16.09± acres located at 201 Main Avenue, hamlet of Wheatley Heights, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York

Transcription

1 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WILLOUGHBY COMMONS HAMLET OF WHEATLEY HEIGHTS, TOWN OF BABYLON, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PROJECT LOCATION: 16.09± acres located at 201 Main Avenue, hamlet of Wheatley Heights, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS: District 100 Section 13 Block 2 Lots through and part of APPLICANTS: Gustave J. Wade, Carol E. Wade, Gustave J. Wade Family, 2012 Irrevocable Trust, and Colonial Springs Farms, LLC c/o Certilman Balin 100 Motor Parkway, Suite 156 Hauppauge, NY Contact: John M. Wagner, Esq. (631) LEAD AGENCY: Town of Babylon Town Board 200 Sunrise Highway Lindenhurst, New York Contact: Mr. Richard Groh Chief Environmental Analyst (631) PREPARER & CONTACT: This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. 100 Motor Parkway, Suite 135 Hauppauge, New York Contact: Marwa Fawaz, Senior Project Manager (631)

2 With technical input from: Engineering Craig M. Lehat, P.E., P.L.S. 52 Kemi Lane Sayville, NY (631) Architect Keller Sandgren Architects 111 Broadway Amityville, NY (631) DATE OF PREPARATION: May 2018 DATE OF REVISION: November 2018 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document, together with the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), is the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). It has been prepared on behalf of the Lead Agency. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency. This FSEIS is also available electronically at DATE OF FILING: November 14, 2018

3 This document is a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for Willoughby Commons. This FSEIS incorporates, by reference, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for this proposed action, dated May The above-referenced SDEIS was the subject of a Town of Babylon Town Board Public Hearing on June 14, 2017, and written comments on the SDEIS were accepted until June 26, The Written Correspondence, Public Hearing Transcript, and Video Submissions are provided in Appendices A, B, and C of this FSEIS, respectively.

4 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Introduction Description of Proposed Action and Application History Comment Inventory and Methodology Comment Summary General Comments General Statements of Support General Statements of Objection Responses to Substantive Comments Community Character and Zoning Soils, Groundwater and Wetlands Property Values Land Use and Comprehensive Planning School District Traffic, Access, and Safety Purpose, Need, and Benefit SEQRA Process/EIS Required Content Miscellaneous List of Appendices Appendix A - Written Correspondence Appendix B - Public Hearing Transcript Appendix C - Video Submissions Appendix D - Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan; Notice of Intent Soil Management Plan Appendix E - Agency/Community Facility Correspondence Appendix F - John M. Wagner Letter to Planning Board, June 13,2017 Appendix G - Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc. Correspondence, July 28, 2017 regarding Property Values Typical Unit Floorplans List of Figures Figure 1 - Site Location... 2 Figure 2 - Subject Property and Applicants Contiguous Property... 4 List of Tables Table 1 - Projected Willoughby Commons Rents by Unit Type Table 2 - Rental Housing Units, As Percentage of Total Occupied Housing Units Table 3 - Willoughby Commons Unit Sizes Table of Contents

5 .0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction This document is a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) prepared in response to comments received by the Lead Agency, the Town of Babylon Town Board (the Town Board ), on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the proposed action, dated May The proposed action consists of a change of zone, site plan, and other approvals for development of a 264- unit rental residential community, to be known as Willoughby Commons (the proposed project or the proposed development ), on approximately acres, located north of Colonial Springs Road/Main Avenue, east of North 28 th Street, and west of Lee Avenue/North 23 rd Street, in the hamlet of Wheatley Heights, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County (the subject property, subject site or site ). See Figure 1 for the Site Location map. A summary of the details of the proposed action and proposed project is provided below in Section 1.2 of this FSEIS. The aforesaid SDEIS was accepted by the Town Board as complete and adequate for public review on May 17, 2017, and circulated to all the involved agencies and interested parties. A public hearing was held by the Town Board on June 14, The SDEIS comment period was held open until June 26, 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 agency's responses to all substantive comments. The draft EIS may be directly incorporated into the final EIS or may be incorporated by reference. The lead agency is responsible for the 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. All written correspondence received during the SDEIS comment period, public hearing transcript, and video correspondence are included in Appendices A, B, and C of this FSEIS Introduction

6 Waterford Drive Oxford Court Gloucester Drive Hampshire Drive Cornell Drive Willow Street Valley Forge Drive Bunker Court York Drive Perry Lane Conklin Avenue Lee Avenue North 17th Street North 18th Street Main Avenue North 20th Street Nicolls Road Colonial Springs Road \\NYLIDATA\projects\ Wade Willoughby Commons\GIS\Project\siteloc mxd Ridge Road Circle Drive Parkwood Place North 28th Street 28th St North 27th Street North 26th Street North 25th Street North 24th Street North 23rd Street North 22nd Street North 21st Street SMITHTOWN HUNTINGTON Nassau County BABYLON Long Island Sound Long Island Avenue Washington Avenue Merritt Avenue ISLIP North 19th Street RIVERHEAD BROOKHAVEN South 21st Street Atlantic Ocean Willoughby Commons Figure 1 - Site Location 201 Main Avenue Hamlet of Wheatley Heights, Town of Babylon Suffolk County, NY VHB Ref µ Feet Legend Subject Property SOURCE: 2013 Aerial: 2013 NYS Digital Ortho - imagery, NYSITS, Streets: NYSITS, 2014.

7 This FSEIS includes two sections Section 1.0, of which this is a part, is the introduction to the document, which describes the purpose of the FSEIS, summarizes the proposed action (see Section 1.2, below), and describes the contents of the document. This section also provides an inventory of supportive and substantive comments and explains the methodology by which comments were catalogued and categorized (see Section 1.3, below). Section 2.0 summarizes the general statements of support and objection and provides responses to all substantive comments made at the public hearing and in the correspondence received during the public comment period. 1.2 Description of Proposed Action and Application History The proposed project involves the development of the Willoughby Commons residential community on the subject property, which is situated within the Residence A Zoning District of the Town of Babylon (Town), and is designated as Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) Nos through and part of As part of the proposed action, the subject property would be rezoned from the Residence A to the Multiple Residence (MR) Zoning District. In connection with the request for site plan approval, the proposed action involves a request for relief from Town Planning Board covenants associated with the previously filed and approved subdivision for the subject property and contiguous property to the north owned by the Applicants (see discussion of the Applicants contiguous properties, below) to allow for development of the subject property with a multifamily rental residential community. Therefore, as a condition of the proposed change of zone, the proposed action may involve a subdivision of a portion of SCTM No located on the subject property, as well as abandonment of the portion of the previously-filed subdivision that covers the subject property. As indicated above, the Applicants also own: an adjacent acre parcel of agricultural land north of the subject property; and two adjacent parcels totaling approximately 3.00 acres located south of the subject property, along Colonial Springs Road/Main Avenue, that contain a single-family residence (SCTM No ) and the Colonial Springs Farms and Nursery, which consists of a barn and associated appurtenances (SCTM No ) (see Figure 2). These lands are out-parcels and not included as part of the proposed development. The subject property is part of the Colonial Springs Farms and Nursery, and contains agricultural uses and related commercial uses. The proposed project would redevelop the 16.09±-acre parcel with the aforementioned Willoughby Commons residential community Introduction

8 Jacobs Court Waterford Drive Bkay Place Coronet Court Fairhaven Drive Hadley Drive Gloucester Drive Barrington Drive Oxford Court Hampshire Drive Cornell Drive Willow Street Valley Forge Drive Bunker Court Conklin Avenue York Drive Perry Lane North 16th Street Lee Avenue \\NYLIDATA\projects\ Wade Willoughby Commons\GIS\Project\Subjust Property and Contiguous Properties mxd Ridge Road Circle Drive Parkwood Place Willoughby Commons Colonial Springs Road North 28th Street 28th St North 27th Street North 25th Street North 26th Street North 24th Street North 23rd Street Main Avenue North 21st Street North 22nd Street North 20th Street Nicolls Road North 17th Street North 18th Street North 19th Street Washington Avenue Merritt Avenue Figure 2 - Subject Property and Applicants' Contiguous Property 201 Main Avenue Hamlet of Wheatley Heights, Town of Babylon Suffolk County, NY VHB Ref µ Feet Legend Subject Property Contiguous Property Owned by Applicant SOURCE: 2013 Aerial: 2013 NYS Digital Ortho - imagery, NYSITS, Streets: NYSITS, 2014.

9 The subject property was involved in prior applications and associated SEQRA process, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared in 2004 (the 2004 DEIS ), a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in 2005 (the 2005 FEIS ), and a Voluntary Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (VSDEIS) prepared in 2015 (the 2015 VSDEIS ). The 2004 DEIS contemplated the subdivision of an overall acre property (including the acre subject property), and a change of zone for acres of the acre property from the Residence A to the Senior Citizen Multiple Residence (SCMR) and MR Zoning Districts with on-site sewage treatment facilities. Various comments were received on the 2004 DEIS, and the 2005 FEIS was prepared to address those comments. The Town Board issued a Findings Statement that, among other things, determined that a single-family lot subdivision (also referred to in the Findings Statement as Alternative 2 ) was the alternative that would minimize potential adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Ultimately, upon conclusion of that SEQRA process, a 56-lot single-family subdivision (including 55 lots to be developed with single-family residences and one lot that would serve as an internal private roadway for the development) was approved. In 2014, the Applicants decided to pursue a rezoning of a acre property (comprised of the Applicants acre property less the aforementioned adjacent outparcels), from Residence A to the MR Zoning District for development of 264 non-age-restricted rental apartments. Of the 264 apartments, 210 units were market rate, and the remaining 54 affordable units. As part of the application process, the Applicants submitted the 2015 VSDEIS to supplement the analysis conducted in the 2004 DEIS and the 2005 FEIS as part of the prior SEQRA process. The 2015 VSDEIS contemplated a change of zone on a 31.96±-acre parcel (i.e., the current acre subject property and contiguous acre property to the north) and redevelopment of the southern 16.44±-acres, which excluded the Applicants two contiguous parcels to the south (totaling approximately 3.00 acres which were part of the 34.80±-acre property that was the subject of the 2004 DEIS. The 2015 VSDEIS also included an offer to preserve the Applicants contiguous property north of the subject property under the Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program. Subsequent to the 2015 VSDEIS, the proposed preservation offer from Suffolk County for the Applicants contiguous property north of the subject property expired, and was not renewed by the County, resulting in the current proposal. Therefore, a VSDEIS was submitted in February 2017 (the 2017 VSDEIS ) for the current proposal, to supplement the information in the prior SEQRA process and analyze any amendments to the proposed action that occurred since the initial environmental evaluation in the 2004 DEIS. The Town Board, as lead agency, reviewed the 2017 VSDEIS and adopted a Positive Declaration on April 26, 2017 (see Appendix A of the SDEIS). The May 2017 SDEIS was prepared to evaluate the issues that were identified in the Positive Declaration, as well as to address various comments issued by the Town on the 2015 VSDEIS and the 2017 VSDEIS. The proposed development consists of the following: 264-non-age-restricted residential units 36 two-bedroom units (ranging from 1,380 square feet [SF] to 1,650 SF) and 228 one-bedroom units (ranging from 900 SF to 1,340 SF) within 23 buildings; 210 of the total 264 units are market rate, with the remaining 54 being affordable. All of the affordable units are one-bedroom units. a 6,400± SF community building for residents a 25-foot by 45-foot outdoor swimming pool for residents Introduction

10 a 228± SF pump station to allow for connection to the Southwest Sewer District (SD) Connection of the pump station to Southwest SD infrastructure via a 3,600-linear foot (LF) proposed low-pressure force main routed south on North 23 rd Street and east on Washington Avenue to a Suffolk County sewer manhole on North 15 th Street, south of Washington Avenue 560 paved parking spaces, including 38 handicapped-accessible spaces; driveways and garages Site access from two points, each with an entrance booth: The main access is proposed to be located at North 23 rd Street and Lee Avenue on the east side of the subject property; an easement would be provided to secure site access from Lee Avenue via the Applicants adjacent property north of the subject property A secondary/service entrance would be located on the west side of the subject property on North 28 th Street Additional site amenities, including landscaped common areas. As indicated above, the proposed project would include 54 affordable units, or 20.5 percent of the total 264 units. These units would be set aside as affordable housing for those whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-established median income limit for the Nassau-Suffolk Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), adjusted by family size. In addition, the proposed project would set aside 10 of the 54 affordable units for post 9-11 combat veterans, subject to compliance with applicable fair housing regulations and specific program terms. The selection criteria for the 10 veterans units shall be determined by a Town of Babylon designated agency or individual. Furthermore, the Applicant has committed to the following: 1. Funding in the amount of $20,000 for local community benefits/improvements to be disbursed as follows: $5,000 to the Wyandanch Fire Department; $5,000 to the Wheatley Heights Ambulance Corps; $5,000 to the Wheatley Heights Taxpayers Civic Association (to provide $1,000 scholarships to 5 individuals); and $5,000 to the Wheatley Heights Football League The Chiefs. In the event any one or more of the groups described above no longer exist, that share of the funding amount shall be distributed evenly among the remaining groups. 2. Installation of lighting on the south side of Colonial Springs Road from Conklin Street to North 27 th Street. 3. Installation of sidewalk on the south side of Colonial Springs Road from Conklin Street to North 27 th Street. 4. Dedication of 10 feet of land along the east side of 28 th Street and the north side of Colonial Springs Road for a distance of 40 feet in the northerly and easterly direction from the corner of North 28 th Street and Colonial Springs Road. 5. Installation of two Radar Driver Feedback signs and any associated thermal striping along Colonial Springs Road at locations to be determined by the Town of Babylon Planning Department, subject to approval of the Town of Babylon Division of Traffic Safety. 6. Construction of a bypass lane on the project site at the southwest guard booth. 7. Installation of four inverted U bicycle racks on the project site at locations to be determined by the Town Planning Department Introduction

11 1.3 Comment Inventory and Methodology Each correspondence commentator was assigned a number beginning with C. Then, each comment from each commentator was assigned a number (e.g., C1-1 for comment 1 by commentator 1). All the written comments are provided in their entirety within Appendix A. All comments made at the public hearing that occurred on June 14, 2017 were assigned a code that begins with H. Each commentator at the public hearing was assigned a code (e.g., H1). Then, each comment from each hearing commentator was assigned a number (e.g., H1-1 for comment 1 by commentator 1). The hearing transcript with comment designations is included in Appendix B of this FSEIS. The list below identifies each commentator and his/her associated comments as well as the comment codes. In addition, in Section 2.0, general statements of support or objection are summarized, and the substantive comments and their responses are organized by topic. The topics include: Community Character and Zoning (CC); Soils, Groundwater, and Wetlands (SG); Property Values (PV); Land Use and Comprehensive Planning (LU); School District (SCH); Traffic, Access, and Safety (T); Purpose, Need and Benefit (PNB); SEQRA Process/EIS Required Content (SE); and Miscellaneous (M). Within each topic category, the written and hearing comments are paraphrased and similar comments are combined, where appropriate. The comments are assigned respective category codes and numbers (e.g., CC-1, PV-1), and the respective code(s) for the original comments from the list in this section are provided for reference (e.g., C1-1, H1-1) Introduction

12 Correspondence Commentator Code Comments Reginald Bayley C1 C1-1 through C1-3 Lystra Gaddy C2 C2-1 and C2-2 Robie Harris C3 C3-1 through C3-3 Ann Rothstein C4 C4-1 Erin Reilly C5 C5-1 through C5-3 Richard Jones C6 C6-1 through C6-5 DuWayne Gregory, Presiding Officer, C7 C7-1 through C7-3 Suffolk County Legislature Andrea T. Payne C8 C8-1 through C8-6 Peter J. Elkowitz, President and CEO, C9 C9-1 and James Britz, Executive Vice President, Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc. and Affiliates Gary Barnable, Airport Director, C10 C10-1 Republic Airport Craig A. Platt, Suffolk County Sewer Agency C11 C11-1 Judith M. Roth C12 C12-1 through C12-4 Jovi Stevenson C13 C13-1 through C13-4 Jorge L. Rosario, Major U.S.A. (Ret), Adjutant, C14 C14-1 through C14-4 Martin A. Kessler VFW Post No Eric Geringswald C15 C15-1 through C15-10 Cheryl Williams, First Vice President, C16 C16-1 The Concerned Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights Frederick Eisenbud, Esq., C17 C17-1 through C17-18 Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, June 26, 2017 Letter Introduction

13 Frederick Eisenbud, Esq., Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, June 14, 2017 Letter C18 C18-1 through C18-13 Letter from Kenneth Acks, The Cost-Benefit Group, to C19 C19-1 through C19-16 Christopher Black, President Concerned Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights/Dix Hills Half Hollow Hills Central School District C20 C20-1 through C20-6 Eric Geringswald, Board of Education President Chris Black, President C21 C21-1 The Concerned Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights Town of Babylon Department of Environmental Control C22 C22-1 Public Hearing Frederick Eisenbud, Esq., H1 H1-1 through H1-15 Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP Judith M. Roth H2 H2-1 through H2-7 Eric Geringswald H3 H3-1 through H3-3 Ria Muriello speaking for DuWayne Gregory H4 H4-1 through H4-3 Ria Muriello H5 H5-1 through H5-2 Len Myrie H6 H6-1 through H6-2 David Fliegel H7 H7-1 Joe Holbrun H8 H8-1 through H8-2 Audrey Cashin H9 H9-1 through H9-5 Christopher Black, President H10 H10-1 through H10-2 The Concerned Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights Sandra Thomas, President Emeritus H11 H11-1 through H11-4 The Concerned Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights Paul Gustafson H12 H12-1 through H12-3 Justin Dorsa H13 H13-1 through H Introduction

14 Arletha Broderick H14 H14-1 Rogelio Mitchell H15 H15-1 through H15-2 Herb Vlouhos H16 H16-1 through H16-2 Howard Seigel H17 H17-1 through H17-2 Tony Thomas H18 H18-1 Richard Ventura H19 H19-1 Ms. Gonzalez speaking for Assemblywoman Kimberly Jean-Pierre H20 H20-1 through H20-2 Patty Marshall H21 H21-1 through H21-6 Dianne Lloyd H22 H22-1 through H22-3 Janet Barnes H23 H23-1 Darlette McFarlane H24 H24-1 through H24-2 Karen Taylor H25 H25-1 through H25-4 Lystra Gaddy H26 H Introduction

15 .0 Comment Summary This section contains a summary of the general statements of support and objection (no substantive commentary) and responses to all the substantive comments contained in the written correspondence (including electronic mail), as well as those made at the public hearing. 2.1 General Comments General Statements of Support Comment GS-1: LIHP supports developments such as Willoughby Commons and feels this development is another important component to the growth of Long Island and, especially, to the Town of Babylon. It is important that this development will provide a minimum of 20% of the units to be set aside for persons with income levels at or below 80% of the area medium income. (C9-1) Comment GS-2: The rental apartments proposed by Mr. Wade located in Wheatley Heights would help me save and cut down on my commute. That would help improve my quality of life. I think this is a wonderful project that caters to young professionals and the nearly half-million millennials, and I look forward to moving to the apartments in the future. (H7-1) Comment Summary

16 Comment GS-3: I saw the picture of the apartments. I thought that would be a nice place for us to live. (H22-1) General Statements of Objection Comment GO-1: Years ago, Mr. Wade had blocked drainage pipes. That was discovered later when our neighbors had water running inside the house, the back of the house, and the front of the house. I m concerned with the integrity of anything that he [Mr. Wade] would build. I don t trust anything if he would block drainage and have people s homes destroyed for whatever reason. (H21-2) Comment GO-2: This Board should accept the petition as evidence of the overwhelming opposition of so many immediate neighbors to the project, for they are taxpayers that will be most affected if Willoughby Commons change of zone request is granted. The land should continue to be zoned Residential A (C17-4, C17-18, C21-1) Comment GO-3: If you are going to force this development down our throats, Wheatley Heights is going to become a ghost town. People are going to sell their homes and they are going to leave. (H15-2, H16-1) 2.2 Responses to Substantive Comments Community Character and Zoning Comment CC-1: I am concerned that a rental facility might increase the odds of gang members moving into this community. A complex of that magnitude will only attract more criminal activity to the area. (C5-1, C8-6) Comment Summary

17 Response CC-1: According to a 2007 report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 1 communities sometimes worry that apartment developments can bring crime to the area. The 2007 report reviewed existing studies on the connection between crime and apartment developments. These studies found that there is no evidence of a relationship between housing density and crime, nor is there evidence that multi-family communities result in more crime than single-family subdivisions. The 2007 report concluded that available research indicates that multi-family rental housing does not inherently attract residents who are less neighborly or more apt to engage in (or attract) criminal activity. Moreover, review of The SEQR Handbook, 3 rd Edition 2 finds that that social factors, such as crime, raised by commentators should be given limited weight and may actually be inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS. In that regard, The SEQR Handbook states, in pertinent part: 9. Are there economic or social factors which are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS?...Some social factors may be considered arbitrary, discriminatory, or speculative, and consequently are inappropriate for inclusion in an EIS. Such factors may include, but are not limited to, potential for crime, drug problems or psychological stress. These kinds of social concerns may be raised by the public during the comment period or hearing on an EIS. In such cases, they may be acknowledged, but given limited weight, when SEQR findings are developed during the agency's final decision-making. (emphasis added) Comment CC-2: The area is dominated by single-family and other owner-occupied homes, with 85.5% of all 1,517 units occupied by owners and 90.3% in single family. A 264-unit rental project would represent a 17.4% increase in the number of units and likely increase the population 10% - 20%. The probability that such a change would alter the character of the community is high. Neighbors will be less likely to know each other, and many renters would likely not be as strongly bound to the community. They are more likely to leave and not participate in group activities, thus reducing social cohesion and increasing transience. We are determined to preserve not just the quality of life, but the character of life we have in that community. The proposed density and subsequent change in zoning is incongruent with the surrounding area. (C1-1, C3-1, C7-2, C8-6, C19-2, C19-15; H4-2, H11-4, H19-1, H24-2, H25-2) Response CC-2: Although the proposed project would increase the number of overall housing units within Wheatley Heights, according to an Urban Land Institute publication, Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact, introducing higher-density projects into a community will actually increase that community s revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the number of students. 3 1 Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The SEQR Handbook, 3 rd Edition, 2010; available from 3 Richard M. Haughey, Richard M. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI the Urban Land Institute, Comment Summary

18 Also, according to the above-mentioned 2007 report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 4 available research indicates that multi-family rental housing does not inherently attract residents who are less neighborly or more apt to engage in (or attract) criminal activity. The report notes that those resistant to multi-family rental housing often cite concerns that people who live in apartments are less desirable neighbors and less connected to the community. In addition, the 2007 report states rental apartment residents are more likely to socialize with their neighbors than owners of single-family houses, that they are just as likely as owners to be involved in structured social groups, and that apartment residents closely identify with the town or city in which they live, just like single-family homeowners. Land use patterns in Suffolk County, which (according to the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census and 2015 American Community Survey data) favor single-family, owner-occupied housing, no longer meet the needs of a growing segment of the Long Island population, as discussed by the Long Island Index. 5 The Long Island Index indicates that Long Island s focus on single-family housing served it well for the first few decades following World War II, as tens of thousands of city dwellers came seeking modest suburban capes and ranches in which to raise the baby boom generation Today, even middle class Long Islanders struggle with the high cost of housing. Lower wage earners, obviously, shoulder an even greater housing burden. Today, six in 10 Long Islanders say they have some difficulty paying their rent or mortgage. Over the years, residents also fought back efforts to diversify the Island s housing stock with apartments and higher-density development that neighboring suburban areas welcomed. As a result, Long Island has a critical shortage of affordable multifamily units for both young residents and for retirees looking to downsize. While the region has recently begun to address the crisis, it will take decades to catch up. According to a study entitled, Long Island s Needs for Multifamily Housing: Measuring How Much We Are Planning to Build vs. How Much We Need for Long Island s Future, dated February 2016 and prepared by HR&A Advisors, Inc. and the Regional Plan Association (RPA) (the HRA Study ), Job losses in key industries and high housing costs and property taxes are leading to a loss of [Long Island s] working age population, resulting in stagnant population growth. Long Island s high housing costs are largely a result of insufficient housing production over the past several decades. Multifamily housing production on Long Island has lagged behind regional competitors and is not affordable to large sections of the region s population. Young adults are most impacted by these trends and are more than twice as likely to live with parents or other older relatives when compared with the national average. These trends are resulting in a weaker overall housing market, driving residents to leave Long Island. (Page 20) Furthermore, as noted on Page 32 of the HRA Study, Younger residents are having trouble entering the market, due to the lack of housing options, high housing costs, and a lack of housing in desirable locations. Young families are finding it difficult to meet the large down payments required to move into starter singlefamily homes. Older residents looking to downsize have limited options if they wish to stay on Long Island. 4 Ibid. 5 Long Island Index, Issues Impacting Long Island (accessed August 9, 2017); available from Comment Summary

19 According to Practical Apartment Management by Edward N. Kelley, 6 empty-nesters, career professionals and retired people are renters by choice. For some, the situation is one in which the extra space available in purchased housing is no longer needed. Others want the freedom provided by renting (sometimes referred to as the lock and leave set); these people are making a conscious decision in their choice to be a renter. Based on the foregoing, the profile of a typical renter has been changing over the last decade. The future population at Willoughby Commons is expected to have a profile that includes a large percentage of renters-by-choice, a sector of the housing market made up of young professionals, singles, childless couples and retirees looking to downsize and for a more convenient lifestyle, and who do not have the intention of buying a home. Furthermore, as indicated in Section of the SDEIS, the development of the subject property with rental apartment units would be characteristic of the density patterns that have already been established in this area (as described below) and would be compatible with the surrounding prevailing density. The analysis of the proposed action by Breslin Appraisal Co., Inc. (presented in Appendix C of the SDEIS) indicates that, throughout Long Island, apartment complexes have been situated along the outskirts of downtowns among single-family neighborhoods, and have proven to gradually assimilate into such neighborhoods, and not cause adverse impacts to the surrounding character. With respect to the physical attributes of the proposed development, it is expected that the traditional architectural features of the proposed buildings at Willoughby Commons and the landscaping throughout the property would ease the transition between the proposed development and existing communities and, likewise, not cause significant adverse impact to community character. Further, the community character in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is already influenced by two other apartment developments that coexist with single-family neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions. It is anticipated that Willoughby Commons would fit in with this established character. The proposed project would involve a change of zone from the Residence A to the MR Zoning District and would have a density of units per acre. Although the proposed project would have a higher density of units on the subject property than what is provided for in the Town Code, and would require a variance for density, it would be consistent with the prevailing density at comparable existing developments in the vicinity. Specifically, the Wheatley Gardens Co-Op development, located immediately adjacent to the southeast of the subject property, is zoned MR and has a density of units per acre, and the Wheatley Hollow Gardens senior rental apartment development, located west of the subject property, is zoned SCMR and has a density of almost 26 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed change of zone would be in character with existing zoning patterns in the area and would be compatible with the density of other multi-family developments (within multi-family zoning districts) in the surrounding area. Comment CC-3: The owner-occupancy and single-family home percentage will clearly decrease significantly. The rental vacancy rate has hovered around 5.7%. If vacancy within the project remains high for a significant period of time, perhaps due to high asking rents, the reputation of the community could suffer further. (C19-16) 6 Edward N. Kelley, Practical Apartment Management, 6 th Edition, 2009, Institute of Real Estate Management Comment Summary

20 Response CC-3: According to a 2015 study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, entitled America s Rental Housing Expanding Options for Diverse and Growing Demand, when the rental vacancy rate is too low, rents rise faster than inflation, and this can create an unaffordable rental market. The above-referenced 2015 study cited vacancy rates of major metropolitan-area housing markets across the United States of between five and just under two percent as evidence of a tight rental market. Thus, a rental vacancy rate of 5.7 percent indicates that there is not an excess of vacant rental properties available in Wheatley Heights. As indicated in Section 2.5 of the SDEIS, since its peak at 11.1 percent in 2009, the rental vacancy rate has fallen across the United States to an average of 6.8 percent by the end of 2016, 7 indicating that, nationally, the demand for rental units is increasing in relation to supply. In the hamlet of Wheatley Heights, the rental vacancy rate was 5.7 percent, as of the 2015 Census Bureau s American Community Survey. 8 Wheatley Heights has a rental vacancy rate that is lower than the national average. If the vacancy rate in this area has followed the national trend, it is likely that there are even fewer available rental units today, and thus, the proposed project would provide a much-needed housing type to the area. It is expected that Willoughby Commons would have a rental vacancy rate similar to that of the overall Wheatley Heights area. However, due to new construction of the proposed project and the amenities offered at Willoughby Commons, the proposed development could experience more demand than other area rental properties. It is noted that the existing area multi-family developments were built in 1973 (Wheatley Gardens Co-Ops) and 1981 (Wheatley Hollow Gardens). Willoughby Commons would have 54 units (20 percent of total units offered) that would be offered at $1,400 per month, which is affordable for homebuyers or renters whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the HUD-established median income limit for the Nassau-Suffolk PMSA, adjusted by family size. Based on data provided by HUD, the median income for the Nassau-Suffolk, NY HUD Metro Fair Market Rent (FMR) Area is $106, Therefore, a family of four with an income of $84,960 or less (i.e., 80 percent of $106,200) would be eligible for the proposed affordable housing. Housing is defined as affordable by HUD if an occupant spends no more than 30 percent of the household income on such housing. 10 Therefore, the maximum affordable rent for a one-person family would be $1,487 per month, and, therefore, the 54 units with a monthly rent of $1,400 would be affordable for a person making not more than 80 percent of the HUD median income limit for the region. The market-rate rents would also be less than or comparable to rents at many other apartment developments in surrounding communities, 11 and would range between $1,900 to $2,100 for a one-bedroom unit and $2,200 to $2,300 for a two-bedroom unit. Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is expected that Willoughby Commons would not have sustained vacancies, since the proposed rental rates would be below others in the community. 7 US Census Bureau, Residential Vacancies and Homeownership in the Third Quarter 2016 (accessed November 2016); available at 8 US Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (accessed August 2017); available from 9 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rent FY 2016 and Income Limit FY 2016 Summary System (accessed January 2017); available from 10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affordable Housing (accessed November 2016); available from 11 Monthly rents at Willoughby Commons would be less than or comparable rents in surrounding communities. Rents at Willoughby Commons are shown in Response LU-3. For comparison, see rents at Avalon Court in Melville, NY ( Somerset Village in North Babylon, NY ( Mid Island Apartments in Bay Shore, NY ( Fairfield at Deer Park in Deer Park, NY ( Fairfield at West Babylon in West Babylon, NY ( Comment Summary

21 Comment CC-4: Based on a study conducted by William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, there is considerable support for an association between homeownership and improved property maintenance, longer lengths of tenure and less residential mobility. Residents are concerned that renters, either because they are transient or because of their lack of ownership, will not be motivated to preserve the beauty of their community. Wheatley Heights is best served by ownership. (C6-1, C13-1, C13-2, C13-4, C15-5, C17-15, C19-8; H14-1) Response CC-4: The study referenced in Comment CC-4, by William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability, was published in In 2013, William M. Rohe co-authored a Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University paper with Mark Lindblad, entitled Reexamining the Social Benefits of Homeownership after the Housing Crisis, which concludes that attitudes towards homeownership may have been altered by the recession and housing crisis, and that there is little research that addresses how the housing crisis has impacted the perceived non-financial benefits of homeownership, such as whether it is still seen as providing greater tenure security than rental housing. Therefore, based on differing findings of studies on the subject of the benefits of homeownership, it cannot be assumed that Wheatley Heights would not be wellserved by additional rental housing, or that renters would be less invested in the Wheatley Heights community. It should also be noted that the Applicants are proposing a rental apartment community to meet a demonstrated need for rental housing in the Town and in Suffolk County. A report by the RPA, entitled Long Island s Rental Housing Crisis (RPA Report), indicates that rental housing is critical on Long Island in order to attract and retain a talented workforce, some of whom may not be able to afford to own, or may prefer to rent in order to remove the stress of home ownership. The RPA Report also indicates that only 20 percent of occupied housing units on Long Island are rentals, Moreover, the hamlet of Wheatley Heights has fewer rental housing units (20 percent of total occupied housing units) available, proportionately, as compared to the overall Town (26.2 percent of total occupied housing units). 12 Therefore, the proposed project would provide a much-needed housing type to the area. The Applicants would retain a property management company that would ensure that all common areas, landscaping, and buildings in Willoughby Commons would be well-maintained and would positively contribute to the community. Also, see Response CC-2 and Response LU-3, below. Comment CC-5: We do not disagree with creating homes, economic opportunities and the opportunity for prosperity. We prefer responsible building and economic opportunities that are sustainable and do not destroy the character of the area. Neither a commercial building nor apartments are consistent with the area. The approved single- 12 US Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (accessed August 2017); available from Comment Summary

22 family homes for the subject property are in character with the area. In consideration of the aforementioned, we request that you reject the current proposal. (C13-3, C14-4; H1-15, H6-1) Response CC-5: As indicated in Response CC-2 and Section 3.2 of the SDEIS, there are existing multi-family communities in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with existing development in the area. Also, as noted in Response CC-2, many of the occupants may be renters-by-choice, who may wish to downsize or are just starting families and are not yet ready for homeownership. Such rental units provide opportunities for those just starting out or those who have retired, but who wish to remain in the community. It should be noted that the proposed project involves development of a multi-family residential development, and does not include commercial uses. Further, the traditional aesthetics of the buildings and landscaping at Willoughby Commons would allow the proposed development to fit in with the traditional single-family residential neighborhood. Comment CC-6: I m not saying you should put 264 of them there, but maybe he would consider doing half and half, or something like that. This project may in some way add to the Beautification Project. (H22-2, H22-3) Response CC-6: As indicated in Response CC-2 and Sections and of the SDEIS, the 264 units would not result in significant adverse impacts to the surrounding community; therefore, development of a project consisting of half multi-family and half single-family residences would not provide a benefit in terms of decreased impacts related to the proposed project. In addition, as suggested by the commenter, the proposed project would enhance the aesthetics of the area through the construction of attractive buildings and landscaping. It is expected that the traditional architectural features of the proposed buildings at Willoughby Commons and the landscaping throughout the property would ease the transition between the proposed development and existing single-family communities and, likewise, not cause significant adverse impact to community character. Further, as explained in Section and Section of the SDEIS, the community character in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is already influenced by two other multi-family developments that coexist with the single-family neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions. It is anticipated that Willoughby Commons would be consistent with this established character. Comment CC-7: 264 units will be too much for this small community to absorb. I have no issues if Mr. Wade were to develop the property as it is currently zoned for 55/56 single family homes. The single-family home development is preferable to the change of zone proposal, which would negatively impact the community. (C2-1, C6-1, C6-5, C7-3, C12-1, C14-1, C15-1, C15-4, C16-1; H2-2, H4-3, H6-2, H12-2, H16-2, H20-2, H25-3, H26-1) Comment Summary

23 Response CC-7: See Response CC-2 with respect to the potential impact of the proposed change of zone and development of Willoughby Commons on community character. With respect to current zoning and approvals on the subject property, the approximately 32-acre overall property owned by the Applicants, which includes the acre subject property and the Applicants adjacent property to the north, is approved for a 56-lot subdivision with lots for 55 single-family residences and one private roadway. The subject property would accommodate 30 of these 55 single-family residential lots. However, the Applicants intent is to develop the Willoughby Commons residential apartment community on the acre subject property; and, therefore, the SDEIS was prepared to evaluate potential impacts of same. Section of the SDEIS provides a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts from the proposed project on land use, zoning and community character, and evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with relevant planning and policy documents. Based on that analysis, the current proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts with respect to land use, zoning, or community character. It is noted that the Applicants own acres to the north of the subject property on which 25 of the previouslyapproved 55 single-family residential lots would be situated. Although the Applicants may develop the property to the north in the future, there are no immediate plans for such development. Comment CC-8: The co-ops that are next door to Wade Farms are 79 apartments. They are 79 co-op apartments that are open and they are affordable for millennials. That s 79 apartments compared to 264. The senior citizen residence is really 25 apartments per acre, and it s really on an acre, so we are really not talking about a large density of apartments or multiple residents. (H11-1) Response CC-8: Two multi-family residential developments are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. One of these developments is non-age-restricted and contains cooperative ownership units (Wheatley Gardens Co- Op) and the other is a rental apartment development for those ages 55 and older (Wheatley Hollow Gardens). Wheatley Gardens Co-Op, which is non-age-restricted, is located at 175 Main Avenue at North 23 rd Street. It was built in 1973 and converted to cooperatives in This development consists of 78 for-sale units on approximately 4.9 acres, for a density of units per acre. Wheatley Hollow Gardens is limited to persons 55 years of age and older, and is located at 50 Colonial Springs Road. This development was constructed in 1981, and contains 72 one-bedroom rental apartments on 2.8± acres, for a density of almost 26 units per acre. Willoughby Commons, with a density of units per acre, would be consistent with the density of these surrounding multi-family developments, Comment Summary

24 Comment CC-9: I would be willing to go along with a proposal similar to the Country Pointe properties wherein it is a gated home owner community with a slightly denser footprint than the 56 single-family homes the Wade Farms parcel of land is currently zoned for. (C6-4) Response CC-9: See Response CC-2 and Response CC-7, above. Comment CC-10: I think a YMCA project would be a much better fit for the Wheatley Heights/Wyandanch community at large. (C8-1) Response CC-10: First, the development of a YMCA does not meet the objectives of the project sponsor. As explained in 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v), alternatives considered as part of a SEQRA process must be feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. Moreover, a non-governmental recreational facility, such as a YMCA, is not a specifically permitted use under the Residence A Zoning District. Therefore, approval for a change of zone or use variance would be required and would be at the discretion of the applicable Town board (i.e., Town Board or Zoning Board). In addition, at this time no offers have been made to the Applicants for purchase of the subject property for development with a YMCA. Comment CC-11: I approve of the apartments. What seems to be the problem is the number that is going to be built. I m saying these apartments are a good idea. I think you need to negotiate if it s too many, but I think you have to remember where all of us came from. (H23-1) Response CC-11: The SDEIS analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed 264 units and found that there would be no significant adverse impacts on the environment. Also, see Response CC-2 and Sections and of the SDEIS with respect to the potential impact of the development of 264 rental apartment units on the community character of the surrounding area, and Response CC-8 with respect to density Comment Summary