Four years after proposing an 11 building lot conservation subdivision on 66 acres adjacent to Bridge Lane in Cutchogue, a division of the Soloviev Group is now proposing a much bigger conservation subdivision, of 372 acres, which would include 47 new housing lots.
Pictured Above: The property as seen from Bridge Lane. |. George Cork Maul photo
The application has been filed with the Southold Town Planning Board by Crossroads Atlantic LLC, a division of the Soloviev Group’s agricultural holdings on the East Coast, which has purchased a great deal of farmland throughout the North Fork in recent years.
The proposed project is on land that stretches from Route 48 (the North Road) straight through to the Long Island Sound on the east side of Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. It would include 47 building lots, 18 of them fronting on the Long Island Sound, to the north side of the 372 acre property, and 267 acres are slated to be preserved through the sale of development rights to Southold Town and Suffolk County.
Southold Town Planning Director Heather Lanza said as the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the application for completeness at its Oct. 6 work session that the property is currently in 11 different lots owned by different LLCs, and Stefan Soloviev is a principal in each of those companies.
The application on file with the Planning Board is titled the Colusa Conservation Subdivision.
Back in 2021, a proposal for an 11-lot conservation subdivision of just 66 acres of a portion of the property, known as the Colusa North Subdivision, was the largest conservation subdivision the town had yet considered at that time, said Ms. Lanza when the board reviewed that application. That subdivision was withdrawn at that time after neighbors raised concerns about the layout of the access roads and lots.
“This new conservation subdivision, in Cutchogue and Peconic, is so big it spans two hamlets,” Ms. Lanza told the Planning Board as they reviewed the new application at their Oct. 6 meeting.
Ms. Lanza said the applicants were proposing what’s known as a 75/75 conservation subdivision, which would preserve 75 percent of the property and reduce the potential number of residential lots by 75 percent. With a minimum standard subdivision residential lot size of two acres, the applicants could have subdivided the property into 193 lots, but that was reduced by 75 percent, she said.
Building plots in the conservation subdivision could be smaller than two acres, clustered together, as is the case with many of the non-waterfront lots in this subdivision.
But Ms. Lanza said the proposal is not complete because it is not in in conformance with the town’s Comprehensive Plan.
In an Oct. 8 letter to the applicants’ attorney, Martin Finnegan, she recommended changes including a “more compact clustered lot design that minimizes the intrusion of residential uses into the farmland,” removal of a spur road and lots in the center of the farmland and shifting a row of building lots that stretch down the center of the properties to keep more farmland contiguous.
She also recommended splitting the large farm parcel created by the subdivision “into three to five farms of comparable size,” each with a small area with its own development-rights-intact, to enable the construction of a farmhouse or an on-farm food processing operation.
“It’s an important property in the town’s farm belt,” she said at the work session, referring to a vast swath of mostly preserved farmland along the Oregon Road corridor to the west of the property. “It’s at the east end of a big farm belt, and it’s the last big block that really needs this much preservation.”
“That’s consistent with our Comprehensive Plan,” she said. “However, the design isn’t consistent with our plan, mainly in that it’s not designed to support agriculture in the future. Our first goal is to retain and advance the industry of agriculture.”
“There are 16 homes encroaching into the active farmland area,” she said, adding that the subdivision “creates one very large farm — about 240 acres — a lot larger than most of the farms in the town… They can’t have a house or any agricultural production. They could have a little bit of retail if they put it on the portion the county buys…. They really are very hampered from being a viable farm in the future. It may not be this same owner forever. We have to look to the future by splitting it into several farms.”
Ms. Lanza added that the town and county would likely need the property to be divided into separate lots to enable each government to purchase the development rights on a specific lot.
“It would split along property lines,” she said. “It’s going to depend on the appraisals and how that comes out. The County Legislature and the Town Board would work together to find out what made the most sense. That’s not uncommon, but to have this size of purchase all at once is a little uncommon. They can’t share an easement. They need to have separate farms to protect.”
Ms. Lanza added that the current layout could trigger the project to receive a “Positive Declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), requiring extensive environmental review.
She said the project will be designated a Type 1 action under SEQRA because it involves the conversion of greater than 2.5 acres in an agriculture conservation (AC) zoning district. The array of properties are in the AC and R-80 (two-acre residential) zoning districts.
A Type 1 action requires a long form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), which was submitted with the application. Ms. Lanza recommended numerous changes to the EAF in her letter to Mr. Finnegan.
Ms. Lanza said the project could receive a positive declaration because of the “moderate to large impact on agriculture based on this design,” which would then trigger the preparation of a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
She said an argument against requiring extensive environmental review would be that the conservation subdivision is a “mitigation of a standard subdivision,” pointing out that they could as of right build three times as many houses on the property.
“Someone has to do a calculation — here’s what they could have, here’s what’s mitigated,” she said.
She added that after the application is complete, either the town or the applicant should hire a traffic engineer to examine the impact on traffic. Ingress and egress from the housing development would be through a private road fronting on Route 48. If the town were to do the traffic study, the cost would be reimbursed by the applicant, she added.
Ms. Lanza said that, after the application is complete, the Planning Board will make a SEQRA determination and hold a public hearing on the sketch plan for the project.
The Town Board would also be required to hold a public hearing on the sale of development rights.
Keep Independent News on the East End
The Beacon is able to provide all of our content online free of charge thanks to support from our readers. Be a vital part of keeping our community informed!
Advertisement
I am perplexed by the outcry over a carefully planned proposal to build 47 homes on 372 acres—preserving 75% of the land—especially when previous plans would have allowed nearly 193 homes to dot the landscape.
But the question remains: Who will actually live in these 47 homes? Will we find our next firefighters, EMT volunteers, or local store clerks among these residents? Will their children fill our classrooms, and will their families support PTA meetings? The reality is, most of these homes will likely become second or weekend residences. While these homeowners will contribute financially to the tax base, they are less likely to engage meaningfully in the community’s daily life.
Second-home owners bring important economic resources and help fund local services, but research and experience from many rural towns clearly show that full-time residents foster more vibrant, connected communities. Year-round homeowners are more likely to volunteer, support schools, participate in local events, and frequent businesses throughout the year—not just in peak seasons. They contribute directly to neighborhood safety, stability, and well-being.
Communities that prioritize affordable housing—especially for teachers, police officers, healthcare workers, and other local employees—create neighborhoods where people know and support one another. This cultivates a sense of belonging, stabilizes property values, and preserves the community’s character for generations, all while responsibly managing land use.
While nonresident homeowners play a financial role, the heart of a thriving community lies with its full-time residents, those truly invested in the town’s future and daily life. As we plan land use, we should prioritize policies that support sustainable, engaged neighborhoods and create opportunities for working families to call this place home.
Here’s a bold idea: what if, instead of 47 second homes, we developed 275 affordable apartment units on the same 372 acres? Integrating affordable housing can nurture a more economically stable, diverse, and resilient community—one built by residents who contribute meaningfully and plan to stay long term.
If we are serious about protecting our community’s strength and preserving our land, we must make room for those who want to live here year-round—not just on weekends.