not including the property within the 200‐foot buffer, will remain in their natural state to be owned either by the Master Homeowners Association or dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay, if requested. Thus, the effective buffer between the property line along Cedar Drive East/Beatrice Land and the proposed residences has been increased from a minimum of 230± feet to between 320± feet and 600± feet in this portion of the site (see Appendix C). Comment No. WR‐4 The water quality must be considered as well. How will we possibly be able to accommodate all these new homes/people? Itʹs going to increase the amount of fresh water needed. We already have issues with the water in Plainview. (C13 – 4) (H53‐3) Response No. WR‐4 The issues of water quality and quantity were addressed in Sections 3.2, 3.7.6, 4.2.1, 4.2.3 and 4.7.6 of the DEIS. With respect to the water demand, consultations were undertaken with the water purveyor, the Plainview Water District, and projections of water demand were provided. The Plainview Water District provided a Conditional Certificate of Water Availability on November 1, 2012, which was contained in Appendix J of the DEIS, and is valid through November 2015. That letter confirmed the ability of the Plainview Water District to supply the requested 480,590 gallons per day (gpd) of water, should the development presented in the DEIS be approved. It should be noted, however, that since the time that the consultations were undertaken with the Plainview Water District, the density of the proposed development has been decreased (see explanation in Section 2.1 of this FEIS) and the projected potable water use (not including irrigation) has decreased from approximately 457,590 gpd originally projected to 411,040 gpd for this revised proposal. Accordingly, there will substantially less water demand than that originally projected. The projected 411,040± gpd for the revised proposed action represents 8.0± percent of the Plainview Water District’s 2013 daily pumpage of 5.05± million gallons per day. While the Certificate is valid through November 1, 2015, based upon the plan revisions and the timing of the project, a request for an extension/renewal of the Certificate was sent in correspondence dated January 6, 2015 (see Appendix K of this FEIS). The request must go before the Board of Commissioners, and the Town will be updated when the extension/renewal is granted. 56 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No.WR‐5 More housing means more sewage, something we already have problems with. (C32 – 2) Response No. WR‐5 Section 4.2.2 of the DEIS presents a comprehensive discussion regarding sewage generation and disposal. The DEIS indicates that the total anticipated sewage flow for the original proposed action was 457,590 gpd, of which 34,840 gpd was projected for the proposed commercial land uses and the remaining 422,750 gpd for the originally‐proposed residential uses. As explained in Section 4.2.3 of the DEIS, the NCDPW advised that the proposed action is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the sewer system, as treatment capacity exists at the water pollution control plant (WPCP). Thus, a letter of service availability for the WPCP was issued by the NCDPW (see Appendix J of the DEIS). An updated request for an availability letter was transmitted to the NCDPW on December 18, 2014. A response from the NCDPW, dated January 2, 2014 indicated that the “Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant has sufficient capacity for the estimated water from the complex” (see Appendix K). Moreover, since the density of the proposed action has been significantly reduced as explained in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, the projected sanitary flow would be 411,040± gpd, a decrease of 46,550± gpd from the initially‐proposed action. Accordingly, the flow to and the impact to the WPCP would be significantly less than originally projected. Comment No. WR‐6 Will the proposed recharge basin be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay or the County or will be under the auspices of an HOA? (C1 – 11) Response No.WR‐6 The proposed on‐site recharge basin would not be dedicated to the Town or County, but would be controlled and maintained by the Master Homeowners Association.
57 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.3
Ecology Comment No. E‐1 In calculating this impact it should be noted that while there is a tree inventory (p 218) there is no effort to quantify the vegetation at issue. There is no numerical, area, or biomass‐based quantification of the “vegetation” at issue before or after. This is a significant question and should be treated for completeness. (C6 – 2) Response No. E‐1: The ecological analyses contained in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the DEIS are comprehensive and comply in all respects to the requirements of the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS (see Appendix A of the DEIS) . Customary procedures for assessing vegetative communities for a DEIS (including the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board), include characterization of existing habitats pursuant to the New York Natural Heritage Program’s (NYNHP) publication Ecological Communities of New York State2 (ECNYS), graphic representations of existing and proposed ecological communities, and an inventory of observed and expected vegetation. Accordingly, the ecological assessment for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS included a summary of the vegetative communities and plant inventories observed during 12 field inspections of the subject property conducted during various seasons between 1991 and 2005 as part of prior development applications. The 2005 ecological assessment included a characterization of on‐site habitats, comprehensive species inventories of observed and expected flora, and an evaluation for the potential presence of rare species or habitats. A total of 180 plant species were observed within nine distinct ecological communities at the subject property during the 2005 ecological assessment. The site was the subject of additional field inspection during 2010 and 2012, for the purposes of updating the 2005 ecological assessment. During these field inspections, additional ecological communities and vegetative species were identified, resulting in a total of 196 plant species observed within 10 distinct ECNYS ecological communities at the subject property. 
2
Reschke, 1990, as updated by Edinger et al., 2002
58 Responses to Substantive Comments Table 7 – Comparison of Land Coverage of Ecological Communities
Cover Type
(ECNYS Ecological Community)*
Existing Condition (in
acres)
53.26±
Post-Construction Condition
(in acres) based on DEIS
Plan****
37.39±
Forested (Successional Southern
Hardwoods, Coastal Oak-Heath Forest,
Pine Plantation and Disturbed Oak
Forest)
Meadow or Brushland (Successional Old
Field and Successional Shrubland)
Turf Grasses and Other Landscaping
Vegetation (Mowed Lawn and Mowed
Lawn with Trees )
Roads, Buildings and Other Paved
Surfaces (Urban Structure Exterior and
Paved Road/Path)
Unvegetated rock, earth and fill***
Recharge Basin (Recharge Basin)
Decorative Ponds (Artificial Pond)
TOTAL
Post-Construction Condition (in
acres) based on FEIS Plan
44.50±
16.77±
1.00±
1.00±
58.36±
51.50±
49.03±
13.40±
44.78±
42.83±
1.46±
0.00±
0.00±
143.25±
0.00±
3.18±
5.40±
143.25±
0.00±
2.49±
3.40±
143.25±
NOTES:
*The individual ECNYS ecological communities comprising the above-listed cover types were not surveyed and were identified based upon qualitative field
observations during the ecological survey.
**As the Disturbed Oak Forest ecological community would be removed during construction, the post-construction forested cover type would be comprised
of Successional Southern Hardwoods, Coastal Oak-Heath Forest and Pine Plantation.
***Unvegetated rock, earth and fill were not identified as a distinct ECNYS ecological community during the ecological survey.
**** Should the Town choose to replicate the existing fields on the site, upon dedication of the 43 acres of contiguous parkland and soccer fields to the
Town, additional area of woodland could be cleared at the western and southwestern portions of the site.
With respect to the quantification of vegetative cover (and contrary to the statement in the comment), Section 4.3.1 of the 2013 DEIS includes a chart quantifying the pre‐ and post‐construction acreage of all existing ECNYS vegetated and non‐vegetated community types at the subject property. The chart is provided above and has been updated to reflect the revised plan discussed in Section 2.3 of this FEIS and included in Appendix C of this FEIS. Moreover, Figure 16 in Section 3.3.1 of the March 2013 DEIS provides a graphic representation of existing ecological communities at the subject property, while Figure 27A in Section 4.3.1 details the proposed post‐
construction ecological communities at the site. In summary, based upon multiple field inspections of the site conducted during multiple seasons over the course of 21 years, the vegetation at the site has been exhaustively characterized and inventoried, and presented in a manner consistent with the customary procedures for a DEIS, including the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS. 59 Responses to Substantive Comments It should also be noted that, as explained in Section 2.2, based on comments received at the public hearing, the proposed action has been modified and the density has been decreased. Furthermore, the buffer areas along Round Swamp Road has been increase from 100 feet to 125 feet in width, and the buffer area along the southern property line has also been significantly increased. Therefore, approximately 9.93 acres of mostly wooded area is proposed to be preserved in the southeastern portion of the site. Overall, the forested area on the site has been increased by 7.11± acres from the DEIS Plan (37.39± acres) to the FEIS Plan (44.50± acres). Comment No.E‐2 The DEIS notes that woodlands will decline from 53 acres to 37 acres (p 214). However there is no functional analysis that shows how contiguous forest would be affected – how blocks will be destroyed and small edge‐like formations left in their place. That metric is needed to accurately gauge the impact on wildlife. For example, to say that 100 trees will be removed but 50 trees left does not tell whether those trees are in one stand or apart, and whether they can support wildlife habitat or not. The report should include that information. (C6 – 5) Response No. E‐2: As explained in Response No. E‐1, Section 4.3.1 of the March 2013 DEIS includes a chart quantifying the pre‐ and post‐construction acreage of all existing ECNYS vegetated and non‐vegetated community types at the subject property). Table 5, above, provides a comparison of the post‐construction acreage based upon the Revised Site Plan. Moreover, Figure 16 in Section 3.3.1 of the March 2013 DEIS provides a graphic representation of existing ecological communities at the subject property, while Figure 27A in Section 4.3.1 details the proposed post‐construction ecological communities at the site. Moreover, as the density of the proposed action has decreased since the time the DEIS and the area of proposed open space has increased Comment No. E‐3 The inventory is from 2006 (p 218) and is outdated for two reasons – Hurricane Sandy may have had an impact, and the number of 8‐inch diameter trees will have increased otherwise. Lacking an adequate tree inventory diminishes the value of the report. Furthermore, the inventory states that about 939 out of 3,670 trees will remain but it does not state what the nature of those trees is – their species, their heights, etc. It does not even state general terms or offer that they are representative of the original 3,670. One must assume that absent that qualifier the trees are not comparable and may be skewed. This should be clarified. (C6 – 6) 60 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. E‐3: As explained in Section 3.3 of the DEIS, the ecological inventories were conducted in multiple years, specifically between 1991 through 2012 and during various seasons, and the changes over time were explained in that section of the DEIS. The tree inventory was performed to comply with Town Code Chapter 225, Trees, which requires a permit for the removal of trees, as defined in §225‐2. As noted in the DEIS, based upon the tree survey and the proposed design for Country Pointe at Plainview, a Tree Preservation Plan was prepared and was included in Appendix C of the DEIS. A total of 3,670 trees were surveyed. Of these, 2,691 are proposed to be removed and 979 are proposed to remain. The tree survey included the tag number, diameter, species and whether they are proposed to be retained or removed. Thus, while the tree inventory is relevant to the ecological impact analysis, it is not the sole basis of the analysis. As described in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the DEIS, and as required by the Final Scope, the ecological analysis consisted of the following: numerous ecological (floral and faunal) inventories over many years and seasons, as noted above, to determine general habitat character of the property as well as identify species using and found on the site; correspondence with the New York Natural Heritage Program; analysis of endangered, threatened and of concern species; review of state and federal wetland maps as to the presence of wetlands on or in the vicinity of the subject property; performance of the aforementioned tree survey, and preparation of a tree preservation plan. Furthermore, although the number of trees greater than 8‐inches in diameter may have increased since 2006, this increase is likely to have been at least partially offset by the loss of other trees due to senescence (old age), disease and storms, including Hurricane Sandy. As such, no significant changes to the overall tree community at the subject property are expected to have occurred during the past eight years and the results of the tree survey, including the relative proportions of individual tree species, remain valid for the purposes of the ecological assessment. In addition, as explained in Response No. E‐2, since the time of preparation of the DEIS, the density of the proposed action has been reduced and the open space has been increased. Comment No. E‐4 There is no quantification of the grass and shrub, etc. presence only a list of the approximately 890 herbaceous plants and 106 trees, shrubs and woody vines present (see pp 106‐110). (C6 – 7) 61 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. E‐4: As indicated in Response No. E‐1, the vegetative community assessment was conducted in a manner consistent with the customary procedures for a DEIS and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS. As indicated in Section 3.3.1 of the 2013 DEIS, a total of 196 vegetative species were identified at the subject property during multiple field inspections conducted during multiple seasons over the course of 21 years. With respect to the individual faunal groups referenced in the comment (i.e., grasses, shrubs) 50 tree species, 36 shrubs, 17 vines, 70 forbs (non‐grassy herbaceous plants) and 23 grasses and grass‐like plants were identified among the 196 species. Comment No. E‐5 There is no discussion of the insects on the site, although the New York State Natural Heritage Program does list some insects as of Special Concern and hence of ecological concern. (C6 – 8) Response No. E‐5: As indicated in Section 3.3.3 of the 2013 DEIS, consultations were undertaken with the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) to determine whether records exist for known occurrences of rare or State‐listed animals (including insects), plants, significant natural communities or other significant habitats on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. In correspondence dated September 6, 2012, the NYNHP reported that no such records existed. Furthermore, according to a review of the NYSDEC’s New York Nature Explorer website3 conducted on August 27, 2014, no NYNHP records currently exist for NYS Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern insect species at or in the vicinity of the subject property. Accordingly, no significant adverse impacts to NYS‐Special Concern insect species are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Comment No.E‐6 There are listings of some 55 species of birds, mammals and herpetofauna (pp 110 ‐
113). But there is no quantification of the animals present. It is impossible to understand the impact of the project without knowing what the wildlife impact will be and without quantities it is impossible to know this in any scientific or indeed public‐policy aspect. It is essential to quantify the wildlife present to adequately understand it in this DEIS. (C6 – 9) 
3
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York Nature Explorer. 2014. Available online at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/app/ Accessed August 27, 2014.
62 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. E‐6: The wildlife section of the ecological assessment (See Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the DEIS) was prepared according to customary procedures for a DEIS, and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS. Comprehensive resources utilized as part of this investigation included habitat assessments and species observations from various field inspections of the subject property conducted during multiple seasons over the course of 21 years (from 1991 to 2012), including multiple field inspections conducted in 2010 and 2012. Furthermore, according to customary DEIS procedure, government agency databases and records for the subject property and vicinity were reviewed and summarized in the ecological assessment, including:  United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federally Listed Species records  The NYSDEC New York State Breeding Bird Atlas database  The NYSDEC Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project database  The NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper database  The NYSDEC New York Nature Explorer database  NYNHP rare/protected species and community records  ECNYS ecological community descriptions. Accordingly, the wildlife impact assessment for the DEIS was prepared based upon an analysis of the proposed action with respect to the habitats and observed/expected species identified from extensive field inspections conducted over the course of three decades, as well as from a comprehensive review of government agency resources. As such, the wildlife impact assessment was conducted in a manner consistent with the customary procedures for a DEIS, including the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS. Comment No. E‐7 The absence of any owls from the report suggests a lack of thoroughness. This relates to the next issue, the nature of the studies undertaken. There is no indication of the nature of the “field inspections” (p 113). How many people conducted them for how long, with what training, during what times of the day or night? Basic scientific protocol requires disclosure of methodology for both the current and earlier 2006 and 2005 studies. (C6 – 10) (C6 – 11) Response No. E‐7: Contrary to the assertion in the comment, owls were discussed in the DEIS. As indicated in the DEIS, observed and expected avian species at the site were assessed based upon habitat assessment and field observations collected over the course of 21 years, as well as a review of the New York State Breeding Bird Atlas database. 63 Responses to Substantive Comments According to the latter resource, a total of 74 confirmed avian breeders were identified between 2000 and 2005 within the two survey blocks (Blocks 6251B and 6251D) in which the subject property is located (a copy of the atlas report is included in Appendix L of the 2013 DEIS and Appendix G of this FEIS). Among these species, two owls were identified: eastern screech owl (Megascops asio) and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). According to the database reports, eastern screech owl was listed as possible breeding within the two atlas blocks, while great horned owl was listed as a confirmed breeder. However, as discussed in the 2005 ecological assessment (copy included in Appendix L of the 2013 DEIS and Appendix G of this FEIS), great horned owl was deemed unlikely to breed at the subject property due to a paucity of suitable breeding habitat. With respect to the nature of the field inspections, as explained in Section 3.3 of the DEIS, multiple field inspections were performed during multiple seasons over a 21 year time period between 1991 and 2012. Eleven field inspections during multiple seasons were conducted between 1991 and 2005 by Orland Blanchard, Ph.D. of Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. (the operations of which were acquired by VHB in December 2008). See Appendix G of this FEIS for Dr. Blanchard’s resume. Dr. Blanchard is a broadly‐trained and respected field biologist with extensive knowledge of the biota of the Northeast and with a range of expertise in botanical and invertebrate inventory, the study of rare and endangered plants and animals and wetlands evaluation, practicing almost 30 years on Long Island. He has also taught and performed field research throughout the United States, the West Indes, Mexico, Central America, East Africa, and is currently based in Florida. More specifically, these field inspections occurred on eight different occasions between December 18, 1991 and April 10, 1992, and subsequently on January 13, 1995, and April 5, 28, and May 1, 2005. The field inspections conducted during December of 2010 and July 2012 were performed between the hours of 5:00 AM and 7:00 PM by David Kennedy, MS of VHB. Mr. Kennedy is a project scientist with over ten years of professional experience in the environmental field who has conducted multiple habitat assessments, avian and herpetofauna surveys, vegetation inventories and wetland delineations throughout the northeastern United States. Mr. Kennedy has also conducted ecological field work in the desert southwest, Mexico and Tanzania and has served as a Fish and Wildlife Technician with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Kennedy’s resume was included in Appendix L of the 2013 DEIS and is included in Appendix G of this FEIS. With respect to overall protocol and methodology for the ecological assessment, these topics were detailed at length in Section 3.3 of the 2006 DEIS and Section 3.3 of the 2013 DEIS, as well as in Responses E‐1, E‐4 and E‐6 of this FEIS. 64 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. E‐8 The assertion that animals would “migrate” and this would, result in some net loss due to “competition for available resources” (pp 224 ‐225) is largely meaningless absent quantitative data on the wildlife present (see above). It is also idle to assert that there would be a net loss without describing it in more quantitative terms, and also describing the nature of the wildlife in neighboring areas that are supposed candidates for displacement. (C6 – 12) Response No. E‐8: The displacement of wildlife species to surrounding habitats as a result of disturbance/habitat loss and competition for resources is well documented in the scientific literature (e.g., Lidicker, 19624, Lidicker, 19755, Merenlender et. al., 19986, Lichstein et. al., 20027). Based upon these and other quantitative studies, it is reasonable and logical to project that some of the wildlife species identified in the qualitative surveys of the site (which were conducted pursuant to the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS) would experience displacement and subsequent competition for resources as a result of disturbance/habitat loss. Similar to the subject property, both developed and undeveloped habitats comprise the properties surrounding the site (e.g., suburban development, Trail View State Park and Old Bethpage Restoration). Furthermore, as detailed in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS, both the developed and undeveloped habitats at the site have been impacted by present and historic site usage. Consequently, as discussed in Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS, it anticipated that some individuals of wildlife species that are temporarily or permanently displaced from the subject property as a result of the proposed action would emigrate to similar developed and undeveloped habitats at the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the revised development plan for Country Pointe at Plainview includes additional open space areas, resulting in increased on‐site habitat to accommodate displaced wildlife. 
Lidciker, W.Z., Jr. 1962. Emigration as a possible mechanism permitting the regulation of population density below carrying capacity. American
Naturalist 96:29-33.
5 Lidciker, W.Z., Jr. 1975. The role of dispersal in the demography of small mammals. In Small mammals: Their production and population
dynamics, eds. F.B. Golley, K. Petrusewicz, and L. Ryszkowski, pages 103-128. London: Cambridge University Press.
6 Merenlender, A.M., K.L. Heise, C. Brooks. 1998. Effects on subdividing private property on biodiversity in California’s north coast oak woodlands.
Transactions of the Wildlife Society 34:9-20.
7 Lichstein, J.W.,T.R. Simons and K.E. Franzreb. 2002. Landscape effects on breeding songbird abundance in managed forests. Ecological
Applications 12:836-857.
4
65 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. E‐9 There is asserted no presence of or impact on wetlands (p 115, p 226). However there is no discussion one way or another of the presence or lack thereof of vernal pools and it is noted that the visits as described – December 2010 and July 2012 would not be periods when vernal pools would be apparent. The lack of discussion at all of vernal pools is a deficiency in the DEIS should be addressed. (C6 ‐ 13) Response No. E‐9: Pursuant to the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board, the ecological assessments for the 2006 and 2013 DEIS include detailed descriptions of the existing ecological conditions at the subject property, rather than discussions of those conditions that do not exist at the site. More specifically, discussions of vernal pools were not included in the text of the ecological assessments due to the fact that these wetland features were not noted during the field inspections of the site. Further, it is important to note that several of the field inspections of the subject property that were summarized in the ecological assessment occurred during the spring months, when any potential vernal pool habitats would have been readily apparent (i.e., April 1992, April and May 2005). Vernal pools or other wetland features were not observed at or adjacent to the subject property during any of the field inspections conducted between 1991 and 2012. Based upon the foregoing, no impacts to wetland habitats, including vernal pool habitats, are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Comment No. E‐10 There is no attempt in the DEIS to analyze or scientifically quantify the impact of the loss of natural ecological resources on the local population. I think an understanding of the personal and community impact would assist the policy‐makers in their decisions. (C6 – 14) Response No. E‐10: As detailed in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS, the impacts to the existing habitats identified in Section 3.1.1 of the DEIS have been quantified. Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response E‐1 of this FEIS include a chart quantifying the pre‐ and post‐construction acreage of all existing ECNYS vegetated and non‐vegetated community types at the subject property. Moreover, Figure 16 in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS provides a graphic representation of existing ecological communities at the subject property, while Figure 27A in Section 4.3.1 details the proposed post‐construction ecological communities at the site. A detailed discussion of the impacts of the proposed habitat changes discussed above on local wildlife populations is included in Section 4.3.3 of the DEIS and is also discussed in Response No. E‐8. This impacts analysis was prepared based upon 66 Responses to Substantive Comments habitat assessments and species observations from various field inspections of the subject property conducted during multiple seasons over the course of 21 years (from 1991 to 2012), including multiple field inspections conducted in 2010 and 2012. Furthermore, according to customary DEIS procedure, government agency databases and records for the subject property and vicinity were reviewed and summarized in the existing conditions assessment, including:  United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federally Listed Species records  The NYSDEC New York State Breeding Bird Atlas database  The NYSDEC Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project database  The NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper database  The NYSDEC New York Nature Explorer database  NYNHP rare/protected species and community records  ECNYS ecological community descriptions. Accordingly, the wildlife impact assessment in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the DEIS was prepared based upon an analysis of the proposed action with respect to the habitats and observed/expected species identified from extensive field inspections conducted over the course of three decades, as well as from a comprehensive review of government agency resources. As such, the wildlife impact assessment was conducted in a manner consistent with the customary procedures for a DEIS, including the procedures outlined in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board for the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS. Comment No. E‐11 The DEIS states three brief mitigation points for the substantial ecological impact on trees, vegetation and wildlife: landscaping with native flora, the retention of perimeter buffers and the creation of ponds (pp 357‐358). They are far from adequate. These points are not significant mitigation, and are incommensurate with the impact. They are token at best and an afterthought. The ponds will surely attract waterfowl such as Canada Geese which have been attracted and then killed in other locales; there is no assurance that this element of “mitigation” will not lead to the same shameful outcome. There should be such an assurance – or they should be removed. The landscaping will not mature for decades to the point of providing similar habitat, and even then the lack of density and the manicured undergrowth will not provide anything like habitat that exists now. The perimeter buffers are minuscule with the exception of the retained soccer field buffer such as it is. As such they will provide little mitigation for the loss of habitat. (C6 – 15) Response No. E‐11: The mitigation measures summarized in Section 5.3 of the DEIS are actually discussed at length in the impact assessment section of the DEIS (Section 4.3). In particular, preservation of existing habitats and vegetation (including the tree preservation plan) and creation of new ecological communities are detailed in 67 Responses to Substantive Comments Section 4.3.1. Section 4.3.2 provides extensive details regarding site‐wide mitigation measures, including comprehensive landscaping plans for the various commercial, residential and undeveloped portions of the site. Section 4.3.2 also includes additional details regarding tree preservation and the preservation of portions of nine of the ten existing ecological communities at the site. Finally, Section 4.3.3 includes a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures with respect to wildlife. With respect to Canada goose (Branta canadensis), it is important to note that, as detailed in Section 3.3.2 of the DEIS, this species is already present on the site and was observed in the area of the soccer fields during the 2010 and 2012 field inspections. As these habitats are proposed to remain following implementation of the proposed action, it is anticipated that Canada goose would continue to utilize the site. Furthermore, as detailed in Section 4.3.3 of the DEIS, no wildlife species would be stocked or otherwise artificially introduced to the site as part of the proposed action. However, over time, it is anticipated that the decorative ponds would be colonized or otherwise utilized by wildlife typically associated with decorative ponds in developed settings on Long Island, including various waterfowl (e.g., mallard duck [Anas platyrhynchos]), certain amphibians (e.g., green frog [Rana clamitans]) and various aquatic invertebrates. It is possible that Canada goose may also utilize the pond. However, on Long Island, this ubiquitous species is known to congregate at virtually any open space with maintained grasses, regardless of the presence of water, including office parks, schoolyards, parklands and playing fields, including the existing soccer fields at the subject property. Ultimately, the exact species assemblage of the decorative ponds would be dependent on many factors, including, but not limited to, the wildlife species assemblage of the general surrounding area. Regarding the commentator’s statement regarding the existing habitats and proposed landscaping at the subject property, all of the existing ecological communities at the site have been developed previously or otherwise impacted by various levels of anthropogenic activity and disturbance. As a consequence, the overall habitat quality of these communities has been degraded due to these disturbances and by subsequent colonization by non‐native/invasive plant species. As such, the wooded portions of the site do not represent undisturbed, pristine habitats that are significant reservoirs of native plant diversity. The expected overall ecological impact of the proposed action to would be an increase in the amount of developed and landscaped communities at the site over existing conditions. However, much of the clearing associated with the proposed action would occur in existing developed areas or within disturbed areas that are currently undeveloped. While areas of forested and successional habitats would be reduced, significant portions of these communities would be preserved in mostly contiguous blocks, and areas of nine of the ten existing ecological communities currently represented at the site would remain following completion of the proposed action. Moreover, as described in detail in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of the DEIS, the comprehensive landscape plan includes native tree and shrub species that currently grow at the 68 Responses to Substantive Comments subject property, thus ensuring that many existing native plant species will continue to be represented within the areas of the site to be redeveloped and landscaped. Finally, as discussed in Section 2.3 of this FEIS, the density of the proposed action has been reduced and the amount of open space has been increased, thus resulting in additional area of contiguous vegetated communities and wildlife habitat. As currently proposed, a total of 44.50± acres of wooded habitat would be preserved as a result of the proposed action, representing an increase of approximately two acres over that which was originally proposed. Much of this acreage is located in the southeastern corner of the site, which will remain in its natural wooded condition. This will increase the amount of contiguous natural wooded area in the eastern portion of the site, and thus provide additional wooded habitat (see Appendix C). Overall, the forested/wooded area on the site has been increased by 7.11± acres from the DEIS Plan (37.39± acres) to the FEIS Plan (44.50± acres). Comment No. E‐12 If true mitigation is to be created – as required by SEQRA – then it should be in the retention of significant stands of habitat as they exist. As inspection of the property clearly showed that large areas exist for extensive new construction without the destruction of all the forests. (C6 – 16) (C6 – 17) Response No. E‐12: Pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.1(c)and(d): (c) The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision‐making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare or request an environmental impact statement. (d) It was the intention of the Legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities. Accordingly, it is the intention of this Part that a suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors be incorporated into the planning and decision‐making processes of state, regional and local agencies. It is not the intention of SEQR that environmental factors be the sole consideration in decision‐making. (emphases added) With respect to mitigation, 6 NYCRR §617.2(x) provides the following definition: 69 Responses to Substantive Comments Mitigation means a way to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, the SEQRA regulations do not require that all significant impacts be avoided – the minimization of impacts is also proper mitigation. As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, based on comments received on the DEIS, the applicant has further reduced the density of the proposed action and has increased the amount of open space. Accordingly, as currently proposed, the action would further reduce ecological impacts by providing additional, contiguous acreage of open space and wildlife habitat, including portions of the existing forested habitats noted by the commentator. As currently proposed, a total of 35.41± acres of wooded habitat would be preserved as a result of the proposed action, representing an increase of approximately two acres over that which was originally proposed. See Response No. E‐11 for additional details. Comment No. E‐13 Open spaces such as this provide habitat for birds as both breeding areas and migratory stopover sites. Migratory birds journey thousands of miles between their winter and summer homes each spring and fall. Green spaces such as this, which host insects for them to feast on, are critical for refueling as they travel. The construction and development of this property will put environmental stress on wildlife and other green spaces in the area: Trail View State Park, Bethpage State Park and the Old Bethpage Restoration. (C21 – 4) Response No. E‐13: Section 3.3 of the DEIS presented a detailed analysis of the ecological impacts of the initially proposed action. With respect to breeding areas and migratory birds, the 2005 ecological analysis that was included as Appendix L of the DEIS and as Appendix G of this FEIS provides a detailed discussion of observed and expected avian species at the subject property, including breeding and/or migratory birds. Further, as detailed in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS and Response E‐11, in contrast to the relatively undisturbed forested habitats at Trail View State Park, Old Bethpage Restoration and Bethpage State Park, the majority of the subject property has already been developed or impacted by various past and present uses, including a sanitarium, government complex, playing fields, sewage beds and agriculture. As noted, all of the existing ecological communities at the subject property have been subject to various levels of activity and disturbance. Due primarily to these disturbances, various non‐native/invasive plant species are present and, in some cases, dominant throughout portions of the canopy, shrub and groundcover strata of all ten described ecological communities. In general, the presence of non‐native/invasive vegetation reduces the ecological value 70 Responses to Substantive Comments of a habitat by out‐competing native vegetation and reducing or eliminating breeding and non‐breeding habitat for native wildlife species. Accordingly, the overall habitat quality of these communities, including their value as avian breeding and/or migratory habitat has been degraded, particularly in comparison to the relatively undisturbed habitats at the three aforementioned parks noted by the commentator. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, as currently proposed, a total of approximately 63 acres of open space would be preserved, including the 44 acres to be dedicated to the Town, as a result of the proposed action, resulting in a minimal decrease as opposed to existing conditions. As such, the significant areas of potential breeding and/or migratory bird habitat would remain at the site following implementation of the proposed action. Also see Response No. E‐11. Comment No. E‐14 Since this piece of property is mostly wooded with mature trees, it acts as a buffer between the community and the Long Island Expressway and Northern State Parkway. (C21 – 2) Response No. E‐14: Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS and Response No. EC‐1 both include a chart quantifying the existing ECNYS vegetated and non‐vegetated community types at the subject property. As detailed on the chart, the majority of the 143.25± subject property is currently occupied by non‐forested habitats including 58.36± acres of playing fields and other grassy habitats, 16.77 acresofmeadow/brushland and 13.40± acres of developed habitats. As detailed in Section 3.3 of the DEIS the majority of the 53.26± acres of forested habitat at the subject property supports successional woodland habitat (i.e., Successional /southern Hardwoods), rather than mature woodlands as noted by the commentator. Nevertheless, as currently proposed, a total of approximately 44.5 acres of wooded habitat would be preserved at the subject property that would continue act as a buffer between the two roadways and the surrounding communities to the south. Furthermore, the predominantly wooded Trail View State Park and Old Bethpage Restoration properties, which are predominantly wooded with mature forests, would also continue to provide buffering services. Comment No. E‐15 What someone calls a weed might be very good for the environment. And there is wildlife on there. I have done bird surveys there as a bird watcher. Gray horn owls, Baltimore orioles, plus the usual doves and other animals that are there. This is the last area in Nassau County that has been undeveloped. We need to retain a lot of that undeveloped land for the wildlife. (H30‐3) (H30‐4) 71 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. E‐15: The term “weedy” was utilized in Section 3.3.1 of the DEIS to differentiate non‐
grassy herbaceous vegetation (a.k.a., “forbs”) from grassy herbaceous vegetation for the purposes of characterizing the existing ecological communities at the subject property. No ecological value assessment was attached to or intended for this term. The overall ecological value of the existing vegetative communities identified at the site, including those supporting forbs, was summarized in Section 3.3.1 pursuant to the New York Natural Heritage Program publication, Ecological Communities of New York State. Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS and the 2005 ecological assessment (included as Appendix L of the DEIS and as Appendix G of this FEIS) include an inventory of observed and expected birds and detailed discussions of individual species, including those species noted by the commentator. As detailed in Sections 3.1 through 3.3 of the DEIS and discussed in previous comments, the majority of the subject property has already been developed or impacted by various past and present uses, including a sanitarium, government complex, playing fields, sewage beds and agriculture. As noted, all of the existing ecological communities at the subject property have been subject to various levels of activity and disturbance. As such, the subject property does not support the quantity or quality of wildlife habitat available within nearby open space properties including Trail View State Park, Old Bethpage Restoration and Bethpage State Park, all of which support large areas of relatively undisturbed, predominantly wooded habitats. Nevertheless, as currently proposed, a total of approximately 63 acres of open space for utilization as wildlife habitat would be preserved as a result of the proposed action. Another 3.4 acres of ponds would also act as wildlife habitat for certain avian species. 72 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.4
Zoning and Land Use Comment No. ZLU‐1 The document suggests that the proposed development conforms to the character of the surrounding area and cites the multi‐family developments in the nearby area and other land uses in the vicinity. The subject property is also located adjacent to Trail View State Park and the Greenbelt, is across from the Old Bethpage Restoration and is adjacent to and across from single‐family homes. In this regard, it is somewhat questionable as to the degree that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding community character given its proximity to single‐ family homes, parks, open space and trails. (C1 – 28) Response No. ZLU‐1: Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the DEIS addresses the existing land uses and impacts to land use and the character of the community in detail, and specifically refers to the Trail View State Park and the Greenbelt as well as Old Bethpage Restoration. With respect to existing conditions, as explained in Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS: “The land uses of the properties surrounding the subject site are as follows: North: The land uses to the north of the subject property include Old Country Road followed by a mix of office, retail, and light industrial uses. A recharge basin is located northeast of the subject property (see Photograph Nos. 9 through 12 in Appendix M). East: Round Swamp Road is situated to the east of the subject property. There is a Nassau County Police booth located just off‐site along Round Swamp Road. The east side of this roadway includes undeveloped land, single‐family residences, and the Old Bethpage Village Restoration, which is a museum/park (see Photograph Nos. 13 through 16 in Appendix M). South: The lands located to the south and southeast of the subject property are developed with single‐family residences and include Old Bethpage Elementary School situated along the east side of Round Swamp Road (see Photograph Nos. 17 and 18 in Appendix M). West: The lands located immediately west of the subject property, along the south side of Old Country Road, are wooded. A portion of this wooded area constitutes a portion of Trail View State Park. This wooded land extends to the area near Santa Barbara Drive. The land uses in this area include a VFW Hall, an assisted living facility and a multi‐family residential development, along Old Country Road. The 73 Responses to Substantive Comments area to the southwest includes undeveloped land followed by single‐family residential development (see Photograph Nos. 19 through 24 in Appendix M).” With respect to impacts to community character, as explained in Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS: The subject property, in its present form, is developed with a number of older buildings formerly associated with Nassau County, the majority of which are vacant and starting to deteriorate. One of the larger former institutional buildings (Building B/C) is occupied by Mercy Alcohol Rehabilitation). In addition, a portion of Office Building No. 2, near Old Country Road, is occupied by a part‐time business with two employees. The active predominant use on the site is recreation, particularly soccer. As mentioned, the soccer fields are leased by the Long Island Junior Soccer League and there are several small buildings that are used in association with the soccer leagues (including Building A (the soccer clubhouse), which is leased by the Rough Riders), and which is proposed to remain on the site. It should be noted that the lease for the use of the soccer fields by the Long Island Junior Soccer League is a 20‐year lease that expires in 2018. Due to the existing overgrown vegetation and the topography along Old Country Road, most of the existing development on the site (with the exception of the former Islander office buildings) cannot be seen and the activities associated with the soccer fields are well set back and not visible from the roadways (including Round Swamp Road). Therefore, the site looks overgrown and underutilized. The proposed Country Pointe at Plainview has been designed to provide a mix of uses (residential, commercial, and recreational) to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage area, while protecting the surrounding residential communities and retaining and enhancing recreational opportunities at the site. The proposed residential use type mix provides for a variety of populations (non‐age‐restricted and senior) and income levels (market‐rate and senior affordable) to come together within one overall development. Moreover, the addition of retail development allows the residents of Country Pointe at Plainview to shop on site, while the location of such uses, along Old Country Road, would serve the greater community. The proposed retail development on‐site, especially the proposed supermarket and bank, would provide residents (especially seniors) with convenient access to facilities that serve everyday needs. Therefore, the combination of residential and retail development on the subject property would create a new, land use pattern within the Town. The locations of the proposed uses with Country Pointe at Plainview have been specifically chosen to complement the existing surrounding neighborhood uses. Whereas there are single‐family homes located to the south of the subject site and along Round Swamp Road, the proposed residential development, though denser than the existing residential development in the community, has been placed adjacent to the existing residential uses. The retail facilities that are proposed are 74 Responses to Substantive Comments oriented toward Old Country Road, which is more commercial and industrial in nature than other portions of the site. The existing recreational uses, located in the southern portion of the site, are proposed to remain but would be enhanced and supplemented. These lower‐intensity uses are, and will continue to be, proximate to existing single‐family residential development. Furthermore, this portion of the property is proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay which would be able to control the activities that occur on the property. The proposed development also provides a transitional use between the more intensive industrial and commercial development to the north and the less intensive residential development to the south. As discussed above, the more intensive, non‐
residential uses are located closer to Old Country Road, with the less intensive uses oriented toward existing residential development along Round Swamp Road, Cedar Drive East and Beatrice Lane. Furthermore, in accordance with Covenant 4 (see Section 2.3.3.), a 200‐foot‐wide buffer will be maintained between the proposed residences and residential properties on Beatrice Lane and Cedar Drive East. This will provide further transition from the multi‐family residential units on the subject property to the single‐family homes in the neighborhood to the south. Based on the foregoing, the proposed development would conform to the character of the community and serve as a transition from the intensive uses along and to the north of Old Country Road and the recreational and single‐family residential uses to the south. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2.2 and shown in Appendix C of this FEIS, the vegetated buffer along the southern portion of the property has been increased to provide a range of approximately 320 feet and 600 feet between the southern property line and the proposed residences in that area. See Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this FEIS for a more detailed description of the revisions to the proposed action. Comment No. ZLU‐2 Of particular concern is maintaining the character of our community that offers children of the District a treasured suburban quality of life to grow and flourish. The traffic impacts, impacts of the large retail, over‐development of this open space, destruction of natural resources and loss of precious land for recreational facilities for our children and local families, is simply not in the community’s best interest. I don’t believe that this proposal “fits” with the character and feel of the established Plainview‐Old Bethpage Community. (C11 ‐1) (C15 – 1) (C28 – 1) (C57 – 3) (H45‐2) Response No. ZLU‐2: See Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS and Response ZLU‐1 of this FEIS with respect to impacts to community character, Section 4.5 of the DEIS and Section 4.5 of this FEIS with 75 Responses to Substantive Comments respect to traffic impacts, Sections 2.5 and 4.8 of the DEIS and Responses to Comment Nos. S‐7, S‐11, S‐12 and S‐15 of this FEIS with respect to retail impacts, Section 4.7 of the DEIS and Section 4.7.2 of this FEIS with respect to impacts to open space and recreational facilities and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the DEIS and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this FEIS with respect to impacts to natural/ecological resources. Furthermore, as explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, in order to address many of the comments, the site plan has been revised to reduce the density of the residential component of the proposed development, which in turn, has resulted in an increase in open space and recreational area. A comparison of the DEIS and FEIS site plans are included in Section 2.3 of this FEIS and the FEIS Plan is included as Figure 2 and in Appendix C of this FEIS. Comment No. ZLU‐3 I have additional concerns regarding the senior housing. Plainview already has a senior community as well as several assisted living facilities. (C46 – 1) Response ZLU‐3: The comment is noted. However, as explained in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, the population of Long Island is aging. “According to 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census data, the proportion of persons over the age of 65 years in the Old Bethpage Census Designated Place (CDP) increased by 5.7± percent between 1990 and 2010, illustrating an aging of the population in this area of the Town. This 5.7± percent increase is especially significant since the total population of Old Bethpage decreased by 1.6 percent over the same period. The aging of the population in this area of the Town (Plainview‐Old Bethpage), as well as the Town as a whole, is reinforced by data from the Plainview CDP and the Town of Oyster Bay, which show that persons over the age of 65 increased by 4.2 percent and 3.0 percent respectively. Similar to Old Bethpage, Plainview’s overall population was essentially unchanged from 1990 to 2010, and the Town of Oyster Bay’s population only rose by 0.2 percent over the same period. Therefore, the increase in population has been driven, in large part, by the increase in residents over 65 years of age. This upward trend in aging population has also been confirmed by information included in the 2008 Update of the Nassau County Master Plan (see additional discussion in Section 3.4.3 of this DEIS). In addition, according to a 2007 Dowling College Long Island Economic & Social Policy Institute report, “those [persons] between 20 and 59 years of ages will continue to decline by over 77,747 people between now and the year 2025, while those over the age of 65 will increase by 151,584, more than twice the decrease of the of the 20 to 59 year olds...those retired will increase by over 42 percent.” Therefore, this trend of an aging population is expected to continue well into the future.” 76 Responses to Substantive Comments The proposed development will include housing to serve this growing aging population. Comment No. ZLU‐4 All these other developments, they keep comparing them ‐‐ all these other developments they compare it to are not in residential areas. I just feel itʹs going to change the neighborhood. (H63‐2) Response ZLU‐4: It appears that the commentator is referring to the density analysis included in Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS, which states, in pertinent part: “The proposed residential density of Country Pointe at Plainview is 6.8 units per acre (if the 40.11 acres identified as park/recreation area in existing Covenant 5 is eliminated from the calculation, the density would be 9.8 units per acre)… This proposed density is comparable to other multi‐family developments located in the area, which range in density from 6.7 units per acre to 14.6 units per acre…” Furthermore, the subject property is not entirely located within a residential area. There is an industrial park (between Old Country Road and the Long Island Expressway (LIE) South Service Road), as well as commercial uses located north and east of the subject property, and a portion of the property itself is zoned for office use. Among the developments reviewed as part of the residential density analysis that was performed as part of the DEIS are the following:  Knolls at Melville: Located in the Town of Huntington adjacent to the Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay and single‐family development  Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay: Located adjacent to the Knolls at Melville, a park and single‐family development  The Seasons at Massapequa: Surrounded by a park and school to the north and residences to the east, north (beyond the park and school), northeast and northwest  Villa at Nassau: Surrounded to the north, south and southeast by single‐family homes. Accordingly, the developments used for comparison purposes were situated adjacent to other residential uses. Comment No. ZLU‐5 The DEIS cites the Town of Oyster Bays FGOSPP (Final Groundwater and Open Space Protection Plan). The FGOSPP “specifically identifies properties within the 77 Responses to Substantive Comments project study area that offer the greatest prospects from preserving the rapidly diminishing supply of open space resources in the Town and protecting its sole source aquifer and other important resources”. The Plan targets the subject property known as “Plainview Properties Site” as having open space, outdoor recreational, wildlife habitat and natural groundwater recharge protection potential. The proposed development, while implementing certain initiatives to mitigate the environmental/ecological impacts of the development, still will have a substantial impact concerning the objectives of the FGOSPP as it relates to the subject property. (C1 – 26) Response No. ZLU‐5: Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS provides a consistency analysis of the proposed development with the FGOSPP, as reiterated and discussed in Response No. WR‐3, above. The analysis demonstrated that the proposed development analyzed in the DEIS was consistent with the recommendations of the FGOSPP. Furthermore, as noted in Response No. WR‐3, as discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this FEIS, the density of the development has been reduced from that of the DEIS Plan, and, consequently, the open space and recreational areas has increased. Therefore the proposed development would further protect groundwater and ecological resources and increase open space, and, as such, would also be consistent with the recommendations of the FGOSPP. Comment No. ZLU‐6 The 90 unit senior (62 and older) housing development is located to the rear of the shopping center and appears to be “shoe‐horned” between the shopping center and the RMF‐16 development and will be impacted by the shopping center. This is not an ideal location for the following reasons: Vehicular conflicts associated with the senior development and commercial traffic, potential vehicular/pedestrian conflicts; potential noise issues concerning the adjacent shopping center; potential illumination issues relating to shopping center lighting. Please explain why this location was chosen? Also a very small amount of Senior Housing has been proposed and is not be gated. And yet the people who buy the more expensive housing will be gated. (C1 – 7) (C3 – 3) (C3 – 3) (C39 – 10) (C45 – 3) (H54‐5) Response No. ZLU‐6: Based upon the comments received on the DEIS, and as explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the proposed plan has been revised to relocate the senior housing (RSC‐25) to an area along Old Country Road, west of the main entrance to the development, in the area that formerly contained the recharge basin. Access to the RSC‐25 development would be from the internal driveway and not directly from Old Country Road. See Section 2.2 for a more detailed description of the proposed revisions to the site plan. 78 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. ZLU‐7 I would love to see open space there. I believe the density should be vastly reduced ‐‐ I also questioned the way itʹs laid out ‐‐ I know this from Huntington, we have different levels of economic status. Itʹs separating people by their economic status, and to me that is not something I looked at as a positive thing. (H3‐4) Response No. ZLU‐7: As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and indicated in Response No. ZLU‐6, the plan has been revised to relocate the RSC‐25 community to the area along Old Country Road west of the main entrance to the development. The RSC‐25 development has been located in such a way as to allow for the subdivision of this portion of the property from other project components, as this development would be a community comprised of cooperative apartments (co‐ops), unlike the other proposed residential development, which would consist of condominium units. Comment No. ZLU‐8 ShopRite in that area is the wrong place. I donʹt think thatʹs any type out‐of‐the‐box thinking. I think they are putting it there to put it there. Thereʹs other places that ShopRite, if they wanted to expand, they can go north of Old Country Road or something like that. But to put ShopRite in that corner, where you have the LIE or making the left onto Old Country Road is the wrong place for a busy shopping center like that. Use one of the many available industrial spaces within Plainview’s industrial park on the north side of Old Country Road for a large scale ShopRite – so as to reduce the traffic congestion to one single compact area on the south side of Old Country Road (next to a Town Park, Beechwood and a new “Village Main Street”). Reduce the ShopRite from 77,000 sf, which is only appropriate for an isolated industrial area like the one in Commack. Make it exactly like the other thriving ShopRite supermarket in Plainview that is 55,000 sf. It is still a large increase over the existing Morton Village space. By locating the ShopRite across the street, the “Village Main Street” will occupy more acreage and become the retail element within the development. (C3 – 4) (H67‐2) Response No. ZLU‐8 As explained in Section 2.5, Retail Market Conditions, of the DEIS, “ShopRite has indicated that the Morton Village Plaza landlord has advised that there is no additional square footage in the shopping center to lease to ShopRite. Additionally, ShopRite customers continually complain about the inefficiency of the parking layout. For that reason, regardless of whether or not ShopRite moves to the Country Pointe at Plainview site, ShopRite has advised that it plans to leave Morton Village Plaza when its lease expires in the next few years. In other words, whether or not the extant application is approved, the current space occupied by ShopRite 79 Responses to Substantive Comments will be vacated. Thus, the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview would help to ensure that ShopRite will remain in the Plainview area when it leaves Morton Village Plaza.” In addition, “With respect to the specific commercial development proposed to be contained within Country Pointe at Plainview, the proposed anchor store lease is a ground lease with the same ShopRite operator who currently owns and operates the ShopRite in the Morton Village Plaza. The 20‐year lease8 has been signed and is in effect. The lease will allow ShopRite to build a state‐of‐the‐art supermarket at the subject property. The lease is guaranteed by the Cooperative Wakefern Food Corp, which is a credit‐rated national entity. This adds an extra layer of assurance that the tenant will fully construct its building and occupy it for the term of the lease, and minimizes the risk of an incomplete building, vacancy, or the tenant not paying rent. The ground lease has requirements that the tenant construct the building, occupy it, and open and operate it as a ShopRite grocery store. Additionally, since the lease is a ground lease and it is the tenant’s responsibility to build its own building, the risk of the building being built without the tenant ready to occupy is minimized.” As indicated in correspondence dated October 8, 2014 from Jon Greenfield of Shop Rite and President of Food Parade, Inc.: “…the existing Morton Village location is no longer suitable for a ShopRite© store. In order to better serve our customers, Food Parade needs a facility that is large and that has more efficient parking than the Morton Village location. Food Parade has been seeking a suitable new suitable site for quite some time, as the ShopRite© store must be relocated…Food Parade has investigated other areas within Plainview (including north of Old Country Road), and the most desirable, available and suitable site identified is the Country Pointe at Plainview property. In the event that a supermarket is not approved at the Country Pointe property, Food Parade will continue to pursue a relocation site for the ShopRite© store at Morton Village. Given the investigations conducted to date, it is likely that any relocation …would be further from Morton Village than the Country Pointe at Plainview property.” Moreover, access to the commercial development area of the site (including ShopRite) has been designed to maximize accessibility and safety. Several driveways will be provided, one of which will be controlled by a proposed traffic signal, which was approved by the NCDPW (see Appendix J of this FEIS). The traffic signal will be incorporated into the County’s central traffic control system in order to optimize flow along Old Country Road. A left‐turn lane is also proposed at the new traffic signal so that vehicles waiting to turn into the site can do so without blocking the travel lane, thereby maximizing safety for motorists. The signalized left‐turn lane 
8
Extension options could run an additional 28.5 years.
80 Responses to Substantive Comments will also allow motorists wanting to go west on Old Country Road to do so in a controlled manner. Comment No. ZLU9 I would ask that the property ‐‐ the way it is organized, that it be reorganized so that more of the woods is preserved ‐‐ perhaps have a nature preserve in the middle. (H66‐3) Response No. ZLU‐9: As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and as shown in Appendix C, as a result of the comments received on the DEIS, the proposed plan has been modified. Among other things, the density has been reduced, the amount of dedicated land and open space/buffers has been increased from approximately 57 acres in the DEIS Plan to approximately 63 acres in the FEIS Plan, with an additional six acres of open/recreation space within the RMF‐16 development. Under this revised plan, approximately 48 percent of the property will either be dedicated to the Town or retained as open space, buffers or outdoor recreational facilities. Comment No. ZLU‐10 Many seniors are able to walk to the current location of ShopRite and certainly would not be able to in its proposed location. The center is so far away from the senior citizens, they are going to need a bus to get there. (C45 – 1) (H26‐2) Response No. ZLU‐10: As explained in Section 2.5 of the DEIS and in Response No. ZLU‐8 of this FEIS, ShopRite has indicated that it will be moving from its current location in Morton Village, with or without the implementation of the proposed action. Accordingly, it would be further from its current location. The proposed location of the ShopRite within the Country Pointe at Plainview development is located approximately one‐quarter mile from the RSC‐25 development (which, based upon comments received, has been shifted away from its original location, adjacent to the commercial component of the project). The ShopRite is located just over one‐half mile from the furthest residence within Country Pointe. In addition, internal roadways would allow residents from within the residential portions of the community to access the commercial establishments without having to leave the property, should they wish to drive to such facilities. 81 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. ZLU‐11 The application is skewed primarily towards one type of high‐end housing stock that requires numerous variances, establishes unwanted precedent and is financially out of the reach of many of my friends and neighbors. (C14 – 2) Response No. ZLU‐11: The comment is noted. However, as explained in Table 3 in Section 2.4 of the DEIS, and as updated in the chart below, the proposed action includes housing options at varying price points that range from $600,000 to $950,000 for the market‐rate units, with a price of $250,000 for the RSC‐25 units. It should be noted that the reduction in the proposed number of units included on the Revised Site Plan did not result in a change in unit prices. The majority of the market‐rate units (85± percent) are $650,000 or less. A column has been added to reflect the change in the number of units as shown on the FEIS Plan versus the DEIS Plan. All units are proposed to contain two bedrooms. Table 8 – Revised Unit Mix with Proposed Sales Prices
Unit Type
Senior Condominiums
Number of
Units
(DEIS Plan)
414
Number of
Units
(FEIS Plan)
435
Senior Flats
RSC-25 Senior Units
122
90
43
79
Townhouses
Duplexes
Zero Lot Lines
(Detached)
Flats
34
18
4
80
208
Size Range
(SF)
Age Restriction/CostControlled
1,500 –
2,400
1,500
950
Age-Restricted
Anticipated
Sales
Price
$650,000
24
2,950
2,950
2,950
Age-Restricted
Age-Restricted/CostControlled
Non-Age-Restricted
Non-Age-Restricted
Non-Age-Restricted
$600,000
$250,000
$950,000
$875,000
$900,000
131
1,500
Non-Age-Restricted
$600,000
It should also be noted the median home value in Old Bethpage and Plainview were $525,200 and $521,300, respectively, according to the 2010 Census. Also, the median household incomes in Old Bethpage and Plainview were $116,250 and $121,250, respectively, according to the 2010 Census. Comment No. ZLU‐12 As an organization of devoted child advocates and active residents of the community, we look forward to a reasonable plan for our community that requires the least amount of disturbance to forested land, natural habitat, and open space for the former County Land that is consistent with the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Community. As Long Island becomes built up and open spaces such as this 82 Responses to Substantive Comments disappear, the environmental implications can be significant. (C14‐1) (C21 – 1) (C23 – 1) (C22 – 1)(C25 –1) Response ZLU‐12: The comment is noted. As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, in response to the various comments received, the proposed plan has been modified to reduce density (from 890 units to 792 units), and increase the amount of total open space, buffers, and recreation space (from approximately 65 acres to approximately 69 acres). Upon implementation of the revised plan, approximately 44 percent of the site will either be donated to the Town of Oyster Bay or remain in its natural state), and additional four percent of the site would be devoted to open space and outdoor recreational facilities within the RMF‐16 community. Comment No. ZLU‐13 We need a downtown area, not a gated, walled‐off community. To service this community and not compete with local retail, a charming Main Street with small boutique retail, convenience and restaurants could be created offering a destination for all residents to enjoy. The second story should be dedicated to office space that would augment the commercial tax base and provide real worthwhile employment opportunities for our next generation, with office coops for young professionals, space for incubators, technology, research and green energy initiatives. Rather than a typical, common, boring, generic, Long Island retail shopping center, create a “Main Street” with shops, restaurants, small professional offices, storefronts, benches, street parking, lampposts, along a “walkable strip” and then include parking lots behind the quaint buildings, perhaps even a small number of apartments above. (C3‐4) (C9 – 13) (C26 ‐1) Response No. ZLU‐13: The comment is noted. However, the subject property is privately‐owned, and the applicant is not proposing the creation of a new downtown hamlet. In addition, such an option was not identified during the formal, public scoping process that was conducted for this application. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.8(g): (g) All relevant issues should be raised before the issuance of a final written scope. Any agency or person raising issues after that time must provide to the lead agency and project sponsor a written statement that identifies: (1) the nature of the information; (2) the importance and relevance of the information to a potential significant impact; 83 Responses to Substantive Comments (3) the reason(s) why the information was not identified during scoping and why it should be included at this stage of the review. As explained in Response No. P‐3, the DEIS analyzed several different alternatives, including a mixed‐use, smart growth alternative that incorporated various suggestions made by this commentator. Based on the foregoing, and given the mixed‐use alternative that was addressed in the DEIS, the analysis of a different downtown hamlet alterative would not add significant relevant information to the overall impact analysis being conducted by the lead agency. Comment No. ZLU‐14 I am not opposed to the development of the land in question, but instead this crown jewel of open space needs to be developed with a smart growth plan and with future generations in mind. You, the Town Board of Oyster Bay, are the stewards of such plans for our unincorporated village. (C31 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐14: The comment is noted. See Response No. ZLU‐13. Comment No. ZLU‐15 This development will greatly contribute to the urban sprawl. (C32 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐15: As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, the proposed plan has been modified as a result of the comments received on the DEIS, such that it is now less dense and more compact (see Appendix C). The residential density has been decreased (from 890 units to 792 units), the land to be donated to the Town of Oyster Bay remains at 44 acres, and the amount of open space, buffers and outdoor recreational space (including those outdoor spaces within the development areas9) has been increased (from approximately 65 acres to approximately 69 acres). Upon implementation of the revised plan, approximately 44 percent of the site will either be donated to the Town of Oyster Bay or remain in its natural state, and an additional four percent would consist of other open spaces and recreational facilities. 
9
Does not include clubhouse or recreation building.
84 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. ZLU‐16 Include a more significant number and a far better location for a long await golden age. We also need next‐generation housing. (C3 – 4) (C9‐13) (H57‐9) (H65‐2) Response No. ZLU‐16: As part of the proposed plan modification discussed in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, the location of the “golden age” (RSC‐25) housing has been relocated from the east side of the main access (behind the proposed commercial development) to the west side of the proposed main access, along Old Country Road (see Appendix C of this FEIS). The recharge basin that was formerly in this area has been relocated to behind the commercial development (see Appendix C and Response No. WR‐2). The applicant is not proposing next‐generation housing as part of the proposed action. Comment No. ZLU‐17 Whether the ShopRite is bigger or smaller, the total shopping center is the same size as Morton Village. Do we need another one of those right down the road? (H57‐11) Response No. ZLU‐17: As explained in Responses to Comment Nos. ZLU‐8 and ZLU‐10, Appendix H and Section 4.8 of this FEIS, the Shop Rite is going to relocate, despite whether or not this proposed action is implemented. With respect to the need for the proposed retail uses, as explained in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, according to NAI Long Island, based upon the data at the time the DEIS was prepared “the Long Island retail vacancy situation appears to be improving, with positive absorption and decreasing vacancy. The Long Island market also appears to be stronger than the national average.” NAI Long Island reported that that the overall retail vacancy rate of 4.5 percent remained unchanged between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012. A study of the vacancy rates at six area shopping centers was conducted by the applicant as part of the DEIS. These centers included Manetto Hill Plaza (Fairway); Manetto Hill Shopping Center; Washington Avenue Plaza; Crossroads Plaza; Plainview Commons; and Morton Village Plaza. This study found that “none of the individual shopping centers are experiencing significant vacancies.” 85 Responses to Substantive Comments Currently, vacancy rates in the retail sector of Long Island remained at 4.5 percent in second quarter of 2014, unchanged from the time the DEIS was prepared.10 The vacancy rate for eastern Nassau County, in which the subject property is located, has an even lower vacancy rate of 4.0 percent, and a positive net absorption. In addition, the average rental rate of $23.82 per square foot is significantly lower than the overall average of $30.25 per square for the entire Long Island region. Based upon the foregoing, the retail sector has maintained a steady vacancy rate over the last several years. Comment No. ZLU‐18 The over‐development alone does not address the application’s failure to comply with the town’s protective zoning that provides a framework for the Town of Oyster Bay to exercise their due diligence in balancing the needs for targeted housing, business, industry and recreational uses that create the least environmental impacts with a vision towards future generations. We are deeply troubled by the multiple requests for relief from protective zoning and planning and the resulting high density development. (C11 – 2) (C24 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐18: As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, the proposed action has been modified to significantly reduce density, increase the amount of land to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay, and increase the amount of open space. With respect to the proposed residential density, it has been reduced from the initially proposed 6.8 units per acre to 6.1 units per acre, which is well below the 16‐
units per acre and 25 units per acre permitted in the RMF‐16 and RSC‐25 zoning districts, as are proposed. As discussed in Response No. ZLU‐4 of this FEIS: “The proposed residential density of Country Pointe at Plainview is 6.8 units per acre (if the 40.11 acres identified as park/recreation area in existing Covenant 5 is eliminated from the calculation, the density would be 9.8 units per acre)… This proposed density is comparable to other multi‐family developments located in the area, which range in density from 6.7 units per acre to 14.6 units per acre…” More specifically, the densities determined were as follows:  Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay: 6.7 units per acre  The Seasons at Plainview: 14.6 units per acre  The Seasons at Massapequa: 12.6 units per acre  Villa at Nassau: 10 units per acre  Knolls at Melville: 13.9 units per acre. 
10
NAI Long Island 2Q’14 Long Island Market Report.
86 Responses to Substantive Comments Accordingly, the density proposed (6.1 units per acre) conforms to the Town of Oyster Bay’s RMF‐16 and RSC‐25 zoning districts, as well as nearby zoning in the Town of Huntington11 and is below that of various developed properties in the Town. Section 4.4.1 of the DEIS contains a discussion of the proposed variances and waivers required as part of the development of Country Pointe at Plainview and provides justification for same. As indicated in Section 2.3 of this FEIS, based upon the FEIS Plan, one of the previously requested variances (maximum number of units per building in the RMF‐16 zoning district [16 units per building]) has been eliminated, since the largest proposed building now contains 15 units instead of the one building containing 18 units and three buildings containing 36 units as shown in the DEIS Plan. Since eight units per building are permitted (with up to 16 units via a waiver from the Town Board) a waiver, and not a variance, will be requested for the 15‐unit buildings. Comment No. ZLU‐19 The current zoning was wisely enacted to prevent over‐development and should not be changed. The first item listed under preserving our suburban quality of life is protecting neighborhoods from overdevelopment through zoning. (C44 – 4) (H45‐1) Response No. ZLU‐19: See Response Nos. ZLU‐18, ZLU‐20 and ZLU‐28 of this FEIS. Comment No. ZLU‐20 What I am getting is that the fate of this was decided when the County sold the property. (H53‐9) Response No. ZLU‐20: As explained in Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS, Nassau County owned the property up until 1997. Prior to its sale, Nassau County applied to the Town of Oyster Bay Town Board to rezone the property. A DEIS was prepared in May 1995, which analyzed the potential impacts of the rezoning of 116.21 acres of a 147.18‐acre property owned by Nassau County from B Residence (currently “R1‐1A”) to “O‐1” Office (currently “OB”) and E‐3 (currently “RMF‐10”). Subsequent to the May 1995 DEIS and associated August 1996 FEIS, a Findings Statement was adopted by the Town Board in February 1997 that outlined the conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. The final zoning resolution was adopted by the Town Board in March 1997. The resolution granting the change of zone to a portion of the property from Residence “B” to “O‐1” (the remainder of the property remained B Residence [R1‐

11
The Knolls at Melville is located within the Town of Huntington in a Zoning District that permits 14 units per acre.
87 Responses to Substantive Comments 1A]) was subject to restrictive covenants, and the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the Findings Statement. Development in accordance with the prevailing zoning was analyzed in Section 7.2 of the DEIS. While there would be lesser impacts on some elements of the environment if the property was development in accordance with prevailing zoning, some impacts would be greater, particularly now that the scale of the proposed action has been reduced. Also, some of the benefits of the revised proposed action would not be realized if the subject property was development in accordance with prevailing zoning. For example, there would be more traffic in the a.m. peak hour and more impervious surface associated with development under prevailing zoning in comparison to the proposed action. In addition, certain benefits provided by the proposed action would be foregone if the property were developed under prevailing zoning, such as: additional land (above the 40.11 acres required) would not be dedicated to the Town; there would be no contribution to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District, beyond the payment of property taxes; there would be no golden age housing or other housing specifically devoted to seniors; and ShopRite would not relocate to the subject property, and would move with or without the proposed action. Comment No. ZLU‐21 We are deeply troubled that this proposal does not offer a suitable use of this property and are most concerned its high density would impact many of the reasons we choose to raise our families in the suburban Plainview‐Old Bethpage area. The undeniable fact is this proposed extremely dense development far exceeds any potential benefits to our community. (C23 – 2) (C22 – 2) (C25‐2) (C40 ‐1) (C41 – 1) (H45‐2) (C55 – 1) (H3‐3) (H5‐2) (H49‐1) (H67‐1) Response No. ZLU‐21: As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and as a result of the various comments on the DEIS, the proposed plan has been revised. The major revisions include a reduction in density (from 890 units to 792 units), and an increase in the amount of open space, buffers, and outdoor recreational space (from 65± acres to 69± acres). Upon implementation of the revised plan, approximately 44 percent of the site will either be donated to the Town of Oyster Bay or remain in its natural state). In addition, another four percent of the site will be devoted to open space/outdoor recreational facilities within the RMF‐16 community. For a further discussion of the proposed density, see Response Nos. ZLU‐4 and ZLU‐18. The revised proposed action also includes a number of benefits, including additional land dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay for recreational and open space purposes, 88 Responses to Substantive Comments golden age housing, housing specifically devoted to seniors, a monetary contribution to the school district, and the relocated ShopRite. Comment No. ZLU‐22 I do not think that this community needs or can support 890 more housing units. It will increase the housing units available in Old Bethpage by almost 50%. I urge you to work with Beechwood and come up with a compromise which includes much less density. I think thereʹs a reasonable compromise for this property. I think there is a definite need for this ‐‐ a development. I think it needs to be scaled down. Some middle road plan could be best at appeasing both sides and quelling some concerns from residents. (C3 – 4) (C16‐3) (C36 – 1) (C58‐4) (H34‐1) (H53‐5) (H54‐1) (H54‐4) (H55‐3) (H56‐1) (H61‐2) (H64‐1) (H67‐3) (H70‐2) Response No. ZLU‐22: Based upon the comments received on the DEIS, the applicant has significantly reduced the density of the proposed action from 890 units to 792 units. For a full discussion, see Sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Figure 2 and Appendix C of this FEIS. Comment No. ZLU‐23 This must not be done, I have lived here all of my 47 years. It is simply unfair to us, our children and the Old Bethpage community to make this zoning change. There are plenty of areas that are more industrial to accommodate this type of development. I believe one is on the north side of Old Country Road in fact. This would still cause issues with overcrowding in this area and traffic as well but at least it will spare the people in my neighborhood from having this monstrosity attached to our properties directly! (C33 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐23: As previously explained, based upon the comments received on the DEIS, the applicant has significantly reduced the density of the proposed action from 890 units to 792 units. For a full discussion, see Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this FEIS. With respect to the comment that this type of development should be placed in an industrial area, as explained in Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS and in Response No. ZLU‐4, most of the similar developments that were examined are located adjacent to residential and recreational uses. Furthermore, this development is predominantly residential and recreational in nature, as only 16.07 acres of the total 143.25 acres (11.2 percent) are proposed for commercial development. Moreover, this development has been designed as a transition from the existing industrial development (north of Old Country Road) to the single‐family residential development to the south and east. As explained in Section 4.4.2 of the DEIS, 89 Responses to Substantive Comments “The specific uses on the subject property have been configured to provide a transition from the more intense commercial/industrial uses to the north of Old Country Road, to the less intense single‐family homes on the south and east and Trail View Park on the west. The proposed commercial development relates to the uses north of Old Country Road, the multi‐family residences relate to the residences to the south (along Beatrice Lane) and the east (along Round Swamp Road), while the recreational facilities relate to Trail View Park to the west.” Furthermore, the buffer areas located along both Round Swamp Road and in the southeastern portion of the site have been increased (see Figure 2 and Appendix C). Comment No. ZLU‐ 24 I certainly think we should have housing for the senior citizens and housing for the young. But not in this one site. It should be small areas built throughout the community, because every little area should have a place where there is some staggering of house values in that neighborhood. You are not going to have that here. (H49‐4) Response No. ZLU‐24: As explained in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this FEIS, based upon comments received on the DEIS, the proposed plan has been modified. Among other things, the density has been reduced from 890 units to 792 units (which includes 79 units of “golden age” housing). Approximately 70.3 percent of the market‐rate units are proposed to be for seniors of 55 years of age and older. The proposed action has never included next‐
generation units. Comment No. ZLU‐25 I find it hard to believe that any of the legal restrictions and developmental requirements, that were agreed to by Mr. Wang and Nassau County do not apply to this development. (C39 – 4) Response No. ZLU‐25: It appears that the commentator is addressing the request to modify existing covenants and restrictions that run with the land, as set forth in Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS. As explained in that section of the DEIS, the vast majority of the covenants and restrictions related to the specific uses that were approved for that property (predominantly 420,000 square feet of office uses), including but not limited to, required traffic mitigation, including the specific location of access points along Old Country Road, landbanking of parking, the provision of specific buffers and berms associated with the location of the office space, water conservation, etc. 90 Responses to Substantive Comments As further explained Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS, the applicant has requested that the Town Board substitute the inapplicable covenants and restrictions that had been placed upon the property when it was rezoned and sold by Nassau County with new covenants and restrictions that would be specific to the development ultimately approved by the Town Board. Comment No. ZLU‐26 The protective covenants and restrictions that ran with the sale of the land clearly stipulated that upon submittal of any size plan, 40 plus acres must be dedicated to the Town with numerous improvements, at the applicantʹs expense, to give the Town assurances meeting their obligation. This is not donation. This is a requirement ‐‐ community center for one dollar the baseball, softball fields, the electronic score Board, the bleachers. In addition, the Townʹs groundwater and open space planʹs primary recommendation stipulates a minimum of 40 acres should be preserved as public open space in accordance with accessible restrictive covenants governing the previous zoning approval of this site. The preservation of additional acreage of open space should be pursued. Increase the open space from 43 acres to 80 acres – this way an undisputed majority of the 143 acre property is open space, and can be used by the residents. (C3‐4) (H57‐2) (H57‐3) (H66‐1) Response No. ZLU‐26: There is an existing covenant regarding dedication, which states: “That, prior to submission of site plans to the Town’s Planning Advisory Board, the aforementioned park and recreational use, identified as Schedule ʺCʺ12 herein, shall be set aside and dedicated by the Nassau County Legislature for park and recreation purposes.” As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and as shown in Figure 2 and Appendix C, as a result of the comments received on the DEIS, the proposed plan has been modified. Among other things, the amount of open space, buffers, recreation space has been increased from 65± acres to 69± acres. Under this revised plan, over 44 percent of the property will either be dedicated to the Town or retained as publicly‐accessible open space, and another four percent of the property would be devoted to open space and recreational uses within the RMF‐16 community. The Town of Oyster Bay will work with the various stakeholders and the community to determine the appropriate design and use of the fields subsequent to the donation of this land by the Applicant to the Town. In addition, with respect to the community center, as stated in Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS, 
12
Schedule “C” indicates that two parcels were to be dedicated for park and recreational purposes – one of 13.42 acres the other of 26.69 acres, for
a total of 40.11 acres.
91 Responses to Substantive Comments “The Applicant will work with the community to determine the appropriate location for a community center at the time the plan has been finalized. The Applicant will either renovate an existing building or build a new facility. In either case, the Applicant would donate the building to the community.“ Comment No. ZLU‐27 I believe that more than 90 units of the proposed development should be allocated to “affordable” senior housing. Those of us who live in Plainview and want to remain here (I have lived here for over 35 years) may not want to sell our houses and then have to use all of that money, if not more, to move into Country Pointe Plainview. Many of us will be downsizing and will need less. We will want to pay less than the selling price of our home to move into new housing. After all, we will need discretionary income to cover our daily costs of living. Therefore, I would suggest that a minimum of 35% of the units be “affordable” senior housing with 40% being the more desirable number. We need a much larger S‐2/golden age area and more units than are currently planned in a far more respectable location than a retail parking lot. (C3‐4) (C9‐13) (C14 – 2) (C42 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐27: Based upon the FEIS Plan, the amount of RSC‐25 (golden age) housing has remained at approximately 10 percent of the overall number of units proposed. Comment No. ZLU‐28 If you are familiar with the Meadowbrook Pointe development, the density there is twice as dense as what this project will be. So itʹs not as though you are talking about super high density. Youʹre talking about much more open space. (H35‐4) Response No. ZLU‐28: As explained in Response to Comment ZLU‐4, the density of the proposed development (6.1 units per acre), is less than that of similar multifamily development in the area, which range in density from 6.7 to 14.6 units per acre. The Meadowbrook Pointe development, located in East Garden City, has a density of approximately 14.1 units per acre, over two times the density of the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview. As noted in Response No. ZLU‐18, “The proposed residential density of Country Pointe at Plainview is 6.8 units per acre (if the 40.11 acres identified as park/recreation area in existing Covenant 5 is eliminated from the calculation, the density would be 9.8 units per acre)… This proposed density is comparable to other 92 Responses to Substantive Comments multi‐family developments located in the area, which range in density from 6.7 units per acre to 14.6 units per acre…” With respect to the proposed residential density, it has been reduced from the initially proposed 6.8 units per acre to 6.1 units per acre, which is well below the 16‐
units per acre and 25 units per acre permitted in the RMF‐16 and RSC‐25 zoning districts, as are proposed. As indicated in Response No. ZLU‐4 of this FEIS, “The proposed residential density of Country Pointe at Plainview is 6.8 units per acre (if the 40.11 acres identified as park/recreation area in existing Covenant 5 is eliminated from the calculation, the density would be 9.8 units per acre)… This proposed density is comparable to other multi‐family developments located in the area, which range in density from 6.7 units per acre to 14.6 units per acre…” Thus, the FEIS Plan has a density that is below the other similar multi‐family developments in the area and significantly lower than Meadowbrook Pointe. Comment No. ZLU‐29 The property is not owned by the Town of Oyster Bay or Nassau County, and everybody in this room and everybody sitting in front of me, thereʹs not one person who believes that that property is going to stay the same. Itʹs going to change. Itʹs going to definitely, 100 percent going to change into something. I think this is the best thing it can be changed into. (H36‐2) Response No. ZLU‐29: The comment is noted. As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the proposed development has been modified, in response to various comments on the DEIS, to reduce density, increase the amount of acreage to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay and increase open space. Comment No. ZLU‐30 My biggest concern is, what is going to happen to the parcel of land opposite where ShopRite is going to be, the industrial park? If the variance is granted to ShopRite to build what he wants to build, what happens to the future parcel across the street? The parcel of land that is opposite where ShopRite would be built, what prevents a big box retailer, like Home Depot, Walmart, Super Target comes in and with ShopRite having precedence of having a 77,000 square foot building, does it affect the parcel of land across the street? (H54‐2) Response No. ZLU‐30: The approval of ShopRite as part of this proposed action would not affect the parcel of land across the street. Any application for development would require its own 93 Responses to Substantive Comments review and approval process, which includes a Town Board hearing and discretionary approval of a special permit by the Town Board, despite whether the ShopRite is approved on this site or not. Comment No. ZLU‐31 The 14 fields that are currently being utilized between the Long Island Junior Soccer League and the Plainview travel fields should be immediately removed from the calculation towards the 40‐plus acres of preservation. They are already something that we are using. (H57‐4) Response No. ZLU‐31: The comment is noted. However, those fields are privately‐owned and are under lease for use as fields. As indicated in Section 3.7.4 of the DEIS, the lease with the Long Island Junior Soccer League is for a term of 20 years, which will expire in 2018. A copy of the lease agreement is included in Appendix T of the DEIS. Comment No. ZLU‐32 Plainview has one of the lowest commercial tax bases, and would have benefited greatly from real estate commercial development like high tech, green energy and office incubators to attract and retain our next generation, and not contribute further to the brain dead. A box‐size retail store does not belong in a residential community and is not an incentive for your youth to remain in Plainview after earning a bachelorʹs and/or masterʹs degree. It only sets a precedent for the erosion of our suburban communities. We were hopeful for sorely needed Next Generation Housing and professional job opportunities from an Incubator and other business opportunities from an office component on the former County Land. My peers and myself have not excelled in our studies only to be offered the opportunity of low paying retail jobs, especially with a significant lack of variety as ShopRite with their Box Store representing 50% of the employment base in this retail strip. Any commercial development should be limited to office, education, and other uses that attract good professional jobs that our children and the next generation worked so hard to achieve in college earning Bachelors and Masters Degrees. (C9 – 13) (C14 – 2) (C20 – 1) (C30 – 2) (H5‐1) (H57‐8) Response No. ZLU‐32: As explained in Response No. ZLU‐20, the Town Board granted approval to Nassau County for 420,000 square feet of office space in 1997. So, while approximately 46 acres of property along Old Country Road have been zoned for office use for over 17 years, there have been no actual proposals to construct office space at this location. With respect to tax revenues, as explained in Section 4.8.3 of the DEIS, the retail development alone would be expected to generate approximately $1.86 million per 94 Responses to Substantive Comments year in tax revenue, approximately $1.1 million of which would be a net benefit to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. Overall, the revised proposed action (see Section 2.2 of this FEIS) would be expected to generate $18.74 million in annual tax revenue. With respect to jobs to be generated, as explained in Section 4.8.2 of the DEIS, it is expected that the proposed development would generate approximately 500 jobs. According to this section of the DEIS: “Retail jobs at the site would be expected to include a variety of roles such as sales/customer service representatives, financial service providers, cashiers, first‐line supervisors of retail workers, management positions (including property managers), maintenance staff, and recreational employees. Typical residential support jobs would include property and marketing managers, leasing consultants, building maintenance workers and groundskeepers and other maintenance providers. Given the wide range of potential positions that could be expected, anticipated salaries will vary. With the exception of the supermarket, since specific tenants are not known at this time, anticipated salaries and full‐time versus part‐time employment status cannot be estimated at this time. However, in order to provide an indication of the possible range of compensation, median wages for certain related occupations within the Long Island region are presented below:  Sales and Related Occupations: $29,250  First‐Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers: $45,130  First‐Line Supervisors of Non‐Retail Sales Workers: $96,900  Office and Administrative Support Services: $36,160  Business and Financial Operations Occupations: $71,460  Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations: $29,610  First‐Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers: $59,110  Property, Real Estate and Community Association Managers: $100,330” The information contained in the DEIS with respect to jobs and salaries was from the NYS Department of Labor, Labor Statistics – “Occupational Employment Statistics Survey,” found at http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/lswage2.asp#47‐0000. Comment No. ZLU‐33 Retain 2/3 of the site for parks, nature trails, community center and cluster development across the 1/3 balance of the acreage, with an eye towards preserving the natural topography and open space. (C9‐13) Response No. ZLU‐33: As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and as shown in Figure 2 and Appendix C, as a result of the comments received on the DEIS, the proposed plan has been modified. 95 Responses to Substantive Comments Among other things, the amount of open space has been increased from approximately 65 acres to approximately 69 acres. Under this revised plan, over 44 percent of the property will either be dedicated to the Town or retained as open space, and another four percent would be devoted to open space and recreational facilities within the RMF‐16 community. Comment No. ZLU‐34 How many units will be on this acreage? (H65‐1) Response No. ZLU‐34: As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the revised plan includes a total of 792 residential units of which 79 will be “golden age.” Comment No. ZLU‐35 This 143 acre property is for 140 units based on its location and its effect on the community. Build single‐family homes. I would not be opposed to one‐family units on one acres plots, what is wrong with that? One acre plots per family is what we need. it would be in our own best interest to keep the original zoning restriction to one‐acre plots to give the opportunity to people to grow vegetables, store firewood and keep zoned‐for livestock if need be. That would be the smart choice. Overcrowding puts a huge stress on our resources, and if another Sandy rolls around (which I am sure it will) families must have the opportunity to be prepared. (C32 – 2) (C38 – 2) (C49 – 1) Response No. ZLU‐35: As explained in Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS, among others, the current zoning of the property is Office Business (OB) and R1‐1A (single‐family residential on 40,000 square foot minimum lots) ‐‐ the entire property is not residentially zoned. As evaluated in Section 7.2 of the DEIS, under the current zoning, the property could be developed with 420,000 square feet of office space,13 in buildings with a height of three stories, and 45 single‐family homes. Under that development scenario, approximately 40.11 acres of the site would be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay. Comment No. ZLU‐36 I am not entirely opposed to development of the property. However, the project as proposed is way too dense, and the existing infrastructure will not support it. I do not have an objection to developing the property as of right, or even including some additional golden age or next‐generation housing but close to 900 units on property 
13
Shown in two buildings on the alternative plan in Section 7.2 of the DEIS.
96 Responses to Substantive Comments zoned for 45 single family houses will negatively impact our community. Again, I’d be most satisfied with the current plan to remain as is. I say let him build what he is allowed to build but no more than that. Please stick to the original plan of the office building. Cars coming and going from 8 am to 5 pm is predictable and easier to deal with. If you look the way the office building is built, and if it stays the way it is, it will be a lighter development, and there will be less impact on the property if itʹs done this way. I am opposed to it the way it is, because this way ‐‐ the way it is now – protects the property more. (C10 – 1) (C16 – 3) (C35 – 1) (C35 – 3) (H66‐2) Response No. ZLU‐36: As explained in Response to Comment No. ZLU‐35, under the current zoning, the subject property could be developed with 420,000 square feet of office space in two buildings (as depicted on the alternative plan in Section 7.2 of the DEIS), each with a height of three stories, and 45 single‐family homes. Approximately 40.11 acres of the site would be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay. As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, based on comments received on the DEIS, the plan has been modified such that, among other things, the density has been decreased (from 890 units to 792 units), the amount of open space, buffers and recreation areas has been increased (from 65± acres to 69± acres), with 44 acres dedicated to the Town. Comment No. ZLU‐37 If this land is not developed this way [as proposed] a lot of people have a fear that they are going to build office buildings there. We donʹt want the alternative of another office building (H53‐8) (H64‐2) Response No. ZLU‐37: As explained in Response to Comment No. ZLU‐35 and in Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS, among others, under the existing OB and R1‐1A zoning, 420,000 square feet of office space and 45 single‐family residential units could be developed. 97 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.5
Comment No. TP‐1 How much traffic is going to be generated by the athletic fields and when? The Traffic Impact Analysis did not to consider traffic generation from the soccer fields. It is important to note that the relocation of soccer fields along Round Swamp Road to the main soccer fields in the westerly portion of the site (west of the proposed intersection of Newtown Road/Middle Earth Drive) will result in greater usage of the access drive that currently serves these soccer fields. (C1 – 2) Response No. TP‐1 The developer of the project site has committed to a dedication of land within the property to the Town of Oyster Bay. The intention of this dedication is, in part, to allow the Town to replace the soccer fields that are currently utilized by area leagues that exist on the eastern portion of the property and that would be displaced by the development. It should also be noted that there are also several active soccer fields within the portion of the site to be dedicated that are accessed via Old Country Road using the former county offices access roadway. The timeline and scope of the development of the new parkland is not known at this time. If the proposed action is approved, resulting in the recreational parcel being dedicated to the Town, the Town will undertake an extensive public outreach process to obtain wide‐ranging input on the community’s goals and objectives for the use of this land. Once a consensus plan for park development at this location has been arrived at, appropriate environmental investigations, including traffic impact analysis, will be performed, as needed. Comment No. TP‐2 The Site Plan shows a crash gate at the northeast portion of the development at the convergence of Frodo Avenue and Sauron Avenue into a parking/loading area for the proposed supermarket. What purpose does this crash gate serve? (C1 – 3) Response No. TP‐2 The crash gate is intended to provide additional access for emergency vehicles travelling between the retail development and residential area. Transportation and Parking 98 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. TP‐3 The Site Plan shows an unnamed east‐west drive that serves both shopping center and senior citizen development. This will result in the co‐mingling of traffic for both uses. There is the potential traffic conflict between the central parking area for the senior housing development and a strip parking lot that serves a proposed retail building. Those parked in these spaces will be required to exit the parking stall directly onto this road. There is the potential for vehicular conflicts for truck traffic utilizing the loading/unloading areas and requiring dumpster access, shopper traffic, employee traffic and senior housing development traffic. This should be further evaluated. (C1 – 5) Response No. TP‐3 The site plan has been revised to reflect a reduced residential density (792 units) and the relocation of the RSC‐25 senior housing development. Provisions have been incorporated into the design so that drivers can drive back and forth between the residential area and retail development without having to travel on Old Country Road. Comment No. TP‐4 At the easterly end of the senior housing development there is a parking lot that falls within the common area parcel designated for the senior housing units. However, it is not physically separated from the proposed retail building to the east. Will this parking be shared among the senior citizen housing residents/visitors and the shopping center or will it be segregated? (C1 – 6) Response No. TP‐4 As previously indicated, the site plan has been revised. The RSC‐25 senior housing will now not be adjacent to the shopping center. It will be located along Old Country Road, west of the main entrance to the development. Access to this development will be from an internal driveway, not from Old Country Road. Comment No. TP‐5 The convergence of Middle Earth Road, The Shire Drive and Mirkwood Road may be problematic. First, the proposed placement of the stop sign on The Shire away from the its intersection with Mirkwood Road should be reevaluated and consideration should be given to locating a stop sign on The Shire Drive in an eastbound direction at its intersection of Mirkwood Road. The site plan shows no stop sign at this location. Second, consideration should be given to better aligning the intersection of Middle Earth Drive and Mirkwood Road (serving the pool and Recreation Center). Third, consideration should be given to making Mirkwood Road a one‐way road as Mirkwood Road serves an important function providing access to 99 Responses to Substantive Comments the developmentʹs recreation center and pool. This may result in safer and more efficient traffic flow. (C1 – 9) Response No. TP‐5 The proposed site plan for Country Pointe at Plainview has been revised since acceptance of the DEIS (see Section 2.2 and Appendix C of this FEIS). This revision included changes to the geometry of the internal roadway system. These include changes to the intersection noted in the comment. This has resulted in a more conventional intersection and eliminates the issues in the comment. This plan does not show stop signs, as the Revised Site Plan contained in Appendix C does not indicate the details of internal traffic control signage. Comment No.TP‐6 The last traffic counts for the DEIS were taken in February, 2010. Since this time, Canon Corporate Center, consisting of 900,000 square of office space, has become fully operational. Now that hard traffic data is available, consideration should be given to taking new counts at selected intersections that evaluate discrepancies between current traffic data and the estimated trip generation for the Canon Corporate Center used in the DEIS. (C1 – 14) Response No. TP‐6 While Canon was not open at the time the original traffic counts were performed for the DEIS, traffic from the Canon development was considered in the analysis for Country Pointe at Plainview (see Response No. G‐5 of this FEIS and Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS). The DEIS noted that three developments were identified and their respective project reports were reviewed in order to evaluate their potential impacts on traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project. Specifically, with respect to Canon, the DEIS indicated the Canon data, as follows: “The proposed Canon Corporate Center located on the southwest corner of LIE South Service Road and Old Walt Whitman Road, at the immediate next exit to the east on the LIE. From the Traffic Impact Study pertaining to the project, the Canon Corporate Center would consist of 900,000 SF of office space and is likely to generate 1395 trips (entering 1224, exiting 171) during AM Peak hour and 1341 trips (entering 225, exiting 1116) during PM Peak hour. The trip distribution adopted in the project report assigns site generated traffic through LIE South Service Road at Round Swamp Road. Being a pure office development it is unlikely to generate significant traffic on Saturdays. Any Saturday volume due to this development is assumed to be covered by the background growth rate.” However, in order to address the issue of actual traffic from Canon since its opening, traffic counts of entering and exiting traffic at all access points to the Canon Corporate Center were undertaken over the course of several days in March 2014, 100 Responses to Substantive Comments reflecting activity with the property being fully operational under Phase I of the proposed Canon development (696,000 square feet). The data, presented in Appendix D of this FEIS, indicate that the a.m. peak hour site‐generated trips were 985, whereas the DEIS used a projection of 1,395 trips in the analysis. During the p.m. peak hour, the actual trip generation was 911, whereas the DEIS used a projection of 1,341 trips. Thus, the current existing morning peak hour traffic is approximately 71 percent of what was projected, and the current existing afternoon peak hour traffic is approximately 68 percent of what was projected. The recently completed study, Evaluation of Traffic Conditions Related to Canon USA, Melville, NY14 was performed for the Town of Huntington and funded by Canon USA. This post‐development study, which encompassed Phase I of the Canon development (696,000 square feet), evaluated a number of intersections in the vicinity of the Canon site, in order to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures that were put in place for that project. A key excerpt from that study is as follows. Presently, the Canon Building has 1,879 employees (including 275 consultants). According to Canon officials, by 2020 the full employment potential calls for an estimated total of 2,700 employees. This employment level was expected to have already occurred by now, however due to the economic downfall it will take more time (2020). While the trip generation in the Traffic Impact Study for Canon Corporate Center utilized the size of the development in square feet as a basis for traffic generation (as opposed to the number of employees), it should be noted that the percentage occupancy based on employees at the point that the post‐development study was performed (70% of 2,700 total employees) corresponds well to the counted driveway volumes as a percentage of the total in that Traffic Impact Study (71% of the weekday a.m. peak hour and 68% of the weekday p.m. peak hour forecast totals). Furthermore, as noted in the post‐development study prepared for the Town of Huntington, the full employee level at the site is not expected to be reached for a number of years (2020). Comment No. TP‐7 The signals studied on Old Country Road are part an interconnected network. The proposed cycle length changes affect the network. The Traffic Impact Analysis should provide Synchro analysis and signal timing modification plan for all signals on Old Country Road from South Oyster Bay Road to Round Swamp Road. After resubmittal, Nassau County will re‐evaluate the proposed mitigations. (C1 – 15) 
14
Evaluation of Traffic Conditions Related to Canon U.S.A., Melville, NY, September 2014. Greenman-Pederson, Inc. for the Town of Huntington.
101 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐7 The length of Old Country Road noted in the comment includes an additional 12 signalized intersections on Old Country Road not studied in the DEIS; including eight west of the NYS Route 135 Southbound Ramps intersection (the most westerly intersection analyzed as part of the study on Old Country Road). South Oyster Bay Road is approximately 2½ miles west of the western boundary of the site property. In accordance with the adopted scope for the DEIS, the Traffic Study evaluated six signalized intersections on Old Country Road between NYS Route 135 and Round Swamp Road, to a distance of approximately 1½ miles west of the western boundary of the site property. The additional intersections that would be included (based on the comment) were not included in the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board. As an involved agency, the Nassau County Planning Commission received all SEQRA and hearing notices and had the opportunity to request the evaluation of such intersections during the scoping process. Moreover, the DEIS includes a Synchro analysis of all intersections that were included in the Final Scope and that the interconnection of those intersections was reflected in this analysis (see Appendix N of the DEIS). Comment No. TP‐8 Nassau County is currently in the process of redesigning all of its signals on Old Country Road. It is requested that the applicant coordinate any approved mitigations with the Nassau County Traffic Management Center. (C1 – 16) Response No. TP‐8 The applicant will coordinate with the Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW) Nassau County Traffic Management Center during the design phase of the traffic mitigation program. Comment No. TP‐9 Table 17‐ Proposed Mitigation‐ LIE S. Service Road & Round Swamp Road of the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that three lanes exist eastbound. Proposed mitigation indicates the addition of second left‐turn lane. It then states that the new configuration will include five lanes. If three lanes exist and it is proposed that one lane be added then it should indicate four lanes proposed. This should be corrected if erroneous. (C1 – 17) 102 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐9 The Existing Conditions column of Table 17 is incorrect. There are currently four approach lanes eastbound on the LIE South Service Road at Round Swamp Road. The entry should read: Eastbound – One left‐turn lane, one shared left‐turn and through lane, one through lane, and one right‐turn lane Comment No. TP‐10 In Table 18 of the Traffic Impact Analysis there are several instances where the build with mitigation delay is substantially greater (at least 50%) than the no no‐build. Reevaluate those locations with additional mitigation. If no mitigation can be identified or accommodated, the report needs to explain why. Conversely, there are several instances where the build with mitigation delay is substantially less (at least 50%) than the no‐build. The report should explain how this is possible. (C1 – 18) Response No. TP‐10 There are several entries in Table 18 that indicate the delay for a particular intersection movement during a particular time period is expected to be increased by 50 percent or more over the No‐Build Condition, even with the proposed mitigation. In many of these cases, the No‐Build delays are very low and while the percentage increase is at the 50 percent or more level, the actual resulting delay still provides good, and in some instances very good, levels of service. It is also noted that the overall intersection levels of service in these instances are maintained or improved over the No‐Build condition. There are also instances where the level of delay, as noted in the comment, shows a decrease of 50% or more. In these instances, these improvements are due to a physical improvement that is proposed, an adjustment to the signal timing at the location, or a combination of both. Tables 9 through 11, below reproduce portions of the level of service tables from the DEIS that are cited in the comment. Only the intersections, and approaches to those intersections where this 50% change in delay is seen are reproduced in these tables for the weekday a.m., p.m., and Saturday midday peak hour periods. Also included in these tables is a column which includes a ↑ or a ↓ symbol indicating which movement exhibited a change in delay of 50% or more and whether the delay increased or decreased. Also, the tables include a column which provides and explanation for the change in each case. 103 Responses to Substantive Comments Table 9 – No Build, Build Mitigation Comparison – AM Peak Hour
Movements with delay changes exceeding 50%
Build with
Mitigation
No Build
Intersection
LIE North Service Road &
Movement
Lane Group
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
Change
Explanation
Delay
L
9.4
A
23.4
C
↑
T
1.2
A
1.5
A
Represents an increase in level of delay
from a low level to an acceptable level
due to additional traffic and timing
changes to balance intersection
Approach
4.5
A
10.5
B
39.9
D
43.2
D
L
14.0
B
39.8
D
T
4.6
A
5.5
A
Approach
7.1
A
14.3
B
91.3
F
72.9
E
L
61.4
E
46.7
D
T
13.1
B
6.1
A
Approach
22.3
C
14.0
B
30.1
C
24.6
C
NB
Round Swamp Road
Overall
Round Swamp Road
SB
Overall
Old Country Road &
NYS 135 SB Ramp
WB
Overall
104 Responses to Substantive Comments ↑
↑
↑
↓
from a low level to an acceptable level
due to additional traffic and timing
changes to balance intersection. Overall
intersection improved.
Represents an improvement in delay
from a low level to a lower level due to
timing changes after a physical
improvement to balance intersection
Table 10 – No Build, Build Mitigation Comparison – PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Lane
Group
Movement
Build with
Mitigation
No Build
Delay
LOS
Delay
Delay
Change
LOS
L
54.2
D
22.7
C
T
4.9
A
2.4
A
↓
Approach
23.8
C
10.2
B
↓
42.8
D
29.7
C
L
202.2
F
41.9
D
↓
T
176.3
F
73.2
E
↓
R
40.3
D
44.2
D
Approach
162.7
F
57.8
E
↓
NB
Round Swamp Road
Overall
EB
Round Swamp Road
T
93.3
F
41.6
Represents an increase in level of delay due to
additional traffic and timing changes to balance
intersection after physical improvement. Overall
intersection delay improved.
F
Approach
77.2
E
64.3
E
92.5
F
44.2
D
↓
Overall intersection improved
L
19.3
B
37.9
D
↑
Approach
19.3
B
37.9
D
intersection. Overall intersection delay
improved.
19.4
B
15.5
B
LTR
23.6
C
47.4
D
Approach
23.6
C
47.4
D
33.2
C
28.1
C
NB
105 ↑
116.2
Overall
Represents an improvement in to a lower level
due to timing changes after a physical
improvement to balance intersection. Overall
intersection delay improved as well.
D
NB
Round Swamp Road
↓
40.4
Overall
Old Bethpage Road &
Represents an improvement to a lower delay
R
Overall
Round Swamp Road
Represents an improvement to a lower delay
↓
D
NB
Old Country Road &
Explanation
Responses to Substantive Comments ↑
↑
↑
intersection. Overall intersection delay
improved.
Table 10 – No Build, Build Mitigation Comparison – PM Peak Hour – Cont’d
Intersection
Lane
Group
Movement
Build with
Mitigation
No Build
Delay
Change
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
L
44.9
D
59.3
E
T
35.5
D
53.4
D
R
23.0
C
25.0
C
Approach
33.7
C
46.8
D
L
61.3
E
120.1
F
TR
46.8
D
68.4
E
Approach
51.1
D
83.2
F
41.4
D
52.6
D
L
69.5
E
38.1
D
T
2.9
A
5.3
A
Approach
16.4
B
11.6
B
35.2
D
32.2
C
L
128.1
F
63.6
E
↓
T
16.4
B
7.0
A
↓
Approach
42.3
D
20.0
B
↓
51.3
D
38.7
D
↑
Explanation
Represents an increase in level of delay due
to additional traffic and timing changes to
balance intersection.
EB
Old Country Road &
Plainview Road / Manetto
Hill Road
WB
Overall
Old Country Road &
NYS 135 NB Ramp
EB
Overall
Old Country Road &
WB
NYS 135 SB Ramp
Overall
106 Responses to Substantive Comments ↑
Represents an increase in level of delay due
to additional traffic and timing changes to
↑
↑
from a low level to a still low level due to
additional traffic and timing changes to
balance intersection. Overall intersection
delay improved.
Represents an improvement in delay to a
lower level due to timing changes after a
physical improvement to balance
intersection
Table 11 – No Build, Build, Build Mitigation Comparison-Sat Peak Hour
Intersection
Round
Lane
Group
Movement
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
L
12.4
B
20.5
C
T
1.3
A
1.3
A
Approach
6.4
A
10.0
A
17.0
B
18.5
B
L
32.7
C
38.4
D
T
3.7
A
5.7
A
Approach
8.0
A
10.3
B
25.3
C
27.2
C
L
142.4
F
59.3
E
T
10.2
B
5.2
A
Approach
42.6
D
18.3
B
42.7
D
37.0
D
NB
Swamp Road
Overall
Old Country Road &
EB
NYS 135 NB Ramp
Overall
Old Country Road &
NYS 135 SB Ramp
Build with
Mitigation
No Build
WB
Overall
Delay
Change
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
Explanation
Represents an increase in
level of delay from a low level
to an acceptable level due to
additional traffic, physical
improvements and timing
changes to balance
intersection
Represents an increase in
level of delay from a low level
to a low level due to additional
traffic and timing changes to
Represents an improvement in
delay to a lower level due to
timing changes after a physical
improvement to balance
intersection
The proposed mitigation at the intersections of the LIE Service Roads and Round Swamp Road are very good at mitigating a very poor condition that is unrelated to the proposed development during the weekday p.m. peak period but not are as good in the weekday a.m. peak period (although still improved over no‐build). The geometric constraints posed by available rights‐of‐way and the bridge structure preclude further mitigation. Overall, this interchange system will operate better with the proposed development with the mitigation than without. With the geometric changes and changes to approach volumes, the individual approach movements (particularly ones that had low delays) are subject to sometimes large relative changes (up or down) as the traffic signal timing is adjusted to improve the efficiency of the intersection overall. At the intersection of Old County Road and Round Swamp Road, changes to the traffic signal timing are proposed to account for increases in traffic volume due to background growth and the proposed development. The overall intersection delay is improved with these changes, resulting in a more efficient operation. However, this 107 Responses to Substantive Comments change results in an increase in delay on the northbound approach as noted in the table, but to levels that are still considered acceptable (LOS D or better). The intersection of Old Country Road at Plainview Road and Manetto Hill Road is constrained in terms of available right‐of‐way. The proposed mitigation in the form of signal timing is able to maintain the overall level of service to No‐Build levels with increases in traffic volume but does result in these isolated increases in some movement delays when the signal timing is adjusted to improve the efficiency of the intersection overall. The intersections of the NYS Route 135 northbound and southbound ramps with Old Country Road are in close proximity at either end of a bridge. As such, the operation of one is closely dependent on the other and the traffic signal timing is tightly coordinated. Physical capacity improvements on the southbound ramp approach to Old Country Road (an additional approach lane) allows for the traffic signal timing to be adjusted at both locations to effectively utilize the additional capacity. Any increases in delay noted in the tables above at these locations are instance of very low delay increasing to a still‐low delay by a significant percentage but not a significant amount of time. The other changes highlighted are significant decreases in delay that are achieved with the physical improvement and timing changes. Comment No. TP‐11 Traffic Impact Analysis, Pages 41‐42‐ states: ʺThe Nassau County Department of Public Works may consider increasing clearance times involving the protective and permissive left‐turn portion of the signal phasing. Another option would involve protection of the left‐turn phasing.ʺ The Traffic Impact Analysis should present only site‐related impacts and mitigation measures. If this recommendation is related to site‐generated impacts, then it should have been evaluated as part of this Traffic Impact Analysis and any resulting mitigation measures should be required of the developer. If this recommendation is not related to site‐generated issues, then this recommendation should be removed from the Traffic Impact Analysis altogether. (C1 – 19) Response No. TP‐11 This statement is in regard to the analysis of the most recent three‐year accident history. This level of analysis of the accident data was called for in the adopted Final Scope for the DEIS for Country Pointe at Plainview, which required a detailed analysis and discussion of accident statistics in the study area. This requirement is typical for traffic studies performed for developments that are subject to a DEIS. 108 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. TP‐12 Given the magnitude of the proposed development, an evaluation should be made that considers the construction of an eastbound right‐turn pull‐off bay at the siteʹs driveways. (C1 – 20) Response No. TP‐12 The evaluation of the site access points did not include the construction of dedicated right‐turn lanes into the site at the site access points as constructing same would necessitate the removal of a number of large mature trees adjacent to the existing travelled way. This evaluation concluded that the approaches to the site access points would operate with good levels of service without dedicated right‐turn lanes. However, if the County requests that the developer construct these lanes, the developer would do so and would plant suitable replacement trees to compensate for tree removal which would be necessary to accommodate expansion of the roadway pavement width at this location. The construction of these lanes would further improve intersection operation. Comment No. TP‐13 Consideration should be given to providing a bus turnoff area at some point on the south side of Old Country Road in the vicinity of one of the site driveways. (C1 – 21) Response No. TP‐13 The developer will work with the County to establish a bus turn‐out in an appropriate location. Comment No. TP‐14 The existing access drive on Old Country Road just west of the subject property will continue to provide access to the soccer fields. However, this drive will become more active as some soccer fields will be relocated to this area. This may create more traffic conflict with the ever increasing users of the recently completed multi‐use path that parallels the Greenbelt. In addition, the increased traffic as a result of Country Pointe (890 units) and the shopping center (118,500 square feet) may create potential traffic conflicts between vehicles and cyclist, hikers, walkers who use the multi‐use path/Greenbelt. The safety of cyclists, hikers and walkers using the Greenbelt and multi‐ use path should be evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis. (C1 – 22) 109 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐14 While the access drive just west of the subject property (which is not owned or under the control of the applicant) may become more active at some time in the future, the trail crossing at this location is located within the signalized intersection of Old Country Road at the former Nassau County office complex access. In addition, as part of the signalized intersection, the trail crossing is equipped with pedestrian signal equipment. The curb ramps have been recently replaced/improved and the marked crossing has been striped to ten feet in width. The pedestrian signal equipment, when activated by a person wishing to cross Old Country Road, stops vehicular traffic on Old Country Road and provides a protected pedestrian signal phase with adequate time for pedestrians and/or cyclists to cross Old Country Road. In this manner, pedestrians and cyclists can cross the roadway safely under the protection of the traffic signal. The presence of this signalized pedestrian crossing and its positive control of vehicular traffic on Old Country Road, mitigates any issues related to sight distance due to the presence of the bus shelter and trees that are present on the north side of the roadway east of the crossing. This equipment can be activated as frequently as necessary and can accommodate any future increase in persons wishing to cross Old Country Road at this location. Comment No. TP‐15 In Section 5.5 (Transportation Mitigation Measures) of the DEIS, several intersectional capacity improvements are proposed, including LIE/Round Swamp Rd. and Old Country Road/NY‐135) in order for these intersections to achieve current levels of service. What is the estimated cost of these capital improvements? (C1 – 23) Response No. TP‐15 As indicated in Section 5.5 of the DEIS, “At the Round Swamp Road intersections with the LIE North Service Road and South Service Road, the improvements identified will restore the intersection to levels of service that are equal to or better than those that would exist without the development. Consideration was also given to the need for a dual northbound right turn lane at this intersection. However, due to the proximity of the LIE entrance ramp to the Round Swamp Road intersection, the dual right turn could result in unsafe crossing conflicts involving turning vehicles trying to enter the ramp. The cost of the improvements at this location is estimated to be in the range of one million dollars. The Applicant has committed to fully fund the design and construction of these improvements, subject to approval of the NYSDOT, Nassau County and the Town of Huntington. While the LIE Service Roads are maintained by the NYSDOT, Round Swamp Road in this location is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Huntington. NYSDOT has 110 Responses to Substantive Comments jurisdiction over the intersection and has the final authority implement improvements, it will typically give the local jurisdiction the opportunity for input. The intersections of Old Country Road with the NY 135 northbound and southbound exit ramps form a diamond interchange which spans the bridge over NY 135. The analyses performed indicate existing problems related to capacity on this section of Old Country Road due to the constraints imposed by the bridge structure. These problems within the interchange (particularly during the weekday PM peak period) are expected to deteriorate further over time due to normal background growth, with or without the development of Country Pointe at Plainview. The proposed improvement would add a third approach lane on the NY 135 southbound exit ramp approach to Old Country Road. This provides additional capacity and allows a reallocation of green time among the movements at both of the intersections that form the diamond interchange. This improvement will provide intersection levels of service that are equal to or better than those that would exist without the development. The cost of improvements at this location is expected to be in the range of a half million dollars. The developer of Country Pointe at Plainview has committed to fully fund the design and construction of these improvements, subject to approval of the NYSDOT, Nassau County and the Town of Oyster Bay.” Based upon the foregoing, it is expected that the capital improvements would cost approximately $1.5 million with approximately $1.0 million in cost associated with the intersections of Round Swamp Road with the Long Island Expressway North and South service roads and the remaining $0.5 million in cost being associated with the improvements identified at the intersections of the NY135 ramps at Old Country Road. The developer of Country Pointe at Plainview has committed to fully fund the design and construction of these improvements, subject to the approval of the NYSDOT, Nassau County and the Town of Oyster Bay. Comment No. TP‐16 Prior to issuing roadway and traffic permits as part of the 239f process, the developerʹs consultants will be required to submit detailed construction plans, showing the proposed traffic signal operations, pavement markings and signs. (C1 – 24) Response No. TP‐16 The comment is noted. The applicant will provide the required plans to the NCDPW. 111 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. TP‐17 It has gotten more difficult to travel in the area, especially along Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road in the last few years. The traffic has increased, especially with introduction of Canon. The new development will only exacerbate the problem. (C2‐1) (C9‐12) (C10‐2) (C13‐1) (C16‐1) (C19‐1) (C29‐3) (C32‐3) (C35‐2) (C41‐2) (C45‐2) (C50‐1) (H36‐1) (H37‐2) (H61‐1) (H62‐1) (H63‐1) (H68‐1) (H70‐1) Response No. TP‐17 See Response No. TP‐6. Comment No. TP‐18 There is no description of any integration with local mass‐transportation resources; no plans to improve the mass‐transportation to accommodate the new population; and no provision for bicycle lanes, bicycle storage, pedestrian enhancements or electric car recharging facilities. There is a need to seriously consider obvious strategies like mass transit, electric‐support, bicycles and pedestrians, to mitigate transportation impacts. Further there is a need to analyze why the project lacks those elements, and how they would create alternate scenarios that need to be considered. (C6 – 19) Response No. TP‐18 There is a discussion regarding public transportation in Sections 4.5.11 and 4.5.12 of the DEIS. This includes the existence of NICE Bus service in the area of the site as well as projections of resident use of the Long Island Rail Road. As previously noted in Response No. TP‐13, the developer would work with the County to establish a bus turn‐out along Old Country Road in the vicinity of the site. If requested, the developer would provide on‐site facilities, such as bicycle racks, that would assist in encouraging bicycling. Comment No. TP‐19 The building of 2,378 parking spaces (Exec. Summary p xxxix) will obviously require land that could be economized by the building of a parking garage or underground parking, rather than sprawl parking. The saved land could be dedicated to preserved forest. (C6 – 18) Response No. TP‐19 The applicant has designed the project layout with predominantly surface parking (instead of parking garages) in order to maintain a campus‐like setting, consistent with other commercial and residential development in the areas. However, it should be noted that the 29 age‐restricted condominium buildings situated at the central 112 Responses to Substantive Comments portion of the site contain 18 indoor, underbuilding parking stalls each, which results in the relocation of 522 parking stalls from the surface. Comment No. TP‐20 Several years ago the Town commissioned a Traffic Study along Old Country Road and its major intersections due to congestion and daily accidents from South Oyster Bay Road East. It is a nightmare navigating parking lots and getting over the Route 135 Overpass as‐is. The Applicant has admitted they cannot fully mitigate the new traffic that will be associated with this proposal let alone the existing. (C9 – 11) Response No. TP‐20 The development has been designed as a mixed‐use project, and presents opportunities for the residents of the proposed community to shop on the site, thereby minimizing travel on Old Country Road. The proposed site driveway locations have been designed to provide safe and convenient access, including the installation of an additional traffic signal. Furthermore, the applicant has committed to the implementation of a comprehensive traffic mitigation program, outlined in Section 5.5 of the DEIS. Comment No. TP‐21 The right‐turn in and right‐turn out only pattern proposed for the retail area (and the 62 and older housing) will create havoc on the surrounding roads (especially Round Swamp Road), if people abide by this turn restrictions at all. ShopRite’s current location in Morton Village does not allow for left turns onto Old Country Road and has rear exits on both sides of the lot, which allow people to access side streets from which they can turn left onto Old Country Road at lights. Still, there are multiple accidents every year, due to people ignoring the left turn restrictions for their own convenience. What makes the developer think that people are going to abide by the restriction when there are no convenient places to make a left? Can you enforce the right‐turn only regulations? (C10‐3) (C45‐4) (C52‐1) (H53‐4) (H59‐2) (H61‐4) (H62‐3) Response No. TP‐21 The construction of this access point will include a raised channelizing island which will make it difficult for a motorist entering or exiting at this location from doing so by way of a left turn. The restriction will be enhanced by the appropriate signing to reinforce the restriction. Ordinance of the turn restriction will allow law enforcement to enforce what will be a legal turn restriction. Internal guide signs will also be placed at appropriate locations on the site to direct motorists wishing to leave to the west on Old Country Road to the central signalized driveway where left turns are permitted, and those seeking to turn left would benefit from the proposed traffic signal. 113 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. TP‐22 Round Swamp Road has become an alternate truck route. We are concerned that the added traffic combined with the speeding trucks will be a great safety hazard. It is extremely dangerous under current conditions as the speed limit is not enforced. (C12 – 2) Response No. TP‐22 Section 3.5.4 and Appendix N of the DEIS contained a significant discussion of accident experience on roadways in the study area, including Round Swamp Road. The enforcement of speed regulations is a matter for local law enforcement and is outside the purview of the developer. Moreover, the proposed development would not place site‐generated traffic directly onto Round Swamp Road. There are no access points proposed on Round Swamp Road other than a gated emergency vehicle access. Comment No. TP‐23 When there is an accident, the trucks (18 wheelers) and all other vehicles must turn down (right turn) Morrison Drive and then attempt to turn left onto Kingswood Drive. (C12 – 3) Response No. TP‐23 Detour routing by law enforcement and emergency services personnel in the event of a crash will not be impacted by the development. Comment No. TP‐24 The traffic study must be updated to consider the Canon development, as well as other recent developments. The Town of Huntington is now doing a traffic study based upon the Canon development – Country Pointe would exacerbate the situation and should join in with this study. (C12‐1) (C18‐1), (C34‐1) (C39‐1) (C41‐2) (C51‐1) (C54‐1) (C56‐1) (C57‐1) (H3‐1) (H17‐1) (H57‐6) (H58‐1) (H66‐4) (H71‐2) Response No. TP‐24 See Response No. TP‐6, which discusses the Canon development, as well as other recent developments. Comment No. TP‐25 The intersection of Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road has too much traffic, especially during the rush hours. (C13‐2) (H37‐1) 114 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐25 This intersection was included in the traffic analysis, which examined traffic conditions during various peak hours, and it was determined that the proposed mitigation for this intersection, which consists of signal timing changes during the p.m. peak hour, would be appropriate to address future traffic conditions at the location. Comment No. TP‐26 Two office buildings would have the streets congested only during peak hours and remain quiet on the weekends. (C17 – 1) (H35‐2) Response No. TP‐26 The DEIS included the traffic generation associated with alternative uses of the site, including office (see Section 7.0 of the DEIS). The Traffic Impact Study performed as part of the DEIS (see Section 5.5 and Appendix N of the DEIS) identifies significant mitigation at key locations to avoid increased congestion with the development of the site as proposed. Comment No. TP‐27 Old Country Road can’t handle more traffic and there is no room there to make it better. Putting the ShopRite on the corner of Old Country Road in this new development will only lead to numerous accidents and road rage as 1,700 new cars crowd this already crowded road. (C27 – 2) Response No. TP‐27 See Response No. TP‐20. The traffic study considered the traffic projected to be generated by ShopRite as part of the analysis. Furthermore, the site has been developed to provide multiple access points, including turning lanes and a traffic signal to facilitate traffic movements to and from the proposed ShopRite. The easternmost access point along Old Country Road is not on the corner, rather it is located approximately 475 feet west of the center of the intersection. In addition, it is a right‐in/right‐out only access point, which eliminate any left turns that would reduce potential traffic conflicts. Comment No. TP‐28 What’s going to happen to Round Swamp Road? Wouldn’t traffic lights need to be put up for the people who have to get out from Morrison Drive, Locust Road and Woodland Drive. I don’t want my neighborhood to have the need to have traffic lights to leave our homes. (C29 – 1) 115 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐28 The traffic analysis indicates that no additional traffic signals would be necessary along Round Swamp Road. Furthermore, no access (except emergency access) is proposed from the subject property to Round Swamp Road. Comment No. TP‐29 Let’s make sure that we get the developer to make the necessary infrastructure investment to support the traffic that we all know will be worse than it is today. I do understand that the developer had committed two million dollars to traffic lanes. Two million dollars sound like a lot of money, but not for traffic modification that will not alleviate the certain traffic problems that will result and ruin this town. The proposed traffic pattern reconfiguration is only a show of good faith from the developer that will not resolve the certain congestion that will happen. What is the proposed mitigation, I have not heard a plan. Will there be more lights? (C34 – 1) (C56‐2) (H61‐3) Response No. TP‐29 An extensive traffic mitigation plan is proposed as part of the development of Country Pointe at Plainview. This comprehensive mitigation plan was fully explained in Section 5.5 of the DEIS, and is reproduced, in pertinent part, in Section 2.3 and Table 6 of this FEIS. A traffic signal is proposed at the central entrance to the development. See Response No. TP‐41 for a more detailed description of the proposed access points along Old Country Road. Comment No. TP‐30 I do not believe that 615 parking spaces is at all adequate. On top of that, only being able to make a right turn out leaves Plainview residents unable to get back to their homes without cutting through side streets or making u turns. I think we will be trading one dangerous parking lot for another. I would love to have a ShopRite like Commack, but with adequate parking and safe entrances and exits from the lot. I don’t think the parking at the new site would be better than at the existing site. There should be more handicap parking at the ShopRite (C36 – 2) (H53‐10) (H65‐3) Response No. TP‐30 Section 4.5.7 of the DEIS evaluated parking to be provided for all components of the proposal, including the commercial area near Old Country Road where parking would be provided in excess of code requirements. The DEIS concludes that the parking to be provided is more than sufficient to serve the uses proposed. Visitors to the commercial portion of the site near Old Country Road will not be restricted to 116 Responses to Substantive Comments making a right‐turn out only but can make full movements (including lefts to travel westbound) at the proposed signalized center access drive on Old Country Road. There is also an existing signalized access at the westerly portion of the commercial component that would serve both the residential and commercial portions of the development. See Response No. TP‐41 for additional discussion of the proposed traffic signal. Comment No. TP‐31 What is the effect on the two Post Offices in the area (11803 and 11804)? The closest Post Office does not have enough parking without the development being built. (C39 – 6) Response No. TP‐31 Potential impacts to parking at the Post Office and other off‐site locations (with the exception of the train stations) due to the development of Country Pointe at Plainview was not included in the Final Scope for the DEIS that was promulgated by the Town Board. However, there would be clusters of mailboxes located throughout the development where residents would pick up their mail, and where they will go to drop off their mail. Thus, there will be mail delivery and pick‐up facilities throughout the development. Comment No. TP‐32 The Fire Department would have to come down Old Country Road as well or use the single lane Round Swamp Road. (C39 – 3) Response No. TP‐32 The comment is noted. As discussed in Response Nos. P‐3 and EF‐1, the applicant has met with the Fire Department several times and has discussed project access. The applicant will continue to consult with the Fire Department as the site plans are finalized (see Appendix F of this FEIS). Comment No. TP‐33 The study also does not take into effect a New ShopRite would have on traffic heading towards it on Old Country Road and away from it on Round Swamp Road (which is a single lane road) heading away from ShopRite, as it will sit right at the intersection of these two roads. Nor does it take into account that the only public access entrance to the development is also on Old Country Road. (C39 – 2) 117 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐33 See Response Nos. TP‐20 and TP‐27. Comment No. TP‐34 During the evening rush hour, many of the cars leaving the Canon site take Route 110 South to Spagnoli Road and then take Round Swamp Road to the LIE at No. 48. Has an updated environmental study been done that factors in all of the above listed traffic issues. (C39‐1) (C57‐2) (H3‐2) Response No. TP‐34 VHB conducted travel time studies on January 30, 2014 along two routes from the Long Island Expressway at Round Swamp Road to Route 110 at Spagnoli Road to determine whether there was a distinct time advantage between the routes. These travel time studies were performed during the weekday a.m. peak period in the eastbound/southbound direction and during the weekday p.m. peak period in the westbound/northbound direction. One route traveled from just west of Round Swamp Road on the Long Island Expressway to Route 110 south of Spagnoli Road via the LIE, Walt Whitman Road and Route 110. The second route traveled from just west of Round Swamp Road on the LIE to Route 110 south of Spagnoli Road via Round Swamp Road and Spagnoli Road. Each of these routes was traveled simultaneously and timed eastbound and southbound during the a.m. peak period and westbound and northbound during the p.m. peak period so that the times required to traverse each route could be compared. The results of these travel time studies are summarized in Table A contained in Appendix D of this FEIS. Review of Table A indicates that the route that includes the LIE to Walt Whitman Road to Route 110 exhibits a lower travel time than the route that utilizes Round Swamp Road and Bethpage‐Spagnoli Road in almost all cases. This travel time study clearly indicates that there would be no advantage in taking the route noted in the comment (south from Canon to Spagnoli Road to Round Swamp Road to the LIE westbound) during the p.m. peak period, or the reverse during the a.m. peak period. Comment No. TP‐35 The traffic in the mornings at this intersection is a perfect example of how the congestion will only get worse. In addition, within the Old Bethpage Village Restoration, they are building a WWII museum that will soon open. The Race Palace is fighting for future casino rights. No one has addressed what additional impact those venues will have on this intersection. (C56 – 4) 118 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. TP‐35 The traffic analysis included consideration of other planned development projects identified by the Town (see Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS and Response No. G‐5 of this FEIS). Trip generation for uses such as museums are generally associated with leisure or educational activity, and their peak periods of trip generation do not correspond during the week with normal a.m. and p.m. commuter peak such as those analyzed in the DEIS. On weekends, when the museum may experience its peak traffic generation, traffic levels on the surrounding roadways are significantly lower than during the weekday peaks analyzed in the DEIS. Furthermore, the Race Palace is not being considered for future casino use. Comment No. TP‐36 I understand that not everybody leaves their houses at the same time. Itʹs not the houses, itʹs the shopping center where people are going in and out all the time. Thatʹs where the problem is. (H26‐4) Response No. TP‐36 See Response No. TP‐20. Comment No. TP‐37 I see that Round Swamp Road is cut off. I can see the traffic can be improved if there were entrances and exits on Round Swamp. But I understand that thatʹs not what people want. (H26‐5) Response No. TP‐37 The comment is noted. Early in the development of the plans for Country Pointe at Plainview, concerns were expressed that provision of direct access to Round Swamp Road would potentially impact the nearby residential community. The decision was made to limit direct access to the site to the more commercial Old Country Road as a way to address the concerns of residents in the area. It should be noted that there is an emergency access located on Round Swamp Road in the southern portion of the subject property. Comment No. TP‐38 As far as the new shopping center, the way this project is designed, the residents can go directly into the shopping center without going onto Old Country Road. There will not be extra traffic. (H35‐3) 119 Responses to Substantive Comments Response TP‐38 The comment is noted. See Response No. TP‐3. Comment No. TP‐39 They are going to be taking care of Round Swamp Road and Seaford Oyster Bay, but you have multiple intersections starting with Manetto Hill Road and Old Country Road, East Bethpage Road, Newtown Road. There are multiple other roads that do connect from Washington Avenue to Old Country Road. There are other areas that come around the other side. I donʹt see, just by taking care of those two intersections, you are going to mitigate all this traffic that will happen. (H54‐3) Response No. TP‐39 See Response No. TP‐20. Furthermore, the intersections included in the study are those that were identified in the Final Scope, and the traffic impact analysis complies in all respect to the Final Scope requirements. Comment No. TP‐40 Any development would increase traffic. Not concerned with increased traffic on LIE Service Road because it is the northern border of Plainview‐Old Bethpage. Commuter traffic from office buildings would be felt as increased congestion on Old Country Road, but traffic from residential portion of proposed development would be spread out at random times. Moving the ShopRite eastward could spread out traffic over a few more miles of a commercially developed roadway. Happy with no entrance onto the more residential Round Swamp Road (C58‐1) Response No. TP‐40 The comment is noted. Comment No. TP‐41 Strongly disagree with right‐turn‐only and no planned traffic light for the ShopRite section, since most of Plainview is west of the site. There should be three traffic lights and a left‐turn lane added along Old Country Road in both directions (C58‐2) Response No. TP‐41 As indicated in Section 2.4 of the DEIS, “Access to both the retail and residential portions of the development would be from three access points on Old Country Road, while access to the parkland would be from the existing driveway located on Old Country Road at the westernmost portion of 120 Responses to Substantive Comments the subject property. Of the three access driveways proposed, the Old Country Road at Newtown Road access is currently signalized, while a traffic signal is proposed for installation at Old Country Road/Mergenthaler Drive. A right‐in‐right‐out‐only driveway is proposed near Amfesco Drive.” Based upon the foregoing, there would be two traffic signals along the Old Country Road frontage in the vicinity of the proposed development, as there is one existing traffic signal (at Newtown Road) and the site plan includes a proposed traffic signal and left‐turn lane at the central driveway for the commercial development (Old Country Road/Mergenthaler Drive). As noted in Section 4.5.5 of the DEIS, “A Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis was performed for the proposed central site access. This warrant analysis was performed following criteria presented in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and concluded that a traffic signal is warranted at this location. The warrant analysis was submitted to the NCDPW. NCDPW has reviewed the analysis and concurred that the installation of a new traffic signal is warranted at this location with the development of Country Pointe at Plainview.” This driveway configuration and the new signal would facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow into and out of the subject property, and would allow for a signalized left‐turn out of the development for vehicles traveling west of the site (see Response to Comment No. ZLU‐8 and Appendix J regarding NCDPW concurrence regarding the installation of the new signal). Comment No. TP‐42 Itʹs a 40‐mile‐per‐hour speed limit on Old Country Road with people that come off the highway, but everyone is driving like at least 50 there. Maybe this should be modified to a 30‐miles‐per‐hour speed limit with two lanes. (H60‐2) Response No. TP‐42 The speed limit on Old Country Road is set by the Town of Oyster Bay through town ordinance and is currently set at 40 miles per hour within the study limits. Any modification of the current speed limit would require action by the town and would involve the performance of a detailed engineering study. This engineering study would evaluate a number of factors (e.g., average travel speeds, 85th percentile speeds, roadway geometry, roadside development, etc.). Based on the nature of the roadway, including four travel lanes and a median (which transitions to a left‐turn lane at some intersections), it is unlikely that any such study would support a reduction I the proposed speed limit. In addition, given the traffic volumes on Old Country Road, a modification of the roadway to two travel lanes as suggested in the comment would not be appropriate for capacity reasons. A two‐lane roadway would result in significant increases in congestion. 121 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. TP‐43 One way to mitigate some traffic is for the developer to take some of his own property and make an ingress ‐‐ a whole lane of ingress on his own property to get the cars off Old Country Road. (H62‐2) Response No. TP‐43 While the evaluation of the site access drives in the DEIS did not include dedicated right‐turn lanes adjacent to the site, should the County request the construction of these lanes, the developer will do so. The construction of these lanes will further improve intersection operation. See Response No. TP‐12. Comment No. TP‐44 Upon the review of the DEIS for Country Pointe, there is little to no mention regarding the effects of this project on Trail View’s pedestrian traffic and any mitigation of risk for Trail View State Park users. That means the Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing at Old Country Road will have thousands of users attempting to cross Old Country Road on foot or bicycle on a weekly basis. The Paved Path is new and expected to open officially in the near future and its usage will also be fueled additionally by the new residents of the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview Project. Has the State of New York done a study concerning the possible effect on the Bike Path that is just built with regard to the increase in traffic once the development is built? What about possible safety issues? (C38 – 1) (C39 – 8) Response No. TP‐44 Section 4.5 and Appendix N of the DEIS evaluated traffic conditions at the intersection in question and found the development of the site as proposed would not have a significant effect on traffic conditions at that location. It is also noted that the trail crossing at this location, immediately west of the former Nassau County offices access, is traffic signal‐controlled and is equipped with pedestrian signal equipment. This equipment, when activated by a person wishing to cross Old Country Road, stops vehicular traffic on Old Country Road and provides a protected pedestrian signal phase with adequate time for crossing Old Country Road for pedestrians and cyclists. In this manner, pedestrians and cyclists can cross the roadway safely under the protection of the traffic signal. This signalized pedestrian/bicycle crossing will accommodate increases in the volume of trail users crossing Old Country Road. The applicant is unaware of any study performed by New York State or others regarding this path. 122 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.6
Air Quality and Noise Comment No. AQ‐1 The DEIS should, when quantifying the impact on GHG’s, integrate the loss of the mitigation services of the woods and grasslands, and come up with a net GHG impact (see e.g. page 403 – GHG; p 374 long‐term impact of ecology). (C6 – 1) Response No. AQ‐1: The greenhouse gas assessment contained in Section 10.3 of the DEIS is comprehensive and complies in all respects to the requirements of the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board. The analysis presented in Section 10.3 is consistent with the NYSDEC Policy for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emission in Environmental Impact Statements issued in 2009. The NYSDEC GHG Policy Section B notes that the scoping process should be used to identify analysis and quantification needs when potential deforestation or devegetation impacts have been determined to be significant for a particular project. The analysis in the DEIS evaluated the potential change in GHG emissions (both stationary and mobile sources) from the proposed project, and the Applicant is committed to incorporating energy saving measures in the proposed development design to reduce future GHG emissions, including: Installation of wind and draft barriers in required locations. Additional R‐11 insulation wrapped around the basement perimeter, hanging from the sill plate four feel down, with the exception of the common wall.15 Additional air sealing between the floors and along the exterior perimeters of homes. Spray foam insulation in appropriate locations to prevent air leakage and heat loss. Blown fiberglass insulation in the attic areas, as required, meeting the R‐38 value. Installation of EnergyStar compliant windows and doors. Installation of EnergyStar compliant appliances. Engineered installation of energy efficient HVAC system(s) and ventilation system(s) (exhaust fan).Caulking and sealing of top plates on all floors to eliminate air gaps prior to sheet rock installation to better prevent air loss. Use of energy efficient light bulbs in all fixtures. Implementation of infiltration tests. Seams of all exterior house wraps would be taped and additional sealant/tape would be used at all windows and doors. Exhaust fans would be provided to ensure proper exchange of all interior air. Spray foam would be installed around all electrical boxes. 
15
This measure replaces insulation in the basement ceiling and is applicable only to foundations with basements.
123 Responses to Substantive Comments Programmable thermostats would be installed. Split zone HVAC(s) would be installed to better control usage of heat and air conditioning. Energy efficient hot water heaters and furnaces would be installed. Compared to the No‐Build Condition (not accounting for the minimal existing stationary source GHG emissions), implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 12,746.4 tpy in GHG emissions. This represents 0.03± percent of the total GHG emissions generated by Long Island, according to International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the worldʹs leading association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development. Comment No. AQ‐2 Obviously being so close to the construction, we have a great concern regarding the noise pollution and the air pollution that would directly affect our neighborhood. Are they bonded and do they have high limits to protect the nearby homes from residual damage that could occur with a project this large? (C12 – 5) Response No. AQ‐2: Air quality in the study area would not be substantially affected by project construction because of the temporary nature of the construction activities and the confines of the construction area. Emissions from the operation of construction machinery and vehicles are short‐term and not expected to be significant. To further reduce these emissions, the applicant is committed to implementing the following mitigation measures during the construction phase, as explained in Sections 4.6 and 5.6 of the DEIS:  The Applicant will ensure that diesel construction equipment used on‐site will contain the appropriate after‐engine emission controls and ensure that these controls have not been removed from such construction equipment.  Fugitive dust emissions will be mitigated by wetting and stabilizing soils to suppress dust generation. Other dust suppression methods would include the spraying of soil stockpiles during dry periods and covering trucks carrying solid and other dry materials. Also, as explained in Sections 4.6 and 5.6 of the DEIS, construction activities may result in temporarily increases of nearby sound levels due to the intermittent use of heavy machinery during the construction of the proposed project. Measures to mitigate potential noise impacts during construction will be implemented as follows:  Construction equipment would be required to have installed and properly operating appropriate noise muffler systems. 124 Responses to Substantive Comments  Construction activities would be performed at the times permitted by the Town of Oyster Bay, in accordance with the noise ordinance. Furthermore, with respect to construction, engineering inspections of the site would be conducted during the construction period to ensure that development is occurring in conformance with the filed plans and to ensure that no significant impacts to the site and neighboring properties and roads are occurring. In addition, the public improvements (e.g., roads, curbs, drainage facilities and street lights) would be bonded. Comment No. AQ‐3 When trees die, people die. The air becomes polluted, cancer, emphysema, COPD, they all increase. 890 units mean at least 890 cars back in the road. Itʹs going to add even more pollution to our environment and with it, the illnesses, the cancers, everything else. Also the Town has an ordinance about tree removal. You canʹt remove a tree unless itʹs dead, without the Townʹs approval. Here we have hundreds and hundreds of trees that are going to be wiped away. The trees that clean the air from the Long Island Expressway, the Northern State Parkway. Trees absorb carbon emissions and cutting down hundreds of trees on this property could potentially increase air pollution which could contribute to a myriad of human health problems. The pollution during rush hour is unbearable from all the cars, he cannot even go outside his house during rush hour. This development will make the air quality even worse. (C13‐5) (C21 – 3) (C44 – 2) (C50‐2) (H30‐1) Response No. AQ‐3 The DEIS (Section,4.6) included an air quality analysis for the proposed development following procedures from the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) consisting of a microscale analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM), a regional assessment of the greenhouse gas impacts, a local assessment of the stationary source impacts, as well as a qualitative assessment of air toxics. The air quality study demonstrates that the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview development conforms to the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP). The microscale (local) analysis evaluated site‐specific impacts from vehicles traveling through congested intersections in the study area. This analysis demonstrates that all existing and future CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations are below the national standards (NAAQS). Additionally the PM10 and PM2.5 air quality results demonstrate that the increases in PM concentrations due to the proposed development do not meet or exceed the NYSDOT potential significant impact thresholds. The air quality study demonstrates that the Country Pointe at Plainview development conforms to the CAAA and the SIP because: 125 Responses to Substantive Comments No violation of the NAAQS would be expected to be created. No increase in the frequency or severity of any existing violations (none of which are related to this development) would be anticipated to occur. No delay in attainment of any NAAQS would be expected to result due to the implementation of the proposed action. Based upon the analysis and the conclusions summarized above, no significant adverse air quality impacts from the proposed development are anticipated. It should also be noted that, as a result of the comments on the DEIS, among other things, the density of the project has been reduced (see Section 2.0 of this FEIS). Accordingly, it is expected that the air quality impacts would be even less than those evaluated in the DEIS. Comment No. AQ‐4 The promise that the project will “only” increase the Long Island CO2 emissions by 13,000 tons per year (26 million pounds) or approximately 0.03% (p 409) is hardly heartening and reflects the lack of any conscientious mitigation of transportation (or other) energy usage. A project of this magnitude should be decreasing GHG emissions – because that is the public policy imperative as defined by the United Nations and leading scientists. In fact as LI will bear the brunt of climate change impacts, LI should be most aggressively trying to fight the crisis – not add to it by “only” 0.03%. (C6 – 20) Response No. AQ‐4 The analysis presented in Section 10.3 is consistent with the NYSDEC Policy for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emission in Environmental Impact Statements issued in 2009. The analysis evaluated the potential change in GHG emissions (both stationary and mobile sources) from the proposed project, and the Applicant is committed to incorporating energy saving measures in the proposed development design to reduce future GHG emissions, as explained in Section 10.3 of the DEIS. Compared to the No Build Condition (not accounting for the minimal existing stationary source GHG emissions), implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 12,746.4 tpy in GHG emissions. This represents 0.03± percent of the total GHG emissions generated by Long Island, according to ICLEI. Further, the Applicant will incorporate additional energy‐efficient measures into the project design, as outlined in Section 10.3 of the DEIS which are expected to reduce 126 Responses to Substantive Comments GHG emissions on the order of 10 to 20 percent above the New York State Building and Energy Code requirements. It should also be noted that as a result of the comments on the DEIS, among other things, the density of the project has been reduced (see Section 2.0 of this FEIS). Accordingly, it is expected that the GHG emissions would be even lower than those predicted in the DEIS. Comment No. AQ‐5 As noted previously the GHG impact also fails to take note of the net decrease in CO2 mitigation due to the deforestation planned, as well as the heat‐island effect of the non‐mitigated blacktops and roofs, so the net CO2 impact is actually surely higher than stated – and should be further mitigated. (C6 – 21) Response No. AQ‐5 See Responses to Comment Nos. AQ‐1 and AQ‐4. The Applicant’s commitment to sustainable design and emissions reduction measures through the implementation of the measures outlined in Section 10.3 of the DEIS will be finalized at the time of actual building design, to achieve energy efficient buildings. The Energy Star Code requires that the “… said dwelling will consume considerably less energy than if constructed under prevailing building standards.” It is anticipated that this reduction in energy, in part, will be accomplished by implementation of mitigation measures in the core and shell of the building. The incorporation of energy‐efficient measures into the project design, as outlined in Section 10.3 of the DEIS, is expected reduce GHG emissions on the order of 10 to 20 percent as compared to the New York State building and energy code requirements. 127 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.7
Community Facilities and Services 4.7.1
Educational Facilities/School‐Aged Children Comment No. EF‐1 Will this be in the Plainview‐Old Bethpage school district, The Town of Oyster Bay or Nassau County? (C5 – 4) Response No. EF‐1 The subject property is situated within the boundaries of the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District, which is situated in the Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County. Comment No. EF‐ 2 The School District, which will have additional school population because of the development, seems to be exempt from the scrutiny by the Town Board. This seems unfair since additional school population emanating from this development will lead to additional cost to the School District. Will the development be financially self‐
supporting with respect to school children? (C5 – 6) Response No. EF‐2 As explained in Section 4.7.1 of the DEIS, and noted in Response to Comment No. P‐3 of this FEIS, the POBCSD has been consulted throughout this SEQRA process. As noted in that response, correspondence was begun with the POBCSD in July 2012. Additional correspondence was sent to the School District in August 2012. Moreover, the Applicant met with the POBCSD Superintendent of Business and the attorney for the School District on April 4, 2011 and with the School Board on June 6, 2011. An agreement for a voluntary payment of $6.0 million was reached with the School District as of October 10, 2013 (see Appendix F of this FEIS). The contribution would be paid in three equal installments of $2.0 million, as more fully described in the Agreement in Appendix F of this FEIS. Although the number of market rate, non‐age‐restricted units has decreased since the time of the Agreement, the contribution will remain at $6.0 million. In addition, even though the density of the proposed action has been reduced, the school district will still receive significant annual tax revenue ‐‐ $11.99± at full build‐
out (as explained in Section 2.3 of this FEIS) – which will exceed the annual cost of educating the projected 36 ‐ 50 school‐aged children that would be expected from the modified development proposal, by over $10 million, annually. 128 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. EF‐3 Upon opening, the Hamlet yielded nearly 110 students. Country Pointe, is offering 264 open market units, some as large as 3,000 square feet with additional variances and only projecting 34‐50 children? There is no guarantee that the new residents won’t bring in 150 new students instead of the 29 or so projected. It seems to me that 150 new students is far more realistic of a number. I know people in their 40s having babies. What happens to the people in their 50s and 60s and the husband or the son or the daughter divorced and they move in with their kids, and gets they are going to be living there also? (C9 – 5) (C10‐44) (C15‐2) (C27‐1) (C35 – 4) (C37 – 2) (H57‐7) (H70‐4) Response No. EF‐3 With respect to The Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay, the previous applicant for development of the subject property undertook a review of potential school‐aged children. According to the “Old Plainview Draft Environmental Impact Statement” dated October 2006: “The school district was particularly concerned about the number of school‐age children that would be generated by “Old Plainview”... To address their concerns and to derive a realistic figure concerning the number of school‐age children likely to be generated, it was decided to undertake a joint research effort involving Dr. Pearl M. Kamer, consultant to “Old Plainview” and Howard G. Pollitt of the Plainview‐
Old Bethpage CSD and its consultant, H2M Corporation. Mr. Pollitt volunteered to obtain data regarding the number of school‐age children generated by The Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay. This development was chosen because its demographics are relatively similar to the expected demographics for “Old Plainview.” Their findings are shown in Table 35. The 370 residential dwelling units at The Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay generated seventy‐eight students (see Table 35). This is equivalent to a ratio of 0.21 per housing unit. 129 Responses to Substantive Comments Table 35 - Enrollments by Grade Level, The Hamlet at Olde Oyster Bay
Type of Housing Unit
Number
Current Enrollment
Number
Villas (Apartments)
160
Kindergarten
7
Townhouses
72
Grades 1-4
20
Single Houses
138
Grades 5-8
32
Total
370
High School
19
Total
78
Enrollment Per Housing Unit
0.21
Source: Research performed by Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District Since independent research by Dr. Kamer had developed a similar ratio, the parties decided that a ratio of 0.21 would be applied to all of the proposed 659 residential dwelling units at “Old Plainview.” This resulted in additional K through 12 enrollments of 138 students within the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. Both the school district and the applicant of “Old Plainview” agreed to this number.” Thus, based upon the research performed by the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District, the 370 units at The Hamlet yielded 78 school‐aged children with the breakdown shown in Table 35 of the October 2006 DEIS (see above). Furthermore, the 0.21 ratio was agreed to by the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. With respect to the extant proposed project, as explained in Section 4.7.1 of the DEIS and Response No. P‐3, the POBCSD has been consulted throughout the SEQRA process for this application. As set forth in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, the revised proposed plan includes a reduction in density from 890 to 792 units ( a total of 478 units will be for persons 55 years of age and older, and 79 units will be “golden age” for persons 62 years and older). As noted in Section 2.4 of the DEIS, the market‐rate, age‐restricted units “…must be occupied by at least one person who shall have attained the age of 55 years or older (Senior). Other permitted occupants would be the spouse of said senior, the children or grandchildren of such Senior or of the spouse of said Senior, provided that each child has attained the age of 19 years, or adults under 55 years of age whose presence is essential for the physical care of such senior.” Thus, no person under the age of 19 can permanently occupy the units that have been designated as age‐restricted. Based on the FEIS Plan, the number of school aged children expected is range between 36 (reflecting the Rutgers Study ratio described in the current DEIS) and 50 (reflecting the 0.21 ratio agreed to by the school district in the October 2006 DEIS, as 130 Responses to Substantive Comments explained above). The anticipated annual school taxes to be generated will be approximately $11.99 million, and over $10 million will be the net annual revenue over expenses to the school district. Comment No. EF‐4 What about the impact to our school district? Class size has continued to increase over the years. Again, we are at our limits. I believe this will have more school overcrowding. There is no discussion of any new school to be built and if it is, who is going to pay for it? (C13 – 3) (C15 – 2) (C29‐4) (C37 – 2) (C46 – 2) (C57 – 4) Response No. EF‐4 As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS that the proposed plan has been modified to reduce the overall number of units within the proposed development from 890 to 792, (including the reduction of non‐age‐restricted units from 264 to 235. Thus, the projected number of school‐aged children has been reduced from a range of 38 to 56 associated with the initial proposed plan to a range of 36 to 50 for the current proposed plan. In addition, the annual net revenue over expenses to the school district is projected at over $10 million, annually. Furthermore, even though the residential density has been reduced, the applicant is still proposing a donation to the school district of $6.0 million. Accordingly, the donation and excess annual revenue over expenses generated by this development can be used, as deemed appropriate by the school district, to address its needs. Comment No. EF‐ 5 Another area of contention is the money that Beechwood “gave”/”donated” to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. I would also like to understand the terms of the $6M agreement with the developer and the Plainview/Old Bethpage school district. Is a copy of the agreement available to the public? Is that going to offset the taxes that current Plainview residents pay, or is that additional money thrown into the school budget? (C16 – 4) (C27‐1) (H53‐7) (H57‐7) Response No. EF‐5 See Response No. EF‐4. The property taxes paid to the school district are expected to be approximately $11.99 million, annually, based upon current tax rates and assessed values. In addition, as noted in Response Nos. EF‐2 and EF‐4, an agreement for a voluntary payment of $6.0 million was reached with the School District as of October 10, 2013 (see Appendix F of this FEIS). 131 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. EF‐6 Was an updated study done to determine the effect on the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District? There is only one elementary school in that part of the district and that is on Round Swamp Road. Any children living in the development would have to be bused to that school as well as the middle and high school. This could lead to an increase in the cost of transportation for the district. (C39 – 5) (C51 – 2) (H34‐4) (H70‐1) Response No. EF‐6 Sections 3.7.1 and 4.7.1 of the DEIS provided information on the school district, including projections of school aged children from the originally proposed development. Section 2.0 of this FEIS as well as Response Nos. EF‐3 and EF‐4 provide updated information relative to the modified proposed action (i.e., reduced density). Comment No. EF‐7 Seniors tend to vote against school budgets, adding more seniors may impact the results of budget votes. Once again we are a small town and every vote counts. I would be saddened to see our schools impacted by this development. (C46 – 2) Response No. EF‐7 The comment is noted. It is also noteworthy that the Country Pointe at Plainview VIP database of 3,358 persons includes 772 residents of the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. Thus, 23 percent of the persons on the VIP list, who have expressed an interest in Country Pointe at Plainview, already reside within the School District. Additionally, in the 2008‐2012 American Community Survey estimate, approximately 30.6 percent of the people within the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District (8,800±) were seniors (55 and over).16 Moreover, based on information from newsday.com17 only 2,014 district residents (approximately nine percent of those aged 18 years and older) voted in 2014‐15 budget vote, and the budget passed with 72 percent of voters in favor. Based on the foregoing data, it is not expected that all of the future residents of Country Pointe at Plainview would be new residents in the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District. Furthermore, only a small number of residents voted in the 2014‐15 budget vote. Moreover, only 30.6 percent of School District residents are 55 years of age or over. Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely that the senior residents of the proposed 
American FactFinder: DP05 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates – 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for the
Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District.
17 http://schools.newsday.com/long-island/districts/plainview-old-bethpage/
16
132 Responses to Substantive Comments Country Pointe at Plainview would significantly affect the outcome of school district budget votes. Comment No. EF‐8 With all these older people in Plainview who plan to leave their homes and move into the development, the houses they leave will become empty. They will then be for sale. Who is going to move into them? Not more old people, young people. Those young people are all going to have children, two‐year‐olds, three‐year‐olds. We are going to have more children going into all the different schools, elementary, middle school and high school. (H34‐3) (H54‐6) Response No. EF‐8 As demonstrated in Section 3.7.1 of the DEIS, enrollment in the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District has been declining.  2007‐08: 5,097  2008‐09: 5,088  2009‐10: 5,097  2010‐11: 4,960  2011‐12: 4,898*  2012‐13: 4,856* *Added since preparation of DEIS (March 2013). From www.nysed.org Thus, if the commentators’ statements are correct, the District has previously accommodated a greater number of students than currently enrolled. Moreover, as explained in Sections 3.7.1, 4.7.1 and 5.7 of the DEIS and in Response No. P‐3, the school district was consulted throughout the SEQRA process for this application. In addition, the school district negotiated a payment of $6.0 million (above and beyond the annual tax payments) from the applicant to address various school district needs (see Appendix F). As explained in Section 4.71 of the DEIS, Section 2.3 of this FEIS and Response Nos. EF‐3 and EF‐4 the proposed development will generate an annual excess of revenue over expenses to the school district of over $10 million, annually, which could help offset other school district costs (unrelated to this development). 133 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.7.2
Recreation/Parkland Comment No. RP‐1 The Country Pointe Site Plan did not include a site plan for the proposed soccer fields, a parking plan for the soccer fields or access plan for the parking lots for the soccer fields. The plans only showed a contiguous area of green representing 43+ acres to be set‐aside for fields for our POB League play. Before we collaborate on any final layout for the fields, we would have meet with our board members along with our membership and discuss what they would like to be developed, and still would not have entered any agreement before encouraging our parents to attend the Hearing and learning for themselves. What is the Town’s actual plans for the 43 acres it will be given? What will happen to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Soccer Club’s travel fields and LIJSL’s soccer fields? (C1 – 1) (C4 – 1) (C39 – 9) Response No. RP‐1 The applicant will not be developing the fields nor determining the use of the fields. As part of the proposed action, 44 acres of the subject property (which includes existing recreational fields as well as the undeveloped corner of the property at the intersection of Round Swamp Road and Old Country Road) will be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay. The Town of Oyster Bay will then work with the interested parties and the community to determine the best use of the property. Comment No. RP‐ 2 The Site Plan shows a walking trail along the easterly property line that is outside of the proposed wall. It does not appear that this section of walking trail is conveniently accessible to the residents of the development as no breaks in the wall were noted. Are there breaks in the wall to provide pedestrian accessibility to the walking trail? (C1 – 8) Response No. RP‐2 As indicated on the DEIS Plan contained in Appendix C of the DEIS, as well as the FEIS Plan (see Appendix C of this FEIS), the walking trail is available and accessible to the public, as well as the residents of the development. However, for security reasons there are no intended breaks in the wall. If a resident wants to use the trail, he/she would have to enter it at the front of the site. If requested by the Town, the applicant could have a locked card‐keyed gate situated in specific locations within the residential community, to be established at a later date. 134 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. RP‐3 It appears that the gated residential portion of the site (130‐acres) includes a limited amount passive open space for the benefit of the residents. Ponds aside, much of this acreage is taken up by building, parking and roads. While the soccer fields represents significant acreage and is a community asset, this open space will not necessarily benefit the residents of Country Pointe and actually may have impact on the adjacent residential community. (C1 – 30) Response No. RP‐3 As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and shown on the FEIS Plan in Appendix C of this FEIS, the density of the proposed development has been reduced (from 890 units to 792 units), the acreage to be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay remains at 44 acres; however, the amount of open space outside of the residential development has been increased (from 57± acres to 63± acres). The open space and recreational facilities to be provided within the RMF‐16 residential condominium development constitute an additional six acres and include an outdoor pool, tennis courts, playgrounds, ponds, and passive parks. Comment No. RP‐4 What leadership would support a project alienating six regulation fields, parking lots and green space that was used for decades exclusively for the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Soccer Club and Olympic Development Program for what appears to be six smaller fields in the 40 acres, most of which is already leased as part of the LIJ Soccer Park, and remain if the Town Board does not grant a relief of Covenants and Restrictions, and the applicant must include various improvements, a Community Center building, etc. Who or what has to be sacrificed from the enjoyment of this Public Amenity that we have had the enjoyment of for decades and have waited patiently for a real TOB park on a par with NYPIRG’s top two selections, John Burns and Syosset‐Woodbury Parks. Frankly, we should not even be debating the topic of development on this property as the Concerned Citizens offered Case Law to Nassau County, prior to the sale of the land to Mr. Wang, that their actions required determining if it was indeed alienation of parkland and therefore would require two acts of the State Legislature. Mr. John Turner presented this to us prior to his working for the Town of Brookhaven when he served in Assemblyman DiNapoli’s office on the NYS Water Resources Commission. (C9 – 6) (C9 – 7) Response No. RP‐4 As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS and shown on the revised FEIS Plan included in Appendix C of this FEIS, the modified proposed action includes the dedication of 44 acres of property to the Town of Oyster Bay. This acreage is in excess of the 40.11 acres contemplated in the existing Covenants and Restrictions (see Section 2.3.3 of DEIS). 135 Responses to Substantive Comments With respect to the community center building, as explained in Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS, the Applicant will work with the community to determine the appropriate location for a community center at the time the plan has been finalized. The Applicant will either renovate an existing building or build a new facility. In either case, the Applicant would donate the building to the community. Comment No. RP‐5 As residents, we are looking for development that will not diminish open space, recreational opportunities and the fragile natural environment that we value, and one of the reasons we came to this community and the Town of Oyster Bay to enjoy. (C30 – 1) Response No. RP‐5 As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the proposed plan has been modified to reduce the density of the proposed development (from 890 units to 792 units), and increase the amount of total open space (65± acres to 69± acres). Under the revised proposed action, approximately 48 percent of the subject 143.25‐acre property will be either dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay or comprise buffer area, private open space or outdoor recreational facilities. Comment No. RP‐6 The people of Plainview do not need this property to be overbuilt to get the athletic fields that we have so desperately need. For years we have seen neighboring towns acquire new turf fields as well as lighted fields. It is about time that Plainview gets a state of the art facility and we appreciate this. What I do not appreciate is how the builder and his lawyer have tried to imply that they are graciously giving these items to the community. They may be building or funding these fields but from what I understand that is what he would be required to do with the “as is” plan. It seems like the land be owned by Beechwood and leased to TOB. If this is the case, I find it troubling as there is no guarantee it will remain parkland. My primary issue is to make sure the Plainview children get the sports field that this proposal offers. I am not sure if the Town Park only comes if you approve this development or will the Town Park be built if this doesnʹt get approved? My wish for that land is to be a Town park for use of all Plainview‐Old Bethpage residents. Please make sure that there are more fields than just soccer fields as we need softball and baseball fields as well as tennis courts and playgrounds for the children of Plainview Old Bethpage. (C35 – 5) (C36 – 3) (H4‐1) (H30‐4) (H45‐4) (H53‐1) (H53‐6) Response No. RP‐6 The property for the fields, 43 acres (which exceed the area required by existing Covenants and Restrictions), will be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay at no cost. See Section 2.2, Figure 2 and Appendix C of this FEIS. 136 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. RP‐7 Why does the walking/running path go through the area dedicated to the Town? (C39 – 11) Response No. RP‐7 As explained in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.4 of the DEIS, the two‐mile walking/fitness trail, while not proposed to be dedicated to the Town, would be open and accessible to the public ‐‐ this would be ensured by a restrictive covenant placed on the property. The walking/fitness trail is proposed to loop around the buffer area along Round Swamp Road, as well as around the entire property and would connect to Trail View State Park, at the western portion of the property. Comment No. RP‐8 I live on Beatrice so this will literally be in my backyard and on top of it all they are proposing a jogging trail which would go directly behind my fence. That infuriates me. As far as I’m concerned that is a safety hazard. (C48 – 1) Response No. RP‐8 As discussed in Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS, Existing Covenant 9 indicates, The Declarant, it successor and assigns, shall provide a fitness trail running more or less along the perimeter of the premises… All areas adjacent to residences shall be periodically maintained to mitigate bug infestation. Thus, in accordance with this covenant, the applicant has proposed a 1.2‐acre, 2.0 –
mile walking/fitness trail around the perimeter of the overall property. While this will not be dedicated to the Town, it will be publicly accessible and maintained by the applicant. This fitness/walking trail would also connect to Trail View State Park, at the request of the Town. Comment No. RP‐9 I am also saying in Plainview‐Old Bethpage, we give up our fields to people outside. Nassau County all come and utilize our fields. People within Oyster Bay utilize our fields and destroy them. I am only fighting to get more and get better. I donʹt want to ruin my quality of life for a baseball field or soccer field. I want something that is going to maintain the integrity of the community. (H70‐3) 137 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. RP‐9 As explained in Response Nos. ZLU‐26 and RP‐1, the property will be dedicated to the Town of Oyster Bay, who will work with the various stakeholders and the community to determine the appropriate design and use of the fields. 4.7.3
Emergency Services Comment No. ES‐1 Entities such as the Fire Company should not ever need to be given a promise of mitigation prior to the Hearing. Many residents in the community who are first responders are horrified that the proposal only features a single entry/exit in this already congested section of road facing a proposed development of inordinate proportions. Our Fire Company which is all local volunteers deserves the opportunity to attend the Hearing with all of their membership, offer testimony, and then despite what is being said, deserve a sizable donation to offset the increased magnitude of this or any proposal. The $137,000 offered to the fire department would be a grossly inadequate amount of money for the number of people proposed to take occupancy. (C9 – 4) (C56 – 3) Response No. ES‐1 In accordance with SEQRA and its implementing regulations, a DEIS is required to identify potential significant adverse environmental impacts, analyze those impacts and identify feasible mitigation for those impacts. This includes potential significant impacts to community and emergency services. Moreover, the Final Scope promulgated by the Town Board required that community and emergency services impacts be evaluated. In accordance with these requirements, as part of the preparation of the DEIS and as indicated in Sections 3.7.2 and 4.7.2 and Appendix P of the DEIS, the Plainview Volunteer Fire Department was consulted. Correspondence was sent to the Fire Department in January 2012, and a response was received on January 18, 2012, providing general information. To date, no written correspondence has been received indicating there would be a significant adverse impact on the Fire Department. The Fire Department received a copy of the DEIS as it was included on the Town’s distribution list. However, it did not submit a comment letter regarding the DEIS during the public comment period. Prior to the hearing, the applicant and its consultants met with the Fire Department on several occasions, including March 7, 2011, February 21, 2013 and April 11, 2013, as noted in Response No. P‐3, above. As noted in Section 5.7 of the DEIS, 138 Responses to Substantive Comments  “Based upon a meeting with the Plainview Fire Department on February 21, 2013, the Fire Department requested that the Applicant consider the installation of emergency vehicle pre‐emption devices at the signalized intersections along Old Country Road. The Applicant explained that it would be willing to install these pre‐
emption devices; however, the approval of same is under the purview of the NCDPW. The Applicant will consult with the NCDPW prior to the finalization of site plans to confirm whether it will permit the installation of these devices.” In addition, with respect to fire safety and security, as indicated in Section 5.7 of the DEIS,  “With respect to fire protection, the buildings will be sprinklered, as required by the New York State Building and Fire Code and the condominium buildings.  Systems such as alarm panel systems, Knox Boxes and standpipes will be installed to facilitate the Plainview Fire Department response to the buildings.  All access drives will be compliant with regulations and standards required for firefighting equipment.” The Plainview Volunteer Fire Department was included early on in the environmental review process and has had the opportunity to comment on the proposed action and plans throughout the process. The Fire Department will continue to have the ability to review the site plans prior to their final approval, as noted in the agreement with the Fire Department (see Appendix F of this FEIS). Furthermore, should the proposed action be approved, the Plainview Fire Protection District would receive approximately $475,000 in annual property taxes, based upon the Revised Site Plan, whereas property existing taxes were just over $82,100 at the time the DEIS was prepared. Finally, despite the information included within the comment, the Revised Site Plan includes three access points, not one single entry/exit point, onto Old Country Road. It also includes an emergency access (with crash gate) onto Round Swamp Road in the vicinity of the zero lot line homes and flats in the southeastern portion of the site. Comment No.ES‐2 Another aspect of it is the safety and security, the fire, the ambulance, the police. I think the police in this area are pushed to the limits, as it is. (H70‐5) Response No. ES‐2 The DEIS evaluated impacts and proposed mitigation measures relating to safety and security, fire, ambulance and police in Sections 4.7 and 5.7 of the DEIS. 139 Responses to Substantive Comments With respect to fire protection and ambulance services, the Plainview Volunteer Fire Department was contacted. Information regarding correspondence and other contacts with the Fire Department is included in Response ES‐1, above. Regarding security and police protection, the Second Precinct of Nassau County was contacted. The correspondence from the Police Department on June 14, 2011 provided general information about police services provided in the area. It should be noted that the Second Precinct receives support from the community policing center located in Levittown (the former Eighth Precinct). According to Section 4.7 of the DEIS: “The proposed development would provide close to $1.5 million in property taxes to the Nassau County Police Headquarters and County Police Department, annually, which should assist in off‐setting the potential costs in providing additional police protection to the proposed development.…the various components of the proposed development would provide their own on‐site security. For example, the supermarket would provide security personnel within the store and within the area surrounding the exterior of the store. The other retail facilities are expected to provide their own in‐house security. The RMF‐16 community provides gated access, which is one of the security measures to be provided in the residential portion of the site.” 4.7.4
Other Services Comment No. OS‐1 Since much of the housing is for seniors, has the effect on the local library (including library parking), the hospital and the Mid Island Y‐JCC been determined? (C39 – 7) (C41 – 3) Response No. OS‐1 The purpose of a DEIS is to evaluate potential significant adverse environmental impacts. As part of the extensive SEQRA process conducted by the Town Board, formal scoping was undertaken to identify those potential significant adverse impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed action. Impacts from potential patrons to the library and use of library parking, impacts to the hospital and impacts to the Mid Island Y‐JCC were not identified as potential significant adverse environmental impacts. With respect to the Mid Island Y‐JCC, this is a private, not‐for‐profit entity, and it is a membership organization. As a membership organization, from a practical perspective, if Mid Island Y‐JCC determined that it did not have the ability to serve additional members, it could presumably not allow new members to join. 140 Responses to Substantive Comments With respect to potential impacts to the nearest hospitals, according to the Fire Chief, transport and ambulance services are generally provided to NSLIJ Plainview Hospital and Catholic Health System’s St. Joseph’s Hospital (formerly New Island Hospital) in Bethpage. These hospital contain 219 beds and 203 beds, respectively. North Shore LIJ Plainview Hospital, “is an acute care community hospital with 219 beds that treats patients with a wide range of medical, surgical and gynecological conditions. It has a busy same‐day surgery program and is also the site of one of the Don Monti Cancer Centers. The Emergency Department at Plainview is staffed by a team of dedicated board‐
certified emergency medicine physicians and certified emergency nurses and technicians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and offers expanded treatment areas and a Fast Track Unit. It is also a New York State Department of Health Primary Stroke Center and a recipient of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association’s Get With the Guidelines® — Stroke Quality Achievement Award.” St. Joseph Hospital is “a community hospital that provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient medical, critical care and surgical services. Its Emergency Department cares for more than 37,000 patients a year. Other vital services include an Ambulatory Surgery Unit...” Based upon the latest information available from the New York State Department of Health Division of Health Facility Planning,18 hospital occupancy was close to 60 percent at St. Joseph Hospital and approximately 72 percent at North Shore LIJ Plainview. Thus, these hospitals have sufficient capacity for additional patients. In addition, according to the New York State Department of Health, Nassau County, as a whole, contains approximately 3,500 hospital beds and western Suffolk County contains an additional 1,200± beds.
With regarding to impacts to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Public Library, the Applicant met with the Gretchen Browne, Director of the Library, on March 30, 2011 and on March 4, 2014, and have had ongoing conversations. The impacts discussed were the need for more library programs, books and movies. The Applicant has expressed a willingness to install a satellite library room within the proposed Clubhouse. The Library Director indicated that the main library could deliver materials to such a location. Furthermore, upon full occupancy, the proposed development would generate approximately $665,000 in annual property taxes to the Plainview‐Old Bethpage Library District, based upon the updated property tax analysis for the FEIS Plan (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3), which would help address the aforementioned needs of the public library. 
18
Long Island Region – Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals. Map prepared by Bureau of Health Facility Planning Division of Health Facility
Planning – New York State Department of Health, January 19, 2006.
141 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.7.5
Solid Waste Comment No. SW‐1 You are putting in 900 units ‐‐ whatever it is. Thatʹs going to increase the amount of waste. (H53‐2) Response No. SW‐1 The issue of solid waste was addressed in Section 4.7.3 of the DEIS. Based upon the initial plan, the projected solid waste was calculated at 12,937 pounds per day at 100 percent occupancy. As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, the projected solid waste for the FEIS Plan (with the proposed reduction of density) is 12,346 lbs./day. As explained in the DEIS, Solid waste generated by the proposed development will be collected and disposed of by private carters at licensed facilities. In addition, both the residential and commercial components of the proposed development would undertake a recycling program geared toward its individual uses. Each component user would recycle the materials that are required by the Town Code (Article VI, §201‐1), and would provide the proper receptacles to allow for separation and recycling. No significant impacts to solid waste facilities or solid waste management practices are anticipated due to the implementation of the proposed action. 142 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.8
Comment No. S‐1 What cost will be generated by the new development in terms of additional police patrols, garbage collection, water usage, snow removal, road repair and installation and maintenance of traffic signals and signs? What additional pressure will be placed on local hospitals? What new additions might be needed to the fire department? Will the public costs made by the new development be covered by the taxes generated or will additional costs have to be borne by the general public? I believe that taxes will greatly increase, as the infrastructure of the community will need to accommodate the growing population. (C5 – 3) (C37 – 1) Response No. S‐1 With respect to impacts to police, fire, solid waste, water usage and hospitals, please see Responses to Comment Nos. ES‐1 and ES‐2 (fire) SW‐1 (solid waste), WR‐4 and WR‐5 (water usage), and OS‐1 (hospitals). With regard to snow removal and internal roadway maintenance, the Master Association, Residential Association, Commercial Association and Neighborhood Associations would be responsible for developing a budget and ensuring timely payment by each unit holder (residential or commercial) of such maintenance charges such that no Town funds will be required in connection with such maintenance. With respect to public costs, as explained in detail in Section 4.8.3 of the DEIS, the proposed action will generate significant property tax revenues (approximately $18.74± million at full occupancy), which are expected to exceed the cost of the various required services. As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, based upon comments received on the DEIS, the residential density of the proposed development has been reduced by 98 units. Based upon the revised plan, property tax revenues are expected to be approximately $18.74± million, annually (see Table 4 in Section 2.2 of this FEIS). With respect to school children, based upon the decrease in total number of units and the revised unit mix, the revised Site Plan is expected to generate 36 public school‐
aged children. Based upon an estimated 2014‐15 per pupil expenditure of $29,859, the proposed action’s total gross impact to the district is projected to be $1.06± million. However, based upon the project total tax revenue projection for the school district of $11.99± million, annually, there would be a net positive impact of $10.93± million in annual property tax revenue to the school district. Socioeconomics 143 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. S‐2 Will ShopRite pay market rent for the proposed store or have any tax abatements. (C5 – 8) Response No. S‐2 ShopRite will pay market rent for the proposed store. As indicated in Section 2.5 of the DEIS and Response No. ZLU‐8 of this FEIS, ShopRite has a 20‐year ground lease, which has been signed and is in effect. The lease will allow ShopRite to build a state‐
of‐the‐art supermarket at the subject property. The lease is guaranteed by the Cooperative Wakefern Food Corp, which is a credit‐rated national entity. This adds an extra layer of assurance that the tenant will fully construct its building and occupy it for the term of the lease, and minimizes the risk of an incomplete building, vacancy, or the tenant not paying rent. The ground lease has requirements that the tenant construct the building, occupy it, and open and operate it as a ShopRite grocery store. Comment No. S‐3 I have in possession a brochure about the new development, which states that “millions of dollars in tax revenues will be generated by this project” who will make up the shortfall is this is not so? (C5 – 1) Response No. S‐3 As explained in Response No. S‐1 and in Section 4.8 of the DEIS, a detailed analysis of projected tax revenues and costs for municipal services was conducted. This analysis confirmed that the projected taxes would cover the cost of services, and in some cases, particularly in the case of the Plainview‐Old Bethpage School District, would far exceed the cost of services (see Response S‐1). In addition, an updated tax analysis was performed for the revised Site Plan. The results, contained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, indicate that the projected gross taxes would be approximately $18.74 million at full occupancy. Comment No. S‐4 I am very concerned about my taxes and property values as this oversized project will ruin the character of the area. It will also drive the property values down because you’re going to be flooding the market. The so called tax revenue will not improve anything. It won’t lower my taxes, improve the schools or benefit the community in any way. (C12‐7) (C41 – 4) (C48‐3) (H49‐2) 144 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. S‐4 With respect to the tax issue, see Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this FEIS and Response Nos. S‐1, S‐3 and S‐5, among others. Regarding property values, as indicated in The SEQR Handbook (http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/55215.html): 9. Are there economic or social factors which are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS? Purely economic arguments have been disallowed by the courts as a basis for agency conclusions when concluding a SEQR review by developing Findings. Therefore, potential effects that a proposed project may have in drawing customers and profits away from established enterprises, possible reduction of property values in a community, or potential economic disadvantage caused by competition or speculative economic loss, are not environmental factors. See East Coast Development Company v. Kay and Wal‐Mart Stores v. Planning Board of the Town of North Elba. . . (emphases added) Accordingly, the impacts to property values is not an appropriate SEQRA inquiry. Notwithstanding the above, a discussion of the need and demand for the type of housing proposed was provided in DEIS Section 2.5. Among other things, that section of the DEIS indicated that while the overall population within Old Bethpage, Plainview and the Town is either steady or declining, the population of seniors (those persons 65 years or age or older) has been increasing over the last 20 years. This upward trend in aging population was confirmed by the 2008 Update of the Nassau County Master Plan. Furthermore, as noted in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, “according to a 2007 Dowling College Long Island Economic & Social Policy Institute report ‘those [persons] between 20 and 59 years of ages will continue to decline by over 77,747 people between now and the year 2025, while those over the age of 65 will increase by 151,584, more than twice the decrease of the of the 20 to 59 year olds...those retired will increase by over 42 percent. Therefore, this trend of an aging population is expected to continue well into the future. As the majority of the proposed housing within Country Pointe at Plainview (approximately 70 percent) has been designated for seniors, the development has been designed to meet the needs of the Town’s and County’s aging population, while still providing a diversity of housing with respect to type, size, income and target level populations. Moreover, as explained in Section 2.2 of this DEIS, the proposed density has been reduced by 98 units, based on the comments received on the DEIS. Comment No. S‐5 I donʹt know what the building gets in terms of a tax break, but until those houses are sold and everybody who lives in them ‐‐ the amount of money that flows into the 145 Responses to Substantive Comments community is minimal. Those houses can be built in six months, ten months, two years and nobody is going to be paying taxes. Does the builder pay? Everything has a cost, and nobody is paying anything back. (H26‐1) Response No. S‐5 As discussed in Section 3.8 of the DEIS and indicated on Table 28 therein, the 2012 property taxes paid by the property owner were approximately $2.3 million, of which $1.35 million went to the school district. Currently, taxes paid by the property owner (based upon 2014 tax rates) are approximately $1.72 million, of which approximately $1.0 million went to the school district. Therefore, under the existing condition, without any new development, the property owner is currently paying a significant amount in property taxes. With respect to taxes, see Response No. S‐1, which indicates that annual property taxes, upon full occupancy, would be approximately $19.7719 million based upon the development analyzed in the DEIS. Annual property taxes for the FEIS Plan would be approximately $18.74 million. No tax abatements have been applied for in connection with the proposed project. The applicant has not indicated that it intends to apply for any abatements, but there is nothing that precludes the potential. Comment No. S‐6 I look at the taxes, school taxes ‐‐ we are talking about $5 million for the school district. That works out to about $1,000 for every family in Plainview. If anybody is against this project, I would like them to send me a check every year for $1,000. (H35‐
1) Response No. S‐6 The comment is noted. Comment No. S‐7 Most of the jobs created, after construction is complete, will be in low paying retail. This is great for the high school kids, but not for the rest of the community. I heard thereʹs supposed to be 500 permanent jobs available. I donʹt see where you can get 500 jobs, because the contractors will be building the buildings and they will be leaving. (C39‐12) (H49‐3) 
19
The original DEIS, prepared in 2013, used 2012 tax rates and calculated the total property tax revenue at $14.6± million, annually. This $19.77±
million figure uses the DEIS Plan unit mix and commercial component but applies the current (2014) tax rates in order to provide a truer
comparison.
146 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. S‐7 As explained in Section 4.8.2 of the DEIS, both construction and permanent jobs of various levels will be provided. With respect to construction workers: “The total number of construction employees on site at any one time would vary depending on the stage of work. It is anticipated that construction of the proposed development will result in the creation of approximately 600 construction jobs over the multi‐year construction period… The Applicant will utilize numerous trades and workers during the construction period, including but not limited to the following: electricians, framers, plumbers, HVAC workers, landscapers, excavators, drainage and sewer workers, asphalt workers, roofers, insulation, sheetrock, painters, trimmers, cleaners, flooring and tile work, cabinet and closet installers, irrigation, window installers, appliance installers, concrete workers, and siding workers. As reported by the New York State Department of Labor, for the first quarter of 2012, the median annual wage for construction and extraction occupations in the Long Island region is approximately $56,000. The Applicant will also employ a Project Executive, one or more project managers for residential and retail site work and construction, project supervisors for site work, construction, rough work, finish work, customer service, and safety. The annual salary range for such employees ranges from $75,000 to $150,000. The Applicant will also employ laborers, punch crews, and security with an annual salary range of $20,000 to $50,000. The Applicant will also employ on site administrative staff, including bookkeepers, purchasing agents, and customer service representatives with an annual salary range of $25,000 to $75,000 and sales agents and support staff with an annual salary range of $60,000 to $150,000.” Regarding the operational period, Section 4.8.2 of the DEIS notes that it is anticipated that the retail portion of the project would generate approximately 118 employees, the supermarket would generate approximately 350 employees and the residential component would generate 36 employees, for a total of approximately 504 employees. More specifically, “Retail jobs at the site would be expected to include a variety of roles such as sales/customer service representatives, financial service providers, cashiers, first‐line supervisors of retail workers, management positions (including property managers), maintenance staff, and recreational employees. Typical residential support jobs would include property and marketing managers, leasing consultants, building maintenance workers and groundskeepers and other maintenance providers. Given the wide range of potential positions that could be expected, anticipated salaries will vary. With the exception of the supermarket, since specific tenants are not known at this time, anticipated salaries and full‐time versus part‐time employment status cannot be estimated at this time. However, in order to provide 147 Responses to Substantive Comments an indication of the possible range of compensation, median wages for certain related occupations within the Long Island region are presented below20:  Sales and Related Occupations: $29,250  First‐Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers: $45,130  First‐Line Supervisors of Non‐Retail Sales Workers: $96,900  Office and Administrative Support Services: $36,160  Business and Financial Operations Occupations: $71,460  Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations: $29,610  First‐Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers: $59,110  Property, Real Estate and Community Association Managers: $100,330” It should be noted that with a reduction in the number of units (from 890 to 792), instead of approximately 36 employees, the residential component would generate approximately 32 employees. Comment No. S‐8 It was completely unclear throughout the evening (or ever in any pamphlets or websites) of the cost of any of the residential units. There was nothing about the cost of typical upgrades, nothing about the, nothing about the HOA, and nothing about the taxes. I can’t figure out how someone could sell a Plainview home for $500‐600k and downsizing to a 2BR/2BA that will probably end up, all in, in the $800’s. (C3 – 2) (H26‐3) (H34‐2) (H45‐3) Response No. S‐8 Section 2.4 of the DEIS, and Response No. ZLU‐11, including Table 8 of this FEIS, include projected prices for the residential units. The proposed action includes housing options at varying price points that range from $600,000 to $950,000 for the market‐rate units, with a price of $250,000 for the RSC‐25 units. The majority of the market‐rate units (85± percent) are proposed for $650,000 or less. Comment No. S‐9 Are subsidized units subsidized just for the original sale or are they subsidized in perpetuity? Do the subsidized units pay rent or do they purchase? Do they pay similar tax to free market units or is this also subsidized? If the subsidized units are sold at a profit do the owners/heirs keep the profits? Do the subsidized units have the ability to rent their units or take in boarders? Do the occupants of the subsidized units have the capability to vacate and rent to others? What are the subsidized price and the free market price? Are subsidized and non‐subsidized apartments similar in square footage and amenities? (C5 – 7) 
20
Ibid.
148 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. S‐9 The commentator is addressing the “golden age” units proposed to be developed under the Town’s RSC‐25 Zoning District (which have changed from the 90 originally proposed to 79, as a result of the overall density reduction). The development of those units, which are for‐sale units, are not subsidized (i.e., there is no public funding subsidy). The “golden age” units will be restricted in accordance with Section 246‐5.4.2.6 of the Town Code, as follows: “In the RSC Residence District, all dwelling units shall be occupied only by persons who are 62 years of age or older, except that in the case of spouses and/or significant others, only one of the two occupants needs to be 62 years of age or older (hereinafter ʺqualified occupantʺ). Additional requirements for qualified occupants for these districts within the Town of Oyster Bay shall be outlined in a schedule, as approved by the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay.” The sales prices for the “golden age” units would be determined, in consultation with the Town Board, as such sales prices are part of the “additional requirements” cited in the above section of the Town Code. Comment No. S‐10 The property is privately owned and the developer will pay taxes. If the Town uses the property for open space it will not pay any taxes (H35‐5) Response No. S‐10: The comment is noted and the commentator is correct. Comment No. S‐11 If the supermarket is taken away from Morton Village, all the other stores there will go out of business and will decimate what is now the commercial center of town. Many seniors depend on walking to ShopRite and will not be able to get to a supermarket if ShopRite moves from its current location. What is to become of the value of our home if Morton Village does not continue to thrive? (C43‐2) (C44‐3) (C53‐1) (H60‐1) (H68‐2) Response No. S‐11: With respect to the issue of seniors that walk to ShopRite, as explained in Response No. ZLU‐8, “…the existing Morton Village location is no longer suitable for a ShopRite© store. In order to better serve our customers, Food Parade needs a facility that is large and that has more efficient parking than the Morton Village location. Food Parade has 149 Responses to Substantive Comments been seeking a suitable new suitable site for quite some time, as the ShopRite© store must be relocated…Food Parade has investigated other areas within Plainview (including north of Old Country Road), and the most desirable, available and suitable site identified is the Country Pointe at Plainview property. In the event that a supermarket is not approved at the Country Pointe property, Food Parade will continue to pursue a relocation site for the ShopRite© store at Morton Village. Given the investigations conducted to date, it is likely that any relocation …would be further from Morton Village than the Country Pointe at Plainview property.” See Appendix H of this FEIS for a copy of the correspondence dated October 8, 2014 from Jon Greenfield of Shop Rite and President of Food Parade, Inc. With respect to property values, see Response to Comment S‐4. With respect to the impact to Morton Village, as explained in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, ShopRite is going to leave Morton Village irrespective of whether the instant application is approved. Specifically, the DEIS stated: “the Morton Village ShopRite currently occupies approximately 37,000 SF, and ShopRite is seeking a larger space. ShopRite has indicated that the Morton Village Plaza landlord has advised that there is no additional square footage in the shopping center to lease to ShopRite. Additionally, ShopRite customers continually complain about the inefficiency of the parking layout. For that reason, regardless of whether or not ShopRite moves to the Country Pointe at Plainview site, ShopRite has advised that it plans to leave Morton Village Plaza when its lease expires in the next few years. In other words, whether or not the extant application is approved, the current space occupied by ShopRite will be vacated. Thus, the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview would help to ensure that ShopRite will remain in the Plainview area when it leaves Morton Village Plaza. Area retail brokers have advised the Applicant that the ShopRite space would likely lease up quickly, based on the desirability of that location and the overall strength of the retail market in Plainview (see Appendix E). Specifically, the letters indicate that the Morton Village shopping center location is in high demand by retailers. Correspondence from Newmark Knight Frank, Ripco Real Estate and Sabre Real Estate indicate that there is a strong chance that the space existing ShopRite store would be pre‐leased before ShopRite even vacated, meaning that the space would not sit vacant. Some of the tenant types that the brokers anticipate leasing the space would include other grocery stores, office supply stores, electronics stores, or clothing stores. This would minimize the loss of the ShopRite at the Morton Village location.” Comment No. S‐12 There is a large amount of vacant retail space in the area. Additional retail space makes no sense. Thereʹs still a lot of vacant retail stores that are in this area. If 150 Responses to Substantive Comments ShopRite is moving, what is going to go in that space? If you do the studies, you will see the people who go there are not the people from Plainview‐Old Bethpage. (C41 – 5) (H59‐1) Response No. S‐12 Section 2.5 of the DEIS included a vacancy analysis of retail space in the area. This section and Response No. ZLU‐17 of this FEIS note that a study of the vacancy rates at six area shopping centers was conducted by the applicant as part of the DEIS. These centers included Manetto Hill Plaza (Fairway); Manetto Hill Shopping Center; Washington Avenue Plaza; Crossroads Plaza; Plainview Commons; and Morton Village Plaza. This study found that “none of the individual shopping centers are experiencing significant vacancies.” Furthermore, vacancy rates in the retail sector of Long Island remained at 4.5 percent in second quarter of 2014, unchanged from the time the DEIS was prepared, although this rate was higher at the end of 2012 into 2013. The vacancy rate for eastern Nassau County, in which the subject property is located, has an even lower vacancy rate of 4.0 percent, and a positive net absorption. In addition, the average rental rate of $23.82 per square foot is significantly lower than the overall average of $30.25 per square for the entire Long Island region. In addition as indicated in Section 2.5 and Appendix E of the DEIS, a local commercial real estate brokers indicating that the Plainview market is one of the stronger retail markets on Long Island and that retail space in Plainview is in high demand. Moreover, specifically regarding ShopRite, Section 2.5 and Appendix E of the DEIS indicate: “Area retail brokers have advised the Applicant that the ShopRite space would likely lease up quickly, based on the desirability of that location and the overall strength of the retail market in Plainview (see Appendix E). Specifically, the letters indicate that the Morton Village shopping center location is in high demand by retailers. Correspondence from Newmark Knight Frank, Ripco Real Estate and Sabre Real Estate indicate that there is a strong chance that the space existing ShopRite store would be pre‐leased before ShopRite even vacated, meaning that the space would not sit vacant. Some of the tenant types that the brokers anticipate leasing the space would include other grocery stores, office supply stores, electronics stores, or clothing stores. This would minimize the loss of the ShopRite at the Morton Village location.” Also, as explained in Response No. ZLU‐8 and Appendix H of this FEIS, ShopRite will be relocating from Morton Village whether or not the instant application proceeds. See Response No. S‐11 of this FEIS and Section 2.5 of the DEIS for a discussion of the vacancy analysis that was conducted. 151 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. S‐13 I’ve also wondered about the 55 and over crowd, many of whom go to Florida for the winter and the possibility of renting/subletting of the units and what that can mean for the neighborhood and the influx of transient “residents.” (C16 – 2) Response No. S‐13 The management company at Meadowbrook Pointe in Westbury, a development of over 720 units for seniors constructed by the same principals as Country Pointe at Plainview, is unaware of any “snowbirds” or “snowflakes”21 who rent their homes while away for extended periods. Thus, it is not expected that there would be many, if any, transient residents at the proposed Country Pointe at Plainview. Comment No. S‐14 There must be a clearly defined procedure for the awarding of the “affordable” senior housing units, which is based on totally objective factors published well in advance of the due date for receiving applications so it is a truly fair process. (C42 – 2) Response No. S‐14: The comment is noted, and the Town’s process will conform to prevailing regulations. Comment No. S‐15 My family likes to go out to eat every once in a while. Seniors tend to dine out. As it is now, we wait over an hour at peak times for seating in local restaurants. An influx of such a large number of residents (1,600) will make it nearly impossible to eat at local restaurants. (C41 – 3) Response No. S‐15: The comment is noted. As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the proposed action includes 118,450 square feet of commercial use. Approximately 71,450 square feet would be compromised of the supermarket and 3,000 square feet would be comprised of the bank, with an additional 44,000 square feet of general retail space remaining. With the exception of ShopRite, no specific tenants have been secured at this stage of the proposed development. However, the applicant has indicated that one or more restaurants are one of the likely tenants of this remaining retail space. 
21
People who travel back and forth to various places (generally warmer climates) either all winter or all year-round.
152 Responses to Substantive Comments In addition, based on various comments received on the DEIS, the proposed action has been modified to reduce the number of proposed residential units. As explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the projected number of residents, based upon the revised residential unit mix is approximately 1,518. 153 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.9
Aesthetics and Cultural Resources Comment No. ACR‐1 Visual simulations of the project should be provided at various vantage points specifically along Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road and from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south. (C1 – 31) Response No. ACR‐1 Visual simulations were provided in Section 4.9 of the DEIS (Figures 31, 32 and 33) from Round Swamp Road and Old Country Road illustrating the proposed development along those roadways (see Appendix I of this FEIS). Pages 344 through 349 of the DEIS discussed these three figures, as follows: “With respect to views from the east toward the subject property, numerous site visits were conducted to assess the topography and vegetation that exists at the site and along Round Swamp Road. At the northern portion of the property, the topography of the site rises, blocking views into the site. The proposed retaining wall around the supermarket, along with additional layers of proposed landscaping, and the one‐acre dedication parcel will help to screen views of the supermarket from the east. As one travels farther south along Round Swamp Road, the topography flattens out, and there are existing views directly into the existing soccer fields. These fields are directly located across from a single‐family residential development. Most of the residences in this subdivision are oriented away from Round Swamp Road, and thus do not face the subject property. However, in this case, since there is no screening vegetation in this area, deciduous and evergreen groupings are proposed to be installed within the buffer, and a row of deciduous trees would be planted directly adjacent to the proposed two‐story residences within this portion of the development in order to screen views into the site. There is a large stretch along the eastern side of Round Swamp Road that does not contain any residences. This is in the area of the Old Bethpage Village Restoration. While no existing residences would have views of the proposed two‐story residences in this area, additional vegetation would be installed within the 100‐foot buffer area. However, it should be noted that the existing vegetation within the subject property is relatively dense within this area. There are residences located on the eastern side of Round Swamp Road at the southern portion of the site, across from the proposed retention/depression area. While only a few residences face Round Swamp Road in this area, additional vegetation will be planted north of this facility as well as within the proposed retention/depression area to assist in screening that portion of the site from view. However, it should be noted that the residences proposed in this area of the site are 154 Responses to Substantive Comments smaller in mass than some of the other units and are two‐stories in height, similar to the residences within the area. Since the larger residential buildings are proposed to be located near the central, interior portion of the subject property, they would be screened from view from Old Country Road by the smaller proposed residences to the east and the recharge basin (surrounded by evergreen vegetation), the senior affordable units and the retail development to the north. They would also be screened from Round Swamp Road by the 100‐foot buffer, which is proposed to be supplemented with additional landscaping, and other residences located along the eastern portion of the subject property. Based upon this discussion, although there would be some change in the overall visual character of the area, the residences within Country Pointe at Plainview would be screened from surrounding residences to the south and east of the subject property. The views along Old Country Road would also change upon implementation of the proposed action. While there is an office building and overgrown vegetation that is currently visible from this roadway, implementation of the proposed action would alter the intensity of development along this commercial corridor. A supermarket is proposed to be located near the intersection of Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road. Two pads with small retail establishments are proposed in the parking area associated with the supermarket. Smaller scale retail development would be located along Old Country Road, screening the proposed senior affordable units from this roadway, and reinforcing the commercial appearance of this roadway (see Figure 32 and Figure 33). To the west and southwest (in the area of the existing westernmost driveway), the appearance of the site would essentially remain unchanged as the recreational use of the property would remain in this area.”
A visual simulation also was prepared from a typical rear yard of a Beatrice Lane home, directly adjacent to the subject property from a perspective of viewing the area where the proposed condominium units abut the detached zero‐lot‐line type units (see Appendix I of this FEIS). As discussed herein, the Beatrice Lane simulation depicts the existing berm with evergreen plantings that are proposed to be installed along the southern property line of the proposed development. As can be seen in this simulation, there would be only intermittent glimpses of several of the proposed residential buildings that are located near the southern property line from the houses located along Beatrice Lane. Since the plantings are evergreen, these obscured views would remain year‐round. In addition, the proposed residences in this area of the site have been set back farther from the property line in the FEIS Plan (360 feet) as compared to the DEIS Plan (230 feet). 155 Responses to Substantive Comments Comment No. ACR‐2 The subject property exhibits terrain that slopes upland from Old Country, most of it not built upon. The project would require significant alteration to the existing natural terrain to accommodate the shopping center. (It should be noted that under the prevailing zoning the same would occur to accommodate office development). This would dramatically impact the visual/aesthetic character of Old Country Road. (C1 – 27) Response No. ACR‐2 As the commentator notes, implementation of the proposed action or prevailing zoning would require alteration of the natural terrain, especially along Old Country Road. As discussed in Section 4.1 of DEIS: “Grading of the site has been designed to generally follow the slope and natural character of the land. The site, as it currently exists, contains a natural ridge along Old Country Road. This ridge rises from 168 to 202 feet amsl as one moves south from Old Country Road. The proposed grading and a retaining wall to be located along this ridgeline, which separates the RSC‐25 residences and commercial development from the RMF‐16 residential development and along the rear of the proposed supermarket, have been designed to minimize the cut and fill of soil/earth in this area… This proposed retaining wall would range from less than one foot in height at the northeasternmost end to approximately 7.5 feet to the east of and behind the supermarket and approximately 13 feet in height near the RSC‐25 residences.” While the DEIS acknowledges that there would be alteration of the topography in the area of Old Country Road, the visual impact analysis (see below) indicates that although the visual character of the area along Old Country Road would change, no significant adverse visual impacts are anticipated. The DEIS further indicates that the proposed design would reinforce generally the commercial nature of Old Country Road. The visual impacts of the proposed development from Old Country Road were analyzed on Pages 347 through 349 in Section 4.9 of the DEIS, and visual simulations from Old Country Road were included as Figures 31 and 32 thereof. As indicated in Response ACR‐1, above, the aesthetic analysis of the proposed action demonstrated that “the views along Old Country Road would also change upon implementation of the proposed action.” However, no significant adverse visual impacts were identified. In addition, with respect to development under prevailing zoning, as noted in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.9 of the DEIS: 156 Responses to Substantive Comments “Grading for the office space along Old Country Road would be similar to that described for the proposed action, although as depicted on the alternative plan in Appendix S, the non‐residential buildings would be significantly larger and have a bigger footprint than those proposed, and thus may require additional grading… The views along both Old Country Road and Round Swamp Road would change with the implementation of this alternative. Where currently, the view along Old Country Road primarily is of buffer vegetation with small offices set back from the roadway, the views would change to large office buildings and large areas of surface parking that would be visible from the surrounding roadway (see Appendix S for the alternative plan), although the area between Old Country Road and the proposed office buildings would be landscaped. As compared to the proposed action views along Old Country Road would be of fewer, but much larger office buildings and a sea of parking, rather than smaller retail buildings arranged in smaller groupings, with some of the parking located to the rear of the commercial buildings.” Comment No. ACR‐3 The proposed development will drastically alter the character of this segment of Old Country Road for a distance of over 2,000 feet (approximately 500 feet of frontage for the recharge basin and some 1,600 feet of frontage for the shopping center), which is now primarily undeveloped woodlands. The proposed recharge basin is located along at the southwest corner of Old Country Road and proposed Middle Earth Drive. With an area of about 3.2 acres and a frontage along Old Country Road of about 475 feet it is quite large. A typical recharge basin is one‐acre. A recharge basin of this size can potentially have a significant impact on the visual character of this segment of Old Country Road (along with the proposed shopping center). Please explain why the recharge basis was placed at that location. If this is the only viable location for the recharge basin, it should be effectively screened from Old Country Road with a wide planting of appropriate vegetation. (C1 – 10) (C1 – 29) Response No. ACR‐3 As shown in the existing conditions photographs included in Appendix M of the DEIS and as described in Section 3.9 thereof, there are existing buildings located on the subject property along Old Country Road. These include the former offices of the New York Islanders (see Photograph No. 2 of Appendix M of the DEIS). It should be noted that the proposed landscaping plan (see Appendix C of the DEIS) included the installation of a fence and the planting of 66 five‐to‐six‐foot‐tall Norway Spruce, Eastern White Pine and Douglas Fir trees (all evergreen species) along Old Country Road in front of the recharge basin in order to screen it from the roadway. With respect to the recharge basin, based on comments received on the DEIS and as explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and shown on Figure 2 and in Appendix C, the recharge basin has been relocated such that it will no longer front on Old Country 157 Responses to Substantive Comments Road. The recharge basin for the commercial component has been relocated to the rear of the stores, east of the main site driveway. Comment No. ACR‐4 I guess the biggest thing about this in community is that when you drive into the our community, the signature of it is ‐‐ when you are driving south off the Expressway down Round Swamp Road, the rural area ‐‐ I think thatʹs the signature of the community – it should be preserved. Something this big in an area like that affects that. I donʹt think you can hide something like this. Itʹs a big thing to fit in a small area. If we were looking to scale this down, I would be perhaps the buildings that are closest to the community the Old Bethpage community along Round Swamp Road, those areas back off so essentially that community would be hidden. (H55‐1) (H55‐2) (H56‐2) (H58‐2) Response No. ACR‐4 As explained in Section 2.4 of the DEIS and depicted on Figure 6 and in Appendix C of the DEIS, the initial plan included a 100‐foot‐wide vegetated buffer along Round Swamp Road. As shown on Figure 2 and in Appendix C of this FEIS this buffer, as well as the buffer along the southern property line has been expanded to 125 feet along the roadway. As can be seen in the rendering from Round Swamp Road presented as Figure 31 of the DEIS (see Appendix I of this FEIS), the proposed residences along Round Swamp Road would be partially obscured by the existing vegetation. As the buffer area has been increased in the FEIS Plan, this would further minimize the visibility of the proposed residences. In addition, as shown in the new rendering from the residences along Beatrice Lane (see Appendix I, only the top portions of some of the proposed residences are visible. As noted above, the buffer along the southern property has also been expanded and the residences shifted more toward the interior of the site. In addition, as seen on the Figure 30 of the DEIS (see Appendix I of this FEIS), the one‐acre parcel situated at the intersection of Round Swamp Road and Old Country Road provides the first impression of the community as one drives south along Round Swamp Road. As noted throughout the DEIS, this one‐acre parcel is proposed to be dedicated to the Town, but would be landscaped by the Applicant (concurrent with the landscaping for the proposed supermarket in Phase I) and maintained by the Applicant (or future homeowners or commercial tenant association or its successor) and used as a passive park and for signage for the Plainview‐Old Bethpage community. Comment No. ACR‐5 I am bothered by the rendering showing 3 story units. Plainview‐Old Bethpage is a community of 1 and 2 story houses and I think the Beechwood buildings should keep in line with that. (C3 – 4) (C36 – 1) (C58‐3) 158 Responses to Substantive Comments Response No. ACR‐5 As shown on Figure 2 and in Appendix C, while the FEIS Plan will include three‐
story buildings, as did the DEIS Plan, these buildings would be concentrated at the interior of the site and would not be visible from the public roadways adjoining the property, as was the case with the DEIS Plan. Comment No. ACR‐6 There is no maintenance and weeds are growing on this site and the current residents who live here see this eyesore. (C29 – 2) Response ACR‐6 The comment is noted. 159 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.10
Alternatives Comment No. ALT‐1 According to the Town of Oyster Bay’s Recreational Assessment of 2005, and the overwhelming majority of voter approvals for the three consecutive SEA Fund Bonds, it would behoove the township to acquire the majority of this property for open space that is undeniably in demand and once lost can never be replaced. With over 90 acres of woodlands, habitats undisturbed for decades, including an occasional red fox, bats and trees and other specimens indigenous to the pine barrens, it behooves this Town to seek the maximumʹ preservation of the last remaining tract of open space in Nassau County, and stick to your campaign promises to protect from overdevelopment. The best use for the property would be open space, park, nature preserve. (C9 – 8) (C44 – 1) (C47‐1) (C48‐2) (H52‐1) (H57‐1) Response No. ALT‐1 The comment is noted. The subject property is privately owned and proposed for development. However, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 44 acres (43 of which are contiguous) to the Town of Oyster Bay to use for open space and recreational purposes, without the need for the Town to purchase such acreage. As explained in Section 2.0 of this FEIS, in addition to the 44 acres to be dedicated to the Town, an additional 25 acres will be held as private open space or recreational area. Thus, approximately 48 percent of the site will be used for either public or private recreational area or open space. Comment No. ALT‐2 The applicantʹs reference to Old Plainview is not a viable alternative, and itʹs disingenuous ‐‐ as the former application was withdrawn due to community concerns. The use of studies dating back to Old Plainview needs to be stricken from the record. (H57‐10) Response No. ALT‐2 The Old Plainview project (identified as the Development of Previously Proposed Planned Unit Development: Mixed Use Project) was analyzed as an alternative in the DEIS pursuant to the Final Scope promulgated by the Town of Oyster Bay Town Board, as lead agency. The Old Plainview project was deemed appropriate for analysis as an alternative in the Country Pointe at Plainview DEIS because it was a real proposal that was the subject of an actual application, a DEIS and Town Board hearing. 160 Responses to Substantive Comments Also, see Response No. P‐3 for a discussion of the timeliness of the studies included in the DEIS. 161 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.11
Energy Comment No. EN‐1 There is no discussion of the use of any renewable energy sources like solar on‐site. (C6 – 3) Response No. EN‐1: While there are no plans for the installation of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar panels) on‐site at this time, as explained in Section 10.3 of the DEIS, the following energy conservation measures are proposed to be implemented as part of the proposed action: Installation of wind and draft barriers in required locations. Additional R‐11 insulation wrapped around the basement perimeter, hanging from the sill plate four feel down, with the exception of the common wall. Additional air sealing between the floors and along the exterior perimeters of homes. Spray foam insulation in appropriate locations to prevent air leakage and heat loss. Blown fiberglass insulation in the attic areas, as required, meeting the R‐38 value. Installation of EnergyStar compliant windows and doors. Installation of EnergyStar compliant appliances. Engineered installation of energy efficient HVAC system(s) and ventilation system(s) (exhaust fan).Caulking and sealing of top plates on all floors to eliminate air gaps prior to sheet rock installation to better prevent air loss. Use of energy efficient light bulbs in all fixtures. Implementation of infiltration tests. Seams of all exterior house wraps would be taped and additional sealant/tape would be used at all windows and doors. Exhaust fans would be provided to ensure proper exchange of all interior air. Spray foam would be installed around all electrical boxes. Programmable thermostats would be installed. Split zone HVAC(s) would be installed to better control usage of heat and air conditioning. Energy efficient hot water heaters and furnaces would be installed. Comment No. EN‐2 The creation of a heat‐island in parking lots and building roofs is not addressed as an impact on energy usage in summer, especially, when the Island is maxed out on demand. The development will not only create energy demand by its habitations, but 162 Responses to Substantive Comments it will create heat through its existence that will impact the energy usage – particularly in summer – of its habitations and those nearby due to the heat‐island effects. A parking garage or underground parking would mitigate the heat‐island effect. (C6 – 4) (C6 – 18) Response No. EN‐2 Regarding the heat island effect and the suggestion for underground parking, as explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS and shown on Figure 2 and in Appendix C, under building/partially underground parking for 522 vehicles is being provided for the age‐restricted condominium units located in the central portion of the site. In addition, garage parking is provided for the other market‐rate residential units. With respect to the comment that in the summer the Long Island is “maxed out on demand,” based upon recent information regarding Long Island’s energy supply a July 31, 2014 NEWSDAY article entitled PSEG review finds Caithness II not needed, indicated that “PSEG Long Island has found that the proposed Caithness II power plant in Yaphank ‘will not be needed’ because the Island has enough capacity to meet state requirements for the next five years, according to PSEG officials close to the project.” Furthermore, NEWSDAY, in an August 16, 2014 article entitled LIPA’s excess power supply cost ratepayers $641M over 9 years, PSEG report finds stated that “LIPAʹs overly cautious approach to securing new power sources during the past nine years has resulted in a sizable surplus of capacity on Long Island…Between 2005 and 2013, the study found, the Long Island Power Authority had an average of 528 megawatts of excess power annually above state capacity requirements ‐‐ the equivalent of nearly two new power plants. Some years, the report said, the excess approached 1,000 megawatts.” Furthermore, the same article noted that the New York State Independent System Operator, the agency that sets capacity requirements “set LIPA’s resource need at 423 megawatts less than LIPA’s model,” indicating that the need that LIPA initially projected was not there. Accordingly, it is questionable as to whether Long Island would experience this situation. 163 Responses to Substantive Comments 4.12
General Comment No. G‐1 The DEIS lists six shopping centers in the vicinity of the proposed development. It fails to mention two major community shopping centers located in Plainview ‐ one on the southeast corner South Oyster Bay Road/Woodbury Road and one on the northeast corner of South Oyster Bay Road/Woodbury Road ‐ that would be used by residents of Country Pointe. It is true that the 890 unit Country Pointe Development would create a built‐in market for the proposed 118,000 square foot shopping center. Whereas, now the intersection of Old Country Road/Old Bethpage serves as the effective easterly cut‐off point for shopping center/retail development along Old Country Rd. and shopping that serves the Plainview/Old Bethpage community, the proposed shopping center represents the easterly expansion of shopping along Old Country Road into an area that is not characterized by such development. The location of the proposed shopping center does not represent infill development. (C1 – 25) Response No. G‐1 As explained in Section 2.5 of the DEIS, the shopping centers that were examined in the DEIS were selected due to their proximity to the site (they are no more than approximately 1.65 miles from the subject site). The purpose of the study was to review the number of vacant stores and the vacancy rates in shopping centers proximate to the site, in order to demonstrate that the addition of new retail establishments to the area would not have a significant adverse impact on the operation of existing local retail stores (which, in some cases, contain retail uses similar to those proposed). The two shopping centers that are cited in the comment are located approximately 3.75 miles from the subject site. So while Plainview residents may patronize the centers identified in the comment, they are not as proximate to the subject property as the ones analyzed in Section 2.5 of the DEIS. While the DEIS does not refer to the proposed retail development on the site as “infill,” the nature of the area is such that directly north of the site, on Old Country Road, there are several retail establishments, in a strip configuration. In addition, this area on the north side of Old Country Road (between the Long Island Expressway and Old Country Road and between Round Swamp Road and E. Bethpage Road) in the vicinity of the site is developed as an industrial park, with some retail and lodging uses included. To the east of the site are hotel and office uses and to the west of the site are open space, residential and commercial uses. Moreover, the subject property currently houses, and was previously occupied by numerous Nassau County office uses and was historically the Nassau County 164 Responses to Substantive Comments Sanitorium. Accordingly, this is not an undeveloped site nor is it situated within an undeveloped area. Comment No. G‐2 I have heard that the development will ignore Federal initiatives that the development have an African American population of 17% of the units available. What legal repercussions and cost will this have? (C5 – 5) Response No. G‐2 The proposed development is required to comply with prevailing fair housing regulations. A federal lawsuit has been brought against the Town of Oyster Bay alleging that its senior housing program is discriminatory against African Americans. The outcome of this litigation may affect the project’s RSC‐25 component, but the specific implications cannot be identified at this time. Comment No. G‐3 Although the developer said he reached out to members of the community, the average resident “did not actually get reached out to.” Only groups were contacted, such as School District, Fire Department, ShopRite and Soccer Club, etc. I have been following this project for years, since the Old Plainview proposal…there has never been any community outreach by the developer. There was never any advertised “open discussion,” any invitation for community input. Some sort of Town Hall meeting would have been helpful, some way that the developer can interact with the regular residents and understand why we are concerned about traffic, density, Canon, etc. However, in well over a year, since the original scoping session, the developer has never reduced or altered, anything from the plans. That does not show any effort to reach out to the community, and the residents expressed that fact loud and clear at the meeting. (C3 – 1) (H45‐5) Response No. G‐3 Section 2.7 of the DEIS provides details of the public outreach that was conducted by the applicant with respect to the proposed project. While specific groups within the Town were contacted (such as the ones mentioned above, as well as many others [see Section 2.7 of the DEIS]), the applicant also conducted a door‐to‐door outreach within the neighborhoods surrounding the subject property. Page 55 of the DEIS indicated that over 800 homes were visited and given informational handouts. Of the 800 homes that were visited, personal contact was made at over 600 homes. In addition, a reception/meeting was held with community leaders, Plainview‐Old Bethpage residents and members of Beechwood’s VIP list (consisting of over 2,000 individuals who expressed interest in the Country Pointe at Plainview development) on February 7, 2013 at The Race Palace. This meeting, wherein Beechwood listened 165 Responses to Substantive Comments to comments, answered questions and provided updates about the project, was attended by over 400 people. Beechwood representatives were available at both the Morton Village and South Oyster Bay Road ShopRite locations to answer questions about the proposed development for two‐six hours on five occasions in April 2013 and on 22 occasions in January through March 2014. Additionally, Beechwood maintains a website, countrypointe@plainview.com, and has responded to questions from people who have submitted questions through that website. Comment No. G‐4 We are curious as to how long this project would take to complete. There was no mention of the length of time this will take. Are we looking at 3 years, 5 years, 10 years? (C12 – 6) Response No. G‐4 Section 2.6 of the DEIS discusses the anticipated demolition and construction of the proposed project. Specifically, Section 2.6.2 indicates that the construction period would be approximately three years. Comment No. G‐5 What about the cumulative impacts of this application? (H57‐5) Response No. G‐5 In accordance with the Final Scope promulgated by Town of Oyster Bay Town Board, Section 4.5.1 of the DEIS addressed the cumulative impacts of the project with other planned developments. In order to determine the other planned developments that required evaluation as part of the cumulative impact analysis, the Towns of Oyster Bay, Huntington and Babylon were contacted via U.S. Certified Mail‐Return Receipt Requested, and were asked to identify any planned developments in the vicinity that could potentially impact the study area. Three planned developments were identified and evaluated, from a cumulative impact perspective. The identified developments consisted of:  A proposed office/mixed use building, 270 South Service Road (formerly FedEx building) to be located on the southeast corner of LIE South Service Road and Old Walt Whitman Road, at the immediate next exit to the east on the LIE. 166 Responses to Substantive Comments 
The proposed Canon Corporate Center located on the southwest corner of LIE South Service Road and Old Walt Whitman Road, at the immediate next exit to the east on the LIE. 
The proposed Rubieʹs Costume Company office complex at the southwest corner of NYS Route 110 and LIE South Service Road at the immediate next exit to the east on the LIE. Comment No. G‐6 We would also like a copy of the layout of the planned community that was displayed at the meeting. (C51 – 3) Response No. G‐6 The layout displayed at the meeting can be found Figure 6 and Appendix C of the DEIS. However, as explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the plan has been modified to, among other things, reduce the density, increase the amount of land to be dedicated to the Town, and increase the amount of open space (see Figure 2 and Appendix C of this FEIS. \\nylidata\projects\28338.00 Beechwood‐Plainview\ProjRecords\FinalDocs\FEIS ‐Resubmission to Town 1‐20‐15\FEIS ‐ Country Pointe at Plainview ‐ January 2015.docx 167 Responses to Substantive Comments

Country Pointe at Plainview FEIS

Transcription

Similar documents

here

Appendix B SEQRA Documentation - The Villages of Chestnut Ridge

Kenwood TS-520S - WB4HFN Home Page

April 11, 2014

Plainview ISD Staff eNewsletter Winter 2014

May 2015 - McKeever School of Irish Dance

this week`s subsidised product - Specials

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB