HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments for Scope From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:21 AM P
To: Palmeri, Allison ^°°° E ['�° I
Cc: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong Marina project AC)[� 0 8 2021
R ai n ng Board
From: John Rasweiler [mailto:john.rasweiler.iv@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 8:42 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong Marina project
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to express my concerns about any effort to abbreviate the approval process for the Strong's Marina
project in Mattituck. I write as a long-standing resident of the Town of Southold, generally concerned about
preserving our precious natural environment and quality of life.
While I fully appreciate that Strong's Marina is a valued member of our business community, a commercial
operation of the proposed magnitude seems inappropriate given the character of the adjacent, predominantly
residential community.
I also have the following, specific concerns:
• The continuing need for a four season study of groundwater impacts of the proposed project. Last
summer, my wife and I were dismayed to experience a complete failure of our well. This necessitated
the expenditure of over $20,000 to hook our home up to the supply of the Suffolk County Water
Authority. The high cost was attributable in part to the length of the pipe that had to be run from the
nearest water main to our house; however, getting a hookup is now expensive even for a significantly
shorter connection. This work also had to be done on a stressful, emergency basis (no small order),
because we had absolutely no water. I was very surprised by the well failure, as we live in a purely
residential area on Nassau Point, extensively covered by woodland, and where the vast majority of
residents were reliant upon Suffolk County Water, rather than pumping their-own. The explanation was
that some residents of my area continued to irrigate their precious lawns with well water after hooking
up to Suffolk County Water (although they were not supposed to retain their old wells). It should also
be noted that none of my immediate neighbors had been using their own well water to irrigate
lawns. The fresh water aquifer being tapped by our well clearly was of limited capacity and sucked dry
by other residents some distance away. If something like this can happen in our area, I think there is
good reason to be concerned about a massive commercial construction project in a not terribly dissimilar
area of Mattituck. I think it is fair to expect that regradation of the Strong property, the construction of
large storage buildings, and the shunting of water away from those buildings is going to have significant
effects upon the area's water table. I simply would not accept any assertion by non-experts that the latter
is unlikely to be affected. Rather, this is a complex hydrological problem, requiring careful study by
professionals.
r
• Although my area (Nassau Point) is purely residential, a major topic of discussion at every annual
property owners' meeting is "traffic". It is far worse in the summer months than the rest of the
year. There are also continuing problems with excessive speed, tailgating, vehicular-pedestrian conflict,
and the running of stop signs. I, and I am sure many others, would not want a major business operation
added to the mix.
• Sand is an increasingly valuable commodity in many areas of the Northeast, including Long Island. I
have no doubt that mining 134,000 cubic yards of sand from the proposed site is intended to finance a
significant portion of the project. Call it "mining" because it clearly is commercial mining! Why
should the character of a prcdominantly residential area be markedly altered simply so someone can
make a nice chunk of money? The movement of that quantity of sand out of the area will be a major
annoyance to residents and undoubtedly beat the daylights out of local roads.
• Placing a business of this size and character in that area will also greatly increase boat traffic, noise, air
and water pollution. As my wife has experienced severe problems with asthma, I can easily imagine
that increased air pollution attributable to boat traffic could become a serious health problem for some. I
also say this as one who has enjoyed boating since my youth and worked on boats as a professional
scientist. You have every reason to question what the impact will be upon the future quality of life for
neighboring residents.
• Finally, I cannot think of a large boat storage operation that ever scored points for esthetics.
Sincerely yours,
John J. Rasweiler IV, Ph.D.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
t t " (, 2 cl "k
� `„itxll1("I�aIC� f� !vr�
LAW OFFICES
�drYIVY'llll.:. .r"7P1
WICKHAM,BRESSLER& GEASA, P.C.
13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O.BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICKHAM(06-02)
MATTITI.IC:K,LONO ISLAND
ERIC J.BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952
ABIGAIL A.WICKHAM
JANET GEASA 631-298-8353
TELEFAX NO.631-298-8565
ebressier@wbglawyers.com
April 5, 2021
"IA ELEC'FRONIC:."MAIL
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
Re: Strong's West Mill LLC—3430 Mill Road, Mattituck,NY
SCTM# 1000-106-6-10&13.4
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are the attorneys for Mr. James Neumann and write in opposition to the Applicant's
request dated February 26, 2021 "Letter”to the Board to review and revise the Final Scope for
the project adopted on February 8, 2021 by the Board.
There are four reasons why the request should be denied. First, the draft scope proposed
September 10, 2020 "Draft Scope" gave notice to the Applicant and all other parties of the areas
to be addressed by the Final Scope. Each of the areas now objected to was addressed in the Draft
Scope. However, the concerns now raised were not raised during the sixth month period
between the Draft Scope and Final Scope.
Second, the Final Scope became final by its terms on March 14, 2021 by reason of the
passage of 30 days without legal challenge. The latter does not constitute such a challenge.
Third, the Final Scope is entirely consistent with the provisions of 6 NYCRR Section
617.8. Specifically, the Final Scope contains all of these terms listed at Section 617.8(e)(1)-(7).
Finally,the issues raised in the Letter are without merit. The six general areas referred to
in the Letter are addressed as follows:
1. ljljp4� on Wgtgrw lZesmircw 5. The Letter raises three issues, none of which have
merit. First, a four-season field study is entirely appropriate. The proposed water usages must
be contrasted with the present water usage. Quantification of the usage rather than quantification
of the use is what must be addressed. Second, impact on surrounding wells must be addressed
and quantified. Imposition of additional water usage for landscaping and seasonal cleaning must
be quantified. Finally, the increase in number of large vessels entering,navigating and leaving
Mattituck Creek is a fair subject analysis. The Letter's conclusory assertion is without support.
2. Inipacts on "1"renal:ortation. The Letter raises four issues,none to the contrary,
which have merit. First, a four-season traffic analysis is warranted given the seasonal nature of
both the construction and presumably the post-construction traffic to the site. Second,the
intersections to be studied are evident in the Final Scope. The roadways are identified therein as
Cox Neck Lane, West Mill Road, Sound Avenue, and County Road 48. Third, a vessel traffic
study is plainly warranted given that an additional volume of at least 88 large vessels is
anticipated at multiple times. An average of/z vessel per day is an assumption without basis.
Lastly, the fact that vessels will allegedly not be coming and going on a"regular"basis is not a
reason for ignoring potential impacts.
3. rrrpacts orLA ir- ualit An air quality analysis is entirely appropriate for the
number of large vessels coming and going. Larger vessels generate greater air pollutants due to
large engines (gasoline and diesel).
4. Construction-lel t i lnipacts. The removal of sand is plainly"mining", as it
involves extraction of sand. The sand will be removed and sold, thereby creating a means of
financing the project at least in part.
5. Consistcr� With CoinniunrtyP Plans and Studies. The Letter raises two issues,
neither of which has merit. First, as noted above, the project plainly includes "mining" of sand.
Second,there is no conflict between the Final Scope and Town of Southold's Comprehensive
Plan. It should not even be necessary to note that responsible and appropriate development of
marine sites is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. Encouragement of marine uses does
not preclude careful evaluation of all proposals.
6. DE.IS Outline is Redundant or Too General. So long as all of the required
elements are contained in the Final Scope the organization or labels are irrelevant. If a
requirement is redundant, then a sample reference to information in another section is
appropriate, e.g. 4.1 vis-a-vis 3.8 and 4.2 vis-a-via 3.1. Moreover, the proposed referral of
Section 2.4 and Section 2.5 is not warranted.
In summary, we ask that the Board reject the requests in the Letter and proceed with the
process pursuant to the Final Scope. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Very truly y )urs,
Eric�13r~ stet`
EJB/ams
cc: James Neumann
Nrru°:V 16�w�(�lukll . llwk;:mllpw tr ouN'd ��o u��icilll
I
tllavtNII.
1270111 ud Road
\/WfAuclll, 1114"Y"
..k"r
H952
Phone, 631 298,8880
631 298 411!:749
WIED
April 4, 2021
0 (IiY i r
I
Southold Town Planning Department i ow In
54375 Main Rd �tullluiuu '�����du�.G
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Members of the Southold Planning Board,
Founded in 1972, the North Fork Environmental Council is the oldest continuously
operating community-based environmental organization on the North Fork.
Regarding the boat storage facility proposed by Strong's Marina, we understand that
there are objections by the developer regarding the Final Scoping Document.
On behalf of the NFEC board and our members, we strongly support the SEQRA process
and request that the document stand as it is.
Sincerely,
Susan MacKenzie, President
The NFFC is a 701 (c)(3)non-profit Organization)xhich works to increase public a m,arcness o1"keY issues.educate[lie public and public affieials aba:>o
important envkronmenial and gekality Of life issues.and works to nlakC SUre tPkat the publics voice is heard as the try to protect and preserve the land,waters,
air.wildhie and way of fife on the North Fork..
ry
From: Cummings, Brian A.
IIS E C��_"I VE�D
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject:
'� �
Subject: FW: Strong"s Scope
iC)V'tII
Iai��rr�ii:, IS
J (.,:��iCi
From: John Feldmann [mailto:john.feldmann@stonybrook.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 5, 20213:00 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong"s Scope
Good afternoon,
Please do not cut short the full scope report that should be done for this property. The proposed change to the
area should not be taken lightly and quickly brushed over.
Thank you,
John Feldmann
525 New Suffolk Road
Cutchogue NY 11935
-Best,
John Feldmann
Associate Facilities Program Coordinator
Residential Project Manager
Campus Planning Design and Construction
Research and Support Services Bldg Rm 160
Stony Brook,NY 11794
T 631.796.9739
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A. ' `a�m ,.: -. L....
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica .....�
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina storage buildings 1,P R' 0 '021
From: George &Lynn Summers [mailto:summers@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, April 5, 20213:01 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina storage buildings
Re.: SCTvI#1 000-106-6-1 3.4
am writing to support the tjoard's Linal Scope as written, and to allow no short-cuts or
reductions. Please do not cut the process short, or brush aside the community's needs for a
total vetting of this project.
Yours,
The Rev. 6 eorge Summers, Advent Lutheran Church , Mattitucic
Lynn Summers
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
r
w
r
pp
April 2, 2021
i
� Vice Chairman James Rich > err, °�"��air.ti."OwI'llll
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board 6I�a���ii'14" .���'
SouLhold Town Planning Board _. T
PO Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
1
RE: Strong's West Mill LLC /Strong's Yacht Center
3430 Mill Road, Mattituck, New York
SCTM#: 1000-106-6-13.4
�.-.
Applicant's Challenge to Final Scoping Outline
Dear Vice Chairman Rich and Planning Board Members,
On behalf of Group for the East End, I have reviewed the applicant's letter of
February 26, 2021 as well as its supporting technical submission (PW Grosser
Consulting, Inc) regarding the contents of the Town of Southold's Final Scope
for the above-referenced action.
Based on this review (and with more than 30-years of experience as a
professional land-use practitioner dealing specifically with the implementation
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA), I find no substantive
reason for the Town to significantly reconsider the Final Scope that has
been developed basedon the input of the a12121icant, Town staff and mem-
hers of the public.
�J As the Board is no doubt aware, one of the most significant features embodied
in the SEQRA process, is the law's requirement for extensive substantive
disclosure. As such, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) provides
for a thorough analysis of all potentially significant impacts, including the
irretrievable commitment of resources, land alterations, construction
calendars, growth inducement, infrastructure, relevant seasonal conditions,
runoff and erosion, on and off-site mitigation, project alternatives, etc.
These general content areas are further refined by a Scoping Outline (as they
were in the subject case) to assure that the issues of greatest concern to the
Town are fully addressed as early in the review process as possible. As we look
at the Final Scope for this action it appears that this is precisely what the
P P P P Y
rm�rr�r�i�n�l�/J�rrJr Planning Board has done by specifying specific areas of attention and content
that will be important to the Town as well as engaged stakeholders as this
review proceeds.
It is also true that every applicant will use the input of their professional
consultants to prepare a DEIS that is most responsive the criteria identified for
attention in the Final Scope. Then, upon submission, the Lead Agency will
determine whether the information provided adequately addresses the queries
and content required under the Final Scope prior to releasing the document
for public review. This process clearly allows any applicant to make its case
about any issue it perceives as too onerous or inconsequential. The Lead
Agency's assessment of such arguments, is done in the broader context of the
y overall information provided within the DEIS. Absent such context, virtually
any issue could be argued away as irrelevant or inconsequential based only on
the applicant's point of view.
The primary reason we object to the applicant's present approach (and
proposed substitution of a fairly generic DEIS outline) is that its proposed
elimination of specific content areas and site-relevant data prior to the
preparation of the DEIS, only serves to eliminate potential value that such
information may have on the required "hard look" and overall project
assessment that lies at the legislative and substantive heart of SEQRA. It also
has the potential to relegate the DEIS to kind of "boiler plate" exercise that
will not get to the heart of the most significant planning, zoning,
environmental and community character issues raised by the proposed action.
e We appreciate your time and consideration of our comments and look forward
to reviewing the DEIS when it becomes available for public review. I can be
reached at bdeluca@easteiid nat,onmetit.or- .
1
Sincerely,
y' Robert S. DeLuca
President
i
APR 65 2021
To the Town Planning Board:
We have been so impressed and gratified by the work of the Planning Board and the
Planning Staff in regard to the proposed expansion of Strong's Marina. The scope of the
study you have designed covers environmental, economic, and quality of life issues, and
truly represents the concerns of the community.
We ask that you now stand behind both the letter and the spirit of your work by not cutting
it short as the developer has requested.
You have managed a fair and open process that will result in a fact base from which to make
an informed decision. We urge you to stay the course,let study conclude in full,and then let
the facts guide your decision.
Anything less will leave you with a decision based on assumptions and conjecture.
As concerned citizens - and as neighbors to the project -- we have a lot of questions and
concerns about the project. It is only by seeing the Scope through as written that we can get
thorough answers upon which to make a decision.
Please don't cut the process short.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Jeff and Anne Pundyk
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck
i
u
Save the Sound
:#R 2021,
i
a I n° ng 7...a
April 2, 2020
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:Strong's Storage Buildings Final Scope—challenge by applicant
SCTM#: 1000-106-6-10, 13.4
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
It is our understanding that a letter protesting the content and organization of your final scope for the
above-named proposal was received on March 2, 2021, and subsequently posted to the Town's online
file site a few weeks later,around March 26th. It appears the matter will be reopened before your board
at the upcoming April 5, 2021,work session and board meetings for a possible amendment of the final
scope. Please consider this potential amendment of the final scope to be part of the formal SEQRA
scoping process,as we believe it is, and allow for further public input.
Although reorganizing the table of contents for a DEIS may be considered a minor, administrative
matter, changing the content of the DEIS outside of the regular scoping process should be considered
substantive.We are aware of the high degree of public participation in the scoping for the required DEIS
to date, and think the public should be afforded the same opportunity to participate in reviewing
proposed amendments to the final scope as they were in reviewing the draft scope.
We support the final scope approved by your board on February 6, 2021; it is comprehensive and was
thoughtfully prepared. Careful presentation of the topics in that document would provide all reviewers
the opportunity to examine potential environmental impacts, evaluate mitigation strategies, and
analyze alternatives to the proposed action.
Sincerely,
Louise Harrison
NY Natural Areas Coordinator
P.O. Box 1850 1 Southold, New York 11971 1 631-428-1315
900 Chapel Street I 2n6 Floor I New Haven, CT 06510 1 203-787-0646
www.savethesound.org
E DE li �
From: Joel Klein <joelklein@optonline.net> �Ovvfi
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 3:27 PM 111 ai inhrag Board
To: Lanza, Heather;Terry, Mark; Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Request from attorney for Strong's Boat Storage Project to modify DEIS Final Scope
Please make sure the following comments are provided to members of the Planning Board and included in the record for
the subject project.
To the Southold Planning Board and Planning Department:
I am writing in response to the February 26, 2021 request from the applicant in the Strong's Boat Storage project to the
Planning Board. Specifically, I am concerned with the request that the traffic studies called for in the DEIS Final Scope,
approved by the Board, be significantly curtailed. I believe that Save Mattituck Inlet in their March 29, 2021 letter to the
Board makes a compelling case for why traffic studies should take place over a full four seasons.The Board should not
accede to the applicant's request.The Board did an excellent job preparing the Final Scope and should not be second-
guessing itself now.
I would also like to make an additional comment concerning the Final Scope. Presently the Final Scope calls for the DEIS
to include all specifications of the loaded and unloaded trucks involved in the excavation and construction. However, it
is unclear as to exactly what this should include. Presumably, one of the purposes of requesting this data, in addition to
evaluating the effects of increases in traffic types and volumes, is to assist in the evaluation of likely damage to Town
roads resulting from project-related construction traffic.
Should the Planning Board decide to make any revisions to the Final Scope I would urge that it also be amended to
require the following:
• identification of suspension type and characteristics,tire type and configuration, and computation of equivalent single
axle loads (ESALs), for each construction vehicle type;
• an analysis of existing pavement structure on Town roads that will be used by construction traffic. (The applicant has
indicated on its submitted site plan that its own internal temporary haul road will consist of 8 inches of recycled
concrete over a 6-inch stabilized soil base. How does this compare with the structure of various Town road segments
along the proposed truck routes?);
• an estimate the additional bituminous material (and associated costs) required to maintain Town roads during the
construction period;
• an estimate of additional pavement life consumed due to the specified heavy vehicles; and
• an estimate of degradation in pavement performance curves resulting from construction traffic.
Not only will this information be essential in evaluating potential project impacts, it will be extremely helpful to the
Town Highway Superintendent in evaluating any concerns he may have regarding the project.
Finally, I want to point out that this request is not an unreasonable one to make of the project applicant. I served for ten
years as member of the Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board in Westchester County. During that period we were involved
in a multi-year review of the site plan (and associated DEIS) for a proposed C&D transfer station. That project's
associated high volume heavy truck traffic on local roads was a major concern and required consideration of the types of
information I am suggesting the Southold Planning Board require here.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joel 1. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
3331 Grand Avenue
Mattituck,NY 11952
647.866.7466
April 1, 2021
Attention: Brian Cummings, Town Planner °�iu i a , i, ED
54375 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971 /11IM", 0 Qi2021
bria:an.ct�n�rr xl gs(6LItor r�t.s t�tla9,[c1 �� � p
dr�,osIi) 4,1 �u,° I']
Re: Extensive Strong's Yacht Center Boat Storage �Iar,rsii7r, f;ofittl
I am again writing to share my concerns about the Strong's Yacht Center Boat Storage and the
applicant challenge to the requirements of the Final Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS). I agree with the Southold Town Planning Board's thorough assessment that was
approved unanimously by the Southold Town Planning Board on February 9th, 2021. Given the
significant environmental impact and overwhelming community support for a comprehensive DEIS, I
encourage the Town of Southold Planning Board to deny the request by Charles Cuddy for Strong's
Marina in the letter dated February 26, 2021. Mr. Cuddy's letter requested that the town cut short the
required information finding studies. If this is approved, it will give the town planning board
incomplete data related to the full impact of Strong's project on Mattituck Inlet--a designated NYS
DOS Significant Coastal Habitat.
In response to the February 26, 2021, letter from Mr. Cuddy and PWGC on behalf of the
applicant, they identified Goal 5 of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan as supporting their
project. I believe there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a "large marina" and whether Strong's is
actually a "large marina" as it stands in Mattituck inlet. Further, I believe the proper reading of the text
of Goal 5 in Chapter 7: Economic Development, directs the reader to comply with the Town of
Southold policies by reference to The Local Wated. ont Revitalization Program (LWRP) (2004) to
"[m]aintain consistency with the policies adopted under the Local Waterfront Revisitation Program."
See Comprehensive Plan 2020, Ch. 7 at 18. The policies in the LWRP encourage a balanced approach
to preserving natural resources and minimizing the effects of sprawling development in the following
ways:
1. DEVELOPED COAST POLICIES
a. Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances
community character,presea~ves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes
beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse elects of development.
(emphasis added).
The proposal necessitates the removal of almost 500 trees in an area adjacent to the Town of
Southold's Mill Road Preserve to facilitate the building of two 55-foot high, 50,000 SF propane-heated
structures. The structures most certainly will have negative effects on the visual community character
of the inlet and destroy a large portion of the adjacent open space. This destruction of open space for-
unnecessary boat storage will have deleterious effects on the water quality of the inlet that Southold
Town and the State have worked to improve over the last three decades.
Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Southold.
Replacing nearly four acres of native forest to construct two enormous big box style building,
likely the largest boat storage on the North Fork, does not enhance the visual quality of the areas nor
does it protect scenic resources.
NATURAL COAST POLICIES
a. Policy 4: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
Policy 5:Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
The project aims to remove 134,921 cubic yards of clean sand and 493 trees that form a large bluff.
The removal of trees and soil and a large portion of the bluff will destroy a natural defense to flooding,
erosion and the impact of climate change on surrounding properties and wetlands.
Further, if the DEIS is not conducted with a full four-season ground water study, the marina project
will not accurately be able to account for its impact on water quality as required under the LWRP.
b. Policy 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem.
Policy 7: Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold.
The preservation of the wetlands, migratory bird species, and other native species including plants
and animals of the Mattituck inlet should remain a priority. The moving and storing of large yachts
that increase boating traffic and potential inadvertent effluent discharges into the water does not
preserve or restore Southold's ecosystem. Furthermore, failing to analyze the impact of increased boat
traffic will not accurately account for the project's impact on air quality. The policies require a
balanced approach to economic development in this region that demands a full review of the benefits
and harms to the area.
I believe the community has demonstrated a concern for the potential negative impact this project
will have on the residential neighborhood and natural environment that should be taken seriously. As I
wrote in my previous letter, I urge you and the Southold Town Planning Board to consider that
Mattituck Inlet is irreplaceable. Its designation as a NYS DOS Significant Coastal Habitat confirms
that the inlet is a priority environmental preservation zone for the state. The LWRP provides that all
"proposed marine-related water-dependent uses be encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the
coast and/or along creeks and bays where they do not negatively impact on residential neighborhoods
or the natural environment" (emphasis added). See Town of Southold Planning Board, 1985, at 12 (as
cited in LWRP, at § II(B —5)). As such, Strong's is required to provide comprehensive community
impact and environmental studies to comply with the town's LWRP.
The only way to understand the impact on residential neighborhoods and the natural environment
is to stick with the DEIS as written.
Sincerely,
� f�
J I-x"
From: Denise Goehringer <ggenterprise@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2021 10:30 PM �'m�� ��� ����
To: Lanza, Heather
2021
Subject: From Denise Goehringer-Geis letter about Strong's project ��� (' ��°
ir:p�q� fs�v'r�
Hi Heather and the Planning Board,
My name is Denise Goehringer-Geis and I grew up at 1305 Bayview Ave where my parents still live today. (I
currently live on Sigsbee Road in Mattituck).
I am very concerned about the magnitude of the proposed Strong's project. Their is no way this proposed
project is not going to have a tremendous impact on the environment (ground, water, air and noise).
I would like to ask the board not to allow Strong's to take any short cuts but, to have them for fill the final scope
as written. Thank you for your time, Denise Goehringer-Geis
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: CAROLYN MCCALL <cmcca112@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:57 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck Inlet: Please Stay the Course A F'[-� 0 5 20211
ti�i.�C Ii",li L G r�VV11
Follow Up Flag: Follow up �ff7rfrriiir� I�r,t�i �:f
Flag Status: Flagged _.n.. ..........
To the Board:
I was disturbed to read that a request has been made by Strong's to shorten the length and breadth of the
environmental impact study that the Planning Department had proposed and you approved.
This move is not unexpected but is unacceptable.
Please stay the course and leave the study as planned. Doing otherwise will severely undermine the value of the study
and undermine the board's ability to make a sound decision regarding the proposed development.
Regards,
Carolyn McCall
crnccal.!2@niac.com
10230 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Nancy Lustenring <nlustenring@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:59 PMti
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet AH 0 5 202
Follow Up Flag: Follow up OVIVI'l
Flag Status: Flagged �DI �i�i�iP°�rj 13r�etr��l
Please stick to scope of study and do not permit Strongs attorneys to shorten or circumvent the approved full
study process.
Thank you
Nancy Lustenring
Mattituck resident
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
From: Nancy Nikolis <mmnikolis@gmail.com> �� le �� � � Ne
q . .
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:41 PM IVwwa, nR.
o��
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet
Follow
°' �
Follow Up Flag: Follow up .� n � � ( ard
V�Irr�n7ii�F� I:� �
Flag Status: Flagged �
Dear Mr Cummings,
Please stick to the original plan of the one year study of the Strong Marina impact to the Mattituck inlet and the
surrounding environment.
Our environment and our neighborhood is too important to rush to a hasty decision that will impact generations to
come.
Thank you..
Nancy Nikolis
1805 Cox Neck Rd
Mattituck
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
3
From: Sharyn Kohen <sharyn.kohen@ey.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:05 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. N I�
Subject: Strongs Marina Study
i
AN G 5 20212
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged WNFI
Plannnr,j
Dear Sir,
I live in Mattituck right off the bay and cherish the wildlife that I have the great price ledge of watching. Please
make sure Strong completes the full study. Our community is changing quickly. I'm not against change but I
also don't want to destroy the beauty that draws people to our community.
Thank you.
Sharyn Kohen
Get Outlook for iOS
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are providing to you.
Preliminary tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for penalty protection.
The information contained in this message may be privileged an � _� .....
d confidential and protected from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its
primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive
advertising and promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for EY Client Portal and the ey.com
website, which track e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this
message to no-ntio cmaiL'�i"ey.coni, If you do so, the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our
principal postal address is 5 Times Square,New York,NY 10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
4
From: Teresa McCaskie <nofork22@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 11:28 PM ...
To: Cummings, Brian A. m,
Subject: MATTITUCK Inlet - Strongs Marina Comment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I I�Mi7sfli'ty� I��,�arR:I
Good day Mr. Cummings,
My comment is that I request that the Southold Town board continue with the final scope as written. Please follow
through.
Thank you,
Teresa McCaskie
940 Woodcliff Drive
MATTITUCK NY 11952
Sent from my iPad
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Russ Bates <russ.bates@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 4:29 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong opposition to Strong Marina's irresponsible request to cut studies short
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
�e, �,o AM a�......
Flag Status: Flagged
0N1,
Dear Mr. Cummings Plannhng Bf2�rfi
As a full-time resident and taxpayer of Southold, residing on the Mattituck Inlet, I am stunned that Strong's
Marina has taken the irresponsible step of asking the planning board to shorten the year-long planning study
that you required. Usually, Strong's is a responsible member of the business community, but here they are
taking dangerous steps that will most likely destroy the ecology of the Mattituck Inlet without taking the
prudent steps that you requested before consideration of permitting.
As I drive around the hamlet of Mattituck and broader Southold, I have yet to find any four story buildings as
proposed that are the size of football fields, particularly sitting on waterfront. The closest one I can find is the
awful blight created at Point of Egypt (that your board presumably permitted and hopefully learned from at
some point). And the Point of Egypt buildings are less tall and less big. Is this how you intend to allow the
Mattituck Inlet to be permanently damaged?
At your meeting in mid-February, you were quite specific as to what would be required for you to make a
decision to proceed with or deny Strong's plan. And yet they and their attorneys show little respect to the
planning board or the community by seeking to gut your requests, complaining that many requests should be
eliminated:
• They do not want you to know the four season impact of their project, even though this is a four season
community in terms of weather, population of humans and population of animals. Their proposal will
have permanent effect on the bird and wildlife population in this area.
• They do not want you to conduct a boat vessel study because they do not want you to know the findings
because we know their proposal will introduce more boat traffic than the inlet can handle (already the
Southold police admit that they cannot adequately patrol the inlet and there is significant boat speeding
in the inlet.)
• They do not want you to know about the effect of the removal of sand from the area - 134,00 cubic
yards. And they do not want you to know the effect of sand mining on our water.
• They do not want you to know the things that will be learned by completing the four season impact
studies because a reasonable planning board would not grant their permitting requests if it knew these
facts!
And let's not forget that local marinas across Long Island are seeking growth permits in order to bulk up and
sell to larger conglomerate marinas through M&A activity. So do not be fooled into thinking that you are
reviewing this on behalf of long-term local interests.
The Planning Board makes the rest of our lives extraordinarily difficult when we want to add a storage shed or
do any alterations to our property, and I accept it because it makes for a good and attractive community. I
cannot understand why you have not already denied this harmful project given that there are no football-sized
2
four-story buildings in the city and it would clearly destroy a natural habitat. That said, I strongly encourage
you reject Strong Marina's irresponsible request to not comply with the four season studies and other
requirements that you set out in your mid-February meeting.
Kind regards
Russ Bates
15 East Mill Road, Mattituck,NY 11952
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open allachmenls or click oil links from
unlmown senders or unexpected emails.
3
From: jneumann northforkcapital.com <jneumann@northforkcapital.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 5:12 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
g' 9 pObjection
Cc: Neumann Tara
Subject: Stron s YC Storage Final Scope 1
APR (11,11 2,021
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged , `g I�1 '
h"I�ar�ir�iiif�) (aaircl
r{ ...
To: Brian Cummings,Town Planner, Southold Town Planners, & Planning Board
From: James &Tara Neumann, Beth & Mike Neumann as owners of three lots on the east side of Mattituck Inlet, all
directly facing Strong's YC
We wish to register our objection to the Town Planning Board &Town Planners revisiting or altering the Final Scope that
was adopted after much public scrutiny and input from both sides. We feel the Scope adopted represents a
compromise achieved through the public hearing process. Although there are elements we outlined previously that
could be stronger in the Scope (e.g. aesthetics), we felt the Planners did a good job of incorporating points that
respected all parties rights and concerns.
It was unclear to us that either party could request the Scope be altered after adoption. If there are to be changes it
would seem that there again needs to be another period of public hearings and commentary to ensure fairness. Please
confirm receipt of this e-mail communication and let us know if there are any issues to be resolved.
Jim Neumann
646-637-1549
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
r
� I�Iri�7111�1(� lir�ril'fa
From: Joel Klein <joelklein@optonline.net> . ........
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 3:27 PM
To: Lanza, Heather;Terry, Mark; Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Request from attorney for Strong's Boat Storage Project to modify DEIS Final Scope
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please make sure the following comments are provided to members of the Planning Board and included in the record for
the subject project.
To the Southold Planning Board and Planning Department:
I am writing in response to the February 26, 2021 request from the applicant in the Strong's Boat Storage project to the
Planning Board. Specifically, I am concerned with the request that the traffic studies called for in the DEIS Final Scope,
approved by the Board, be significantly curtailed. I believe that Save Mattituck Inlet in their March 29, 2021 letter to the
Board makes a compelling case for why traffic studies should take place over a full four seasons.The Board should not
accede to the applicant's request.The Board did an excellent job preparing the Final Scope and should not be second-
guessing itself now.
I would also like to make an additional comment concerning the Final Scope. Presently the Final Scope calls for the DEIS
to include all specifications of the loaded and unloaded trucks involved in the excavation and construction. However, it
is unclear as to exactly what this should include. Presumably, one of the purposes of requesting this data, in addition to
evaluating the effects of increases in traffic types and volumes, is to assist in the evaluation of likely damage to Town
roads resulting from project-related construction traffic.
Should the Planning Board decide to make any revisions to the Final Scope I would urge that it also be amended to
require the following:
• identification of suspension type and characteristics, tire type and configuration, and computation of equivalent single
axle loads (ESALs), for each construction vehicle type;
• an analysis of existing pavement structure on Town roads that will be used by construction traffic. (The applicant has
indicated on its submitted site plan that its own internal temporary haul road will consist of 8 inches of recycled
concrete over a 6-inch stabilized soil base. How does this compare with the structure of various Town road segments
along the proposed truck routes?);
• an estimate the additional bituminous material (and associated costs) required to maintain Town roads during the
construction period;
• an estimate of additional pavement life consumed due to the specified heavy vehicles; and
• an estimate of degradation in pavement performance curves resulting from construction traffic.
Not only will this information be essential in evaluating potential project impacts, it will be extremely helpful to the
Town Highway Superintendent in evaluating any concerns he may have regarding the project.
Finally, I want to point out that this request is not an unreasonable one to make of the project applicant. I served for ten
years as member of the Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board in Westchester County. During that period we were involved
in a multi-year review of the site plan (and associated DEIS) for a proposed C&D transfer station. That project's
associated high volume heavy truck traffic on local roads was a major concern and required consideration of the types of
information I am suggesting the Southold Planning Board require here.
5
Thank you for your consideration.
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
s
WATSON <northfork tonline.net> �I ,,,� '
o
From: @ p ,, p
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 9:16 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A. ISI°'I`� 0 ti, 0 1
Subject: Strong's Study
Attachments: DSCN1238jpg; DSCN1243jpg ,, <<,�., , ,u�
I'Iw�irrriug
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please consider the Strong's proposal and study very carefully as once approved, you cannot undo.
Also - consider that MORE is asked for seeking LESS.
We live across the creek from another Strong's facility - the quality of our life has literally diminished
tremendously - most of our neighbors have moved to get away from the area due to the situation.
Attached is a visual of how these buildings look - Is it really worth loosing our natural beauty for the
sake of wealthy boat owners to be able to store their boats here?
Please do not let this happen to another location!!!
Audrey Watson-Wigley
535 Westview Drive, Mattituck, NY
CONFIDENTIAL - COMMUNICATION -NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE -NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
Deputy Chief Instructor
Suffolk County Fire Academy
CIC Suffolk County EMS
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: chrislarkin305 <chrislarkin305@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 1:21 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. /1PR 0 ? 202 f
Subject: Strong's Marina
T t)von
Follow Up Flag: Follow upi,lannhng F"M`I'd
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Cummings,
Although I am not a Mattituck resident I am concerned that Strong's Marina request to cut the study short is very
"shortsighted". Such a large undertaking on the waterfront would seem to cry out for an in depth evaluation of its
impact.The Planning Board's decision to ensure a year long review was a wise one.
As a local concerned citizen, I hope that decision is honored.
Thank you.
Christina Larkin
765 Cedarfields Dr
Greenport.
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
r
From: Mike <mpiscatelli@optonline.net> IRS E i� u
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 8:04 PM
To:, Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: No shortcuts � � 0 � � �}�
i6a �.rl'.� I EtVJCI
Follow Up Flag: Follow up �lk��<<ir7r I:atr fl`(,I
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning Mr. Cummings, I would like to share my thoughts on cutting the strongs Marina impact study short. I do
think that it being so close to one of our most valuable resources that it really deserves to have a complete and
thorough study done to see just how it is going to directly impact the traffic and the ecosystem around it.There will be
I'm sure run off of some sort and bathrooms.
Thank you for considering
Sent from my Whone
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Nicole Nieves <nycnieves@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. �oE µ��V
Subject: Save mattituck inlet
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged �f ±
Mr Cummings,
I live on the Mattituck inlet at 675 Jackson Landing. This affects us directly. I am emailing you to say
I think you should stick to the scope PLEASE.
Thank you
Nicole Nieves
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1.
From: CAROLYN MCCALL <cmccall2@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:57 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck Inlet: Please Stay the Course '0111 0
Follow Up Flag: Follow up � —
, ,1ti 1 JVV1�
Flag Status: Flagged �l�,rir'�ir�E� I;,�r����d
To the Board:
I was disturbed to read that a request has been made by Strong's to shorten the length and breadth of the
environmental impact study that the Planning Department had proposed and you approved.
This move is not unexpected but is unacceptable.
Please stay the course and leave the study as planned. Doing otherwise will severely undermine the value of the study
and undermine the board's ability to make a sound decision regarding the proposed development.
Regards,
Carolyn McCall
cmcca112@mac.com
10230 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Nancy Lustenring <nlustenring@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:59 PM �..
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet
(Jf "'1 2 2
Follow Up Flag: Follow up �..
Flag Status: Flagged x1o7'Alh
Please stick to scope of study and do not permit Strongs attorneys to shorten or circumvent the approved full
study process.
Thank you
Nancy Lustenring
Mattituck resident
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
From: Nancy Nikolis <mmnikolis@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:41 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. yJ'
Subject: Mattituck inlet � 0 20 �
Follow Up Flag: Follow up �—
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr Cummings,
Please stick to the original plan of the one year study of the Strong Marina impact to the Mattituck inlet and the
surrounding environment.
Our environment and our neighborhood is too important to rush to a hasty decision that will impact generations to
come.
Thank you.
Nancy Nikolis
1805 Cox Neck Rd
Mattituck
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Sharyn Kohen <sharyn.kohen@ey.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:05 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. ,
Subject: Strongs Marina Study
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
:"Mai'a
Dear Sir,
I live in Mattituck right off the bay and cherish the wildlife that I have the great price ledge of watching. Please
make sure Strong completes the full study. Our community is changing quickly. I'm not against change but I
also don't want to destroy the beauty that draws people to our community.
Thank you.
Sharyn Kohen
Get Outlook for iOS
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are providing to you.
Preliminary tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for penalty protection.
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
T e ' and protected from disclosure. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its
primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive
advertising and promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for EY Client Portal and the ey.com
website, which track e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this
message to ��+� � �t���e-� ilra� :.,,:c;rdz . If you do so, the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our
principal postal address is 5 Times Square, New York, NY 10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
4
Z
CAa",,�; 31 ¢o 2021
ATTGT P(K INLET
m
lb' M
I:'lVainoi'n B(:n i.
� .....
March 29, 2021
To James Rich,Vice Chairman, and Members of the Town of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Vice-Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
Our community group, Save Mattituck Inlet, emphatically stands behind the Board's Final
Scope for the Strong's Marina expansion as written.
We deeply appreciate the Planning Board's careful consideration of our community's
concerns, as reflected in the Final Scope. In that same spirit,we would like time to support
the Planning Board in its work to ensure environmental impacts are thoroughly addressed
in the upcoming DEIS.
We understand that you will be discussing the applicant's complaints on the Strong's Boat
Storage Final Scope at your April 5, 2021 work session.As this complaint was uploaded to
the town files on March 25th, over three weeks after receipt by the Planning Department
on March 2nd, Save Mattituck Inlet respectfully requests that this discussion be postponed
to allow for community members to voice their concerns.
As you are well aware from the abundance of public comments on the draft scope,this is a
project that the community feels passionately about.Additionally, for increased
transparency we believe that this item should appear on the agenda for the next public
meeting,which is rapidly approaching.
Sincerely,
Anne Sherwood Pundyk
(917) 612-1863
Steven Boscola
(631) 830-3082
Save Mattituck Inlet Co-Chairs
Save the Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 * www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
RECEIVED
MATTITUCK I NILET
I .
'm��.railiti.P(i 10M
„ ...., ......_
i Du .m l a-VC)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 29, 2021
James Rich, Vice Chairman, and Members of the Town of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, New York, 11971
RE:STRONG'S YACHT CENTER-PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS
Dear Vice-Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
Save Mattituck Inlet is very appreciative of the hard work of the Planning Board and the Planning
Department in preparing the Final Scope for the DEIS for the Strong's Yacht Center Boat Storage
Buildings Project (the Project). The entire SEAR scoping process was well handled. The more than
seventy-five formal comments submitted by the Southold community were clearly taken into account in
preparing the Final Scope. The Final Scope is, in our opinion, well developed, appropriately
comprehensive, and reflects a wide array of community concerns.
We are writing to advise you of several concerns Save the Mattituck Inlet has with the February 26, 2021
letter to the Planning Board from Charles R. Cuddy, attorney for the Project, and its attached comments
from PWGC (the Project's consultants).
We stand emphatically behind the work of the Planning Board staff and were gratified to see the Board
vote unanimously to accept it in February. Less than one month later, the developer's complaint to cut
short the process is a rebuke to the spirit of the work. The Final Scope is designed to get a sufficient fact
base for the Board to make a truly informed decision. Cutting the process short undermines those good
intentions. What's more, it brushes aside the voices of the community.
The Board and staff have conducted an open and transparent process. We strongly urge that you stay
the course, let the study conclude in full, and then let the facts guide your decision.
That said, while we are sure the staff of the Planning Department will advise you regarding some of the
issues mentioned in the letter and its attachment, we want to make sure you are aware of the concerns
of our group before preparing any response.
Save the Mattituck Inlet + P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
�11r�LGi II ��++� ,
i i�TT[TM1.JCK 1N UT
The February 26 letter is critical of the Board's adopted Final Scope for the Board-mandated Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. It claims, among other things, that the Final Scope contains
"irrelevant as well as excessive requests . . . "We disagree. The Final Scope properly addresses
environmental concerns raised, not only by the Southold Planning Department, but by members of the
greater Southold community—as called for by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). In
several places of the PWGC memo, clarification is requested for items we believe are already clearly
defined in the Final Scope of the DEIS.
Mr. Cuddy's letter starts by citing several sections of the SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR 617.8, which
deal with scoping. Mr. Cuddy has chosen to selectively cite one section of that regulation (617.8[e][7])
that calls for a DEIS scope to mention which environmental issues are not included in the scope because
they have been "determined to be neither relevant nor environmentally significant or that have been
adequately addressed in a prior environmental review." We are unclear as to why Mr. Cuddy has
chosen to cite this regulation, except to imply that some of the issues the Board has identified as
needing to be addressed in the scope-of-work fall within the "irrelevant" category.We again disagree.
Mr. Cuddy concludes his letter with the statement that "SEQRA is an attempt to strike a balance
between environmental concerns and the property rights of the owner" (emphasis added). This is
misleading, and we believe incorrect, interpretation of SEQRA. Nowhere in 6 NYCRR 617, the 2020
edition of the SEAR Handbook, or any case law with which we are familiar, is there mention of the need
to strike such a balance.
SEQRA regulations contain the following references to balancing concerns:
"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" 6 NYCRR 617.1(d).
An EIS "weighs and balances [relevant environmental impacts] with social, economic
and other essential considerations"
Findings Statements prepared by the lead agency at the conclusion of the SEQRA
process must "weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic
and other considerations" 6 NYCRR 617.2(p) and 617.11(d)(2).
[I]t 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 617.1(d).
Save the Mattituck Inlet P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
x
�.w
ENL_iAM"1TTUCK INLET
As the SEAR Handbook states: "The purpose of SEQR is to ensure that the environmental impacts of an
action are weighed and balanced with social, economic, and other considerations so that a suitable
balance of social, economic, and environmental factors may be incorporated in the planning and
decision-making processes of state, regional, and local agencies."
Nowhere in the SEQRA regulations, or the SEAR Handbook, is there mention of need to "balance
between environmental concerns and the property rights of the owner."
Save Mattituck Inlet would like to offer the following comments on the specific issues raised in in the
PWGC memo:
Impact on Water Resources
PWGC is requesting that the applicant be allowed to rely solely on existing surface water quality data
from a variety of sources, rather than conduct a Project-specific assessment over all fours seasons as
called for by the Planning Board in the Final Scope. Save Mattituck Inlet opposes this request.
PWGC cites the SEAR Handbook' in support of this request. The Handbook states that "the use of
existing comprehensive plans, prior EISs, and natural resource inventories expedites scoping and
reduces the need to develop extensive new data for the current EIS." It is clear from a reading of this,
and from the context from which it was taken (Chapter 5, Section B of the Handbook which deals
exclusively with scoping), does not preclude the Planning Board from requesting any additional data it
feels necessary to ensure that is taking a "hard look" at potentially significant environmental impacts
associated with the Project that have been identified.
The Planning Board in its EAF for the Project, which formed the basis for its decision to require an EIS,
concluded that the Project had the potential to have a moderate to severe impact on surface waters
because it:
1- may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or
banks of any other water body;
2-may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing
bottom sediments;
'The PWGC memo refers to the"SEAR Manual."We assume they are referring to the SEQR Handbook.
Save the Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
I ATTITUCI INLET
3-may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of storm water discharge that may lead
to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies; and
4-may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the
proposed action.
We also remind the Planning Board of the extremely close proximity of the Project to the Mattituck
Wetlands and Beaches Area, which is designated by the Division of Coastal Resources of the New York
State Department of State as a "Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat'."
Given these concerns, which are echoed by Save Mattituck Inlet, we believe it is essential that a four-
season water quality monitoring program designed specifically to provide baseline data is needed. That
data can be used not only to estimate how any anticipated Project-related activities (including both
construction and operation) could result in adverse changes in surface water quality, but will provide a
basis for evaluating any post-construction changes should the Project be approved..
The PWGC memo is requesting that the Final Scope be revised to no longer require groundwater
studies/well monitoring over four seasons.3 Save Mattituck Inlet opposes these requests. PWGC
justifies their request by noting that once in operation the Project will a) reduce the volume of water
withdrawn from the site because it includes discontinuing the use of on-site wells and a connection to
the SCWA, and b) does not involve any dewatering or excavation in groundwater. PWGC fails to
mention that the removal of more than 400 trees, the removal of forty feet from a fifty-foot hill
(134,000 yds3 of sand), and the replacement of these features with two structures, each with an area of
more than a football field, will result in a significant increase in impervious surface area that could well
affect groundwater and nearby residential wells.
The PWGC memo is requesting that the applicant be allowed to substitute published NOAA data' and a
privately conducted 2020 soundings survey with the Water/Tidal flow/restrictions model called for in
z The need to include a discussion of this significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat in the DEIS is already called for
in the Final Scope (p.12).
3 PWGC concludes their request relating to groundwater studies with the statement"We recommend removal of
such study from the DEIS." We assume that PWGC is referring only to the need for a four-season study,and not
any groundwater study.
' PWGC makes reference to NOAA data available at http:/(tidesandcwrents.noaa.gov. The data available at that
site for Station 8512668(Mattituck Inlet) are extremely limited.Station 8512668 is closest station to the Project
site. It is located several hundred feet east of the breakwater at the entrance to Mattituck Inlet. The degree to
which information from this one station can be used to predict conditions adjacent to the Project site is unknown
and would have be established through mathematical modeling before it can be used in any analysis.
Save the Mattituck Inlet 0 P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.5aveTheMattitucklnlet.com
hTAT ITLICK INLET
the Final Scope. Save Mattituck Inlet opposes this request. PWGC bases this request on the fact the
Project "does not introduce a vessel length that is not currently using the Inlet today." There are two
reasons why this justification is inadequate.
The Project description states that the average yacht size, which would be serviced is sixty feet.
However, the applicant has indicated in other venues that their facility handles yachts up to 116-feet in
length.s'6 Clearly, there will be a significant increase in the average vessel size using Mattituck Inlet, in
addition to an increase in the number of vessels currently using existing facilities at the Project site.
A second reason for requiring that Water/Tidal flow/restrictions modeling take place is to allow the
Planning Board to evaluate the feasibility and potential environmental impacts associated with the
barging alternative for the removal of excavated material from the site, especially given the already
noted problems associated with the applicant's preferred trucking alternative.
As you are well aware, and as the Suffolk County Planning Commission noted in their April 7, 2020 letter
to the Planning Board, the proposed finished elevation of the Project at 9-10 feet above MSL raises
concerns with regard to groundwater swelling, periodic tidal flooding, storm water runoff, and climate
change-induced sea level rise. These concerns support the need detailed environmental analyses—not
be abbreviated analyses requested by the applicant.
Impacts on Transportation
The PWGC memo has asked for a clarification of what is meant by the term "road user group" and states
that they assume it refers to the FHWA's Vehicle Classification. However, the Final Scope (on p.12) is
quite clear that "user groups" refers to "pedestrians walking (with Strollers),jogging, biking and children
waiting for the school bus . . ."
The PWGC memo has asked for a clarification of what is meant by "real-time traffic data." It is clear
from the context in which this term is used in the Final Scope that what is being requested is actual
rather than estimated traffic data.
S It is our understanding that a single vessel of this size does periodically use the existing facility.
6 The Suffolk County Planning Commission commented to the Planning Board on April 7, 2020 that there"is
inadequate information regarding the typical type and size of boats to be serviced by the"yacht center" as a result
of the proposed new boat storage buildings. Material evidences for this proposed action should include facts as to
the maximum beam,draft,weight and length of watercraft that will be serviced . . . "
Save the Mattituck Inlet P.O. Box 592 Mattituck, NY 11952 www.SaveTheMattituckinlet.com
w.µ
MATT11 ITM I LET
Save Mattituck Inlet strongly objects to PWGC's request to use data limited to that collected only during
April 2021, in conjunction with estimated traffic count data and "seasonal adjustment factors."
According to the NYSDOT the last actual traffic count (ADT) data collected at Cox Lane near Rosewood
Drive (an intersection which must be crossed by traffic to and from the Project) was collected in June
2017. The last estimate was prepared in 2019. None of these data can be relied upon to reflect current
conditions. As the Board knows, not only has traffic noticeably increased on the North Fork since the
last actual data count (this is likely associated with the increasing popularity of the North Fork as a
tourist destination), the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase of both
full-time and part-time residents throughout the area. This unusual circumstance alone renders the use
of estimated and traffic counts unreliable. The only way to truly determine current traffic volumes, and
how they vary seasonably, is to conduct a four-season study.
PWGC's justification for limiting traffic studies is that Project construction traffic will be limited to a
September 15th to May 15th window, "so as not to interfere with summer activities." As the Planning
Board knows,the annual high-volume traffic period in Southold extends well past September 15. Boat
hauling traffic from the public boat launch at the mouth of the inlet begins around this time and
continues into November.The traffic from fall activities such as pumpkin and apple picking also continue
into November. On fall weekends traffic backs up on both Route 48 (Sound Avenue) and Main Road (NYS
Rt. 25) with many people making the drive from suburban areas of Long Island and NYC to participate in
harvest season activities.'
PWGC has also failed to take into account that their proposed construction window also includes the
periods when the same roads between Rt. 48 and the Project site which will be used by construction
traffic, will also be used by vehicles towing boats and trailers to access the Mattituck Creek Boat Ramp
for seasonal vessel launching (April-May) and retrieval (October-November).
The PWGC memo states categorically that the Project"will have no traffic impact in the summer."The
only way this statement can be correct is for the Project applicant to commit to halting the transport of
excavated sand for the summer months even if excavation work is not completed by May 15. The
Project intends to employ 30-yd3 trucks operating 48 hours per week over a seventh month period.
Simple arithmetic suggests that the removal of 134,000 yd S3 of material will require a truck to enter or
leave the Project site approximately every 10 minutes.The project description contains no discussion
about provisions for dealing with winter road conditions, which could significantly affect the Project
schedule;the feasibility of using 30-yd3 trucks on narrow winding local roads not constructed to
See the North Fork Patch stories posted October 5, 2020"Fall Traffic on North Fork has Residents Seeing Red,"
and October 1, 2020"Surge in Fall Traffic Sparks Fury; Residents Pitch Solutions.`°See also 2019 stories in both the
Suffolk Times and the Riverhead News Review.
Save the Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
MATT)T ) K INLET
withstand the loads associated with Project construction traffic$; or the possibility that smaller trucks
(and the resulting increase in traffic volume, or extension of the construction window) might be
necessary. All of these factors argue in favor of the four-season traffic study called for by the Planning
Board.
The PWGC complains that the "Final Scope does not define which roads are to be studied." The Final
Scope does ask for study of"all local and regional roads," but it goes on to clearly call for studies to
include Cox Neck Lane, West Mill Road, CR 48, and Sound Avenue, along with a limited study of NYS
Route 25. It also makes specific reference to Northville Turnpike in the Town of Riverhead. The PWCG
memo goes on to state that "some of[these roads] may never see project traffic."The Final Scope states
that"the proposed excavation plan includes two routes for truck movements . . ." (p.3). However,the
routes are not identified and it is unclear whether they are known to the Planning Board. In the absence
of this information it is hard to determine which roads mentioned in the Final Scope "may never see
project traffic.' If the routes are known to the Planning Board we urge that they be made public. If they
are not we urge the Board to request that information and make it part of the Project record.
The PWGC memo states that the intersection of CR 48 and Cox Neck Road "could be appropriate"for an
LOS (level of service) analysis "although it is very unlikely to show any impact." That is an unknown at
this point. The phrasing of PWGC's comment seems to suggest that they may have pre-determined their
conclusions in regard to this matter. This reinforces the recommendation of Save Mattituck Inlet that
the Planning Board retain (at the Project applicant's expense) the services of a traffic consultant to
provide an independent review of traffic analyses submitted by the applicant in support of the DEIS.
NYSDOT's 2019 estimated AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) count for truck traffic on Westphalia
Avenue from CR48 to Cox Neck Road is 39. The Project would result in a more than doubling of this
number, and this does not take into account the fact that the added traffic would certainly involve
vehicles averaging considerably larger and heavier than those included in the 2019 estimate. The PWGC
memo notes that the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends traffic analyses on roads that
will see at least a 5% increase in truck traffic volume. Clearly, all of the roads used between the Project
site and Cox Neck Road will meet this threshold.
The PWGC memo also objects to the Planning Board's request in the Final Scope that a comprehensive
boat (vessel)traffic study be conducted, and proposes that the DEIS only address changes in marine
traffic "within the control of SYC." Save Mattituck Inlet opposes this request. While it appears that the
increase in the number of vessels using Mattituck Inlet as a result of the Project,there will be a
potentially significant increase in both the number of large vessels, and the average size of vessels, using
a The Final Scope already notes that roads"may not have the ability"to handle the increase in construction traffic,
and the "design and condition of roads leading to the site(routes) is a concern" (p.10).
Save the Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
..�. a ,fi
r
i
FW
[MATfITUK INLET
the Inlet'. In addition,the Planning Board has an obligation to consider the cumulative impact of the
additional Project-induced vessel traffic on all maritime traffic in the Inlet, not just traffic"within the
control of SYC".
The Suffolk County Planning Commission in their April 7, 2020 letter, has also concluded that a "full
environmental quality review of the proposal should be included that has further information pertaining
to channel depths at the mouth and course of Mattituck Creek particularly in the off shore location
creek-ward of the shoreline of Strong' s Yacht Center."
Impacts on Air Quality
The PWGC memo states that they do not consider the Planning Board's request that the DEIS include an
air quality analysis for boat traffic is not reasonable10. Save Mattituck Inlet disagrees. The Final Scope
gives the applicant wide latitude as to the scope of the requested analysis. Given the large size of the
vessels (and their presumed larger engines and auxiliary equipment)that will be using Mattituck Inlet as
a result of the Project, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that there will be an increase in associated
emissions. The DEIS is the proper venue for determining whether that increase will be minimal or
potentially significant.
Consistency with Community Plans and Studies
PWGC is proposing that the Final Scope be revised to eliminate the need to consider the 2019 Suffolk
County Special Grand Jury report on illegal dumping as they do not believe it relevant. Save the
Mattituck Inlet disagrees. Significant portions of The Special Grand Jury Report are devoted to a
discussion of groundwater impacts and potential impacts to sole-source aquifers associated with sand
mining.
PWGC states that the "Final Scope is requiring studies and analyses that seem to be in direct conflict
with the Town's recently adopted (September 2020) Comprehensive Plan Update." PWGC claims that
the request for year-long studies of traffic, roadway user groups, surface water quality, and
groundwater quality are in conflict with the economic development goals in the Comprehensive Plan. In
support of this position PWGC quotes, incompletely and out of context, several goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan. Even it one accepts that construction of the Project would somehow be
9 The purpose of the Project is to service larger yachts that cannot presently be accommodated.
10 While the PWGC memo finds the requirement for an air quality analysis for boat traffic"not reasonable,"they
have not asked that such an analysis be removed from the Final Scope.
Save the Mattituck Inlet P.O. Box 592 Mattituck, NY 11952 www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
NiNV TITUC INLEI
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a conclusion that Save Mattituck Inlet believes is not
supportable,we fail to understand how conducting environmental studies in a manner that the Planning
Board has determined is necessary for it to satisfy its statutory obligations under SEQRA, could possibly
conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
PWGC cites Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan: "Preserve, Encourage, and Continue Support of Existing
and Future Maritime Uses as an Important Business Sector within the Town's Economy."11 The
implication is that approval of a project that financially benefits a single business, which has ,yet to
demonstrate„that�it will significantly benefit the reslildeJ915of-Southold in ag __rneanji_igful__N� should
take precedence over the numerous goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to protecting the
environment. Obvious examples are Goal 4.1: Reduce Traffic Congestion During Peak Tourist Season
(which extends into the Project's proposed construction window); Goal 4.3: Increase Pedestrian, Cyclist
and Traffic Safety; Goal 6.1: Conserve Water Quality; and Goal 6.2: Protect Groundwater Quality. These
are the same areas of environmental concern that PWGC suggests require less study.
Finally, PWGC objects to the use of the word "mining” in the Final Scope. Save Mattituck Inlet objects to
the suggestion that it should be replaced with the words "excavation" or "cut." While it is true that no
NYSDEC mining permit will be required for the Project, it is equally true that if the excavation of 134,000
yds3 of sand from a site was not associated with a project subject to approval by the Planning Board, a
DEC mining permit would be required. The 2019 Suffolk County Special Grand Jury report on illegal
dumping defines mining as "the extraction of sand from beneath the ground's surface.1z" PWGC
supports their position objecting to the use of the term "mining" because it inappropriately implies that
the "applicant is proposing to remove materials for some monetary benefit . . . "In fact, the applicant
will receive a considerable monetary benefit from the sale of the excavated sand, which will presumably
be used to offset Project development and construction costs
In closing we again want to compliment the Planning Board and the Planning Department on having
adopted a comprehensive Final Scope for the DEIS based upon your extensive knowledge of local
environmental conditions and residents' concerns. We believe that allowing any reduction in the
11 PWGC also cites Comprehensive Plan Objective S.7"Enhance the connection between Mattituck Inlet and the
hamlet center."Save the Sound is hard pressed to understand how the Project's stated goal of providing winter
storage for large yachts will "provide access to Mattituck's hamlet center.The reference to Objective 5.5
concerning the preservation of scenic views and acquisition of waterfront properties is also puzzling.
12 The Report goes on to say in regard to sand mining that"land has to be cleared of trees and other vegetative
matter prior to mining.After land clearing, layers of earth need to be extracted in order to reach the sand.This
type of mining is often referred to as open-pit mining,where in order to remove the sand,topsoil, clay, loam and
other layers of earth are first removed using heavy machinery like bulldozers and excavators. Large screening
machines,tractor trailers, and dump trucks are also used in the mining operation." This describes the proposed
Project.
Save the Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
thoroughness required by the Final Scope will result in a DEIS that does not adequately address
potential effects to the physical, natural, and social environment of Southold Town and neighboring
localities. We believe that any reduction in the level of effort required by the Final Scope will result in a
DEIS that will not allow the Planning Board to satisfy the SEQRA-mandated requirement that it take a
"hard look" at the Project's potential adverse environment impacts. Diminishing the requirements of
the final scope for the Project could leave the Planning Board (therefore all Southold taxpayers) open to
having to fund responses to potential legal challenges; such challenges, of course, could result in the
overturning of any final decision of the Planning Board regarding the Project.
As lead agency, the Planning Board engaged in good government practices by listening to the public and
exercising its discretion under SEQRA in developing a comprehensive and sensible scope for the DEIS
required by the Strong's Storage Buildings proposal. Please take heart: The community supports the
final scoping document as it stands, and we are sure they will be given due consideration.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Sherwood Pundyk
Stephen Boscola
On behalf of:
Save Mattituck Inlet
Save the Mattituck Inlet * P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 www.SaveTheMattitucklnlet.com
CHARLES R. CUDDY
Attorney at Law
445 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead,NY 11901
Mailing Address: Tel (631)369-82 0 Ran nq ng
PO Box 1547 Fa (63 1).369--90'9 �
Riverhead,NY 11901 e-mail, cliarlescuddyiar7 ptoaaliaie.net
February 26, 2021
James Rich, Vice- Chairman
and Planning Board Members
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Strong's West Mill LLC-3430 Mill Road, Mattituck,NY
SCTM#1000-106-6-13.4
Dear Vice- Chairman Rich and Planning Board Members:
We have carefully reviewed the final Scope prepared for the proposed boat: storage buildings at
Strong's Yacht Center.The requests made in the Scope;document are in many instances not germane
to the actual pr jecL SE RA at 6 NYCR:R §617.8 (a) and (e)(7) states:
"(a)The primary goals of scoping are to focus the EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and
to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or not significant.
(e) ...The final written scope should include...
(7) a brief description of the prominent issues that were considered in the review of the
environmental assessment form or raised during in x scoping,��,„ or both, and determined to e
p g
neither relevant nor environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed n
a prior environmental review and the reasons why those issues were not included in the final
scope."
It is the applicant's position that there are a number of irrelevant as well as excessive requests in the
Final Scope. Since SERA is an attempt to strike a balance between environmental concerns and
the property rights of the owner,we request,that in fairness,you review the annexed objections and
accordingly take steps to revise,the Final Scope.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy
CRC:ik
Enclosures
cc: P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc.
Dunn Engineering Associates
Land Use Ecological Associates
Young & Young
Jeff Strong
l,,t���A R
t i
R aa� iu u a iuvIas souimaa ui°iuouiar tl:"Nan66 ng
Comments and Requested Changes to Final Scope adopted February 8,2021
Strop "s Yacht Center—Pro osed tori. a Buildings
1. Impact on Water Resources
• The Final Scope is requiring that the DEIS include the "impacts to groundwater quantity
available to neighboring wells...based on field studies over four seasons."
The proposed project includes a connection to the public water supply and discontinuing the use
of existing on-site private wells for the entire facility,thus reducing the amount of water currently
being withdrawn on the site to only that which may be required for landscaping. The applicant
has also consulted and obtained a letter of water availability from the Suffolk County Water
Authority (SCWA),which will be included in the DEIS. Conducting a four-season groundwater
quantity study would be appropriate for projects that are considering new supply wells, or
significant increases in supply wells, that would increase the volume of water being withdrawn
from the aquifer. As this project seeks to reduce the volume of water withdrawn on the site for a
connection to the SCWA, there is no rational basis for a year-long study of groundwater quantity.
We recommend removal of such study from the DEIS.
• The Final Scope is requiring that the DEIS"analyze and discuss in detail the impacts on private
wells in the surrounding area including technical details on groundwater depth, quality,
quantity,freshwater lens, saltwater interface,amount of flow in GPM,direction of travel,and
travel times. Include zones of influence from each wellhead."
This required study is requesting the applicant to monitor the individual wellheads from all private
wells for a project that does not require the installation of new wells, but rather the discontinuing
of the use of existing supply wells. f u ilher, the application includes conversion of the existing on-
site individual sanitary system to an 1/A OWTS.This conversion would reduce nitrogen load and
improve groundwater quality.Additionally,the proposed project will recharge all stormwater on.
site,which will continue to recharge the aquifer. finally,the proposed action does not involve any
dewatering or excavation in groundwater. Accordingly,since the project is discontinuing the use
of on-site wells, is improving theconditions on site and does not involve dewatering, there is no
rational basis for such a study. We recommend removal of this analysis from the DEIS.
• The Final Scope is requiring the DEIS to"discuss the narrowness of the creek in this area and
tidal flow restrictions in an acceptable model. Include the increase tidal flow volume and
velocity restrictions that could result from the increase in boats or docks(if any)." On page 23
of the Final Scope,the "extent and quality of the information existing and needed"indicates
"Water/Tidal flow modeling/study in front of the Marina including docks and boats(applicant
generated)."
The proposed application is for the construction of two storage buildings for indoor, heated
storage, within a facility that has existed for nearly 60 years for the purpose of boat storage,
dockage, and maintenance. As repeatedly indicated by the applicant and the project team, the
Page
i C)II'1 a 111:',°: u�r�. M6!:53 630J01,.{UNSO du AV11r:!!!r,a�N�..Inr,,SSE.7'
���� ���� GROSSER�„ � (� (�� ��� �� '" („� a I III a '”
1115A . K;1R SS11:: Z a�a�i�asa.aui..auiu1J :�4GINissra �a�r�m IROG a a..O GMT, 111!11121.1 O Slll''''Ii' ,COt i l...IIIIIICIIIII1!IIII'^ IIII I 11114Y f 1716
LONG ISLAND • P1A,NHATT ,P'l • SARATOGA S RBt,,J aS SYRACUSE • SEATTLE • SHELTON
proposed application does not include any docks. Furthermore,the proposed application does not
include any Inlet modification that would alter tidal flow, and does not introduce a vessel length
that is currently not using the Inlet today. It is unclear why the use of Mattituck Inlet for boat travel
to SYC for the purpose of winter storage requires a water/tidal flow modeling/study. The DEIS
will present NOAA data as published as well as an
independent Mattituck Inlet Survey with soundings at low tide already conducted by H&L
Contracting LLC in April 2020. Please confirm that this is acceptable.
2. Impacts on Transportation
• The Final Scope is requiring"real-time"traffic data and roadway user group and analysis over
four seasons.
It is unclear what the term "real-time traffic data" is intended to mean. In Traffic Engineering
terms, "real time" data usually refers to traffic data that is continuously recorded and available
whenever called for. Real-time data is used in Traffic Management Systems such as NYSDOT's
INFORM system in Hauppauge as input to the traffic control system managing traffic signals,ramp
meters, and variable message signs. Please define"real-time data"for the purpose of this study.
By road user group,it is assumed that what is being requested is a vehicle classification study using
the FHWA's Vehicle Classifications. Please verify.
Conduct of the traffic analysis over four seasons is inappropriate.The Institute of Transportation
Engineers(ITE)recommends that traffic analyses be conducted based on average yearly traffic data
(the average day throughout the year). The ITE,NYSDOT and the Suffolk County Department of
Public Works all use`"Seasonal Adjustment Factors" to adjust traffic data taken any time during
the year to the Average day's traffic. The same seasonal adjustment factors can be used to take
data taken any time during the year to traffic experienced during any particular month. The
"average day is typically done throughout Long, Island with the exception of the five eastern.
Towns, where peak summer data is typically used. Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours and the
Saturday Peak Hours are studied to determine the proposed project's impact on roadway's
experiencing, peak traffic conditions. According to data from the "N"YSDOT Permanent Count
Station on Route 25 in the Town of Southold peak traffic occurs during August.
It must be noted that the traffic analysis is intended to examine the traffic impacts related to the
construction of the project and in particular the removal of soil,construction of drainage facilities
and the retaining walls. This work is going to be done between September 15th and May 15th so
as to.not interfere summer activities in the area. Boats stored in the completed project"building are
too large to trailer and will arrive after Labor Day and be put back into the water in the Spring.
The project will have no traffic impact in the Summer,and we see no valid reason to collect data
during the Summer.
Based on the above,it is recommended the traffic data be collected in April of 2021 and be adjusted
as necessary using seasonal adjustment factors.
The Final Scope also does not specify the type of analysis to be conducted with respect to roadways
such as West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road.
OPJVWC11; 1,H 11 pll 111VE N SSM NV Ili 10114S
The Final Scope does not define which roads are to be studied;but lists many roads;some of which
may never see project traffic. It is typical to set a threshold as an indication of whether the project's
traffic may have a potential impact. Typically,the ITE recommends a 5%threshold,indicating that
if the project's traffic exceeds 5%of the existing traffic volume,that the project's impact on roadway
or intersection should be examined.
• The Final Scope does not identify the study intersections requiring a Level-of Service analysis.
Final Scopes typically define the intersections to be studied. The intersection of Sound Avenue at
North Road(CR 48)and Cox Neck Road could be appropriate although it is very unlikely to show
any impact, as the additional traffic added by the project will would not typically influence the
capacity of the intersection.
• The Final Scope is requiring the DEIS to"provide a comprehensive boat(vessel) traffic study
analysis...of the potential moderate to large significant increase of boats to the Mattituck Inlet.
Include the existing conditions analysis and potential impacts on: Water Quality— include a
discussion on the current and potential adverse moderate to large impacts to surface water
quality in the short and long term(duration). Provide the NYSDEC shellfish closure areas,types
of pollutants occurring in the creek currently, types of chemicals in marina and vessel
maintenance needs in the proposed construction and operation of the marina facility and
mitigation. Include, but not limited to, dissolved oxygen, clarity, eutrophication, and
sustainability for estuarine and marine life, as well as existing sources of stormwater. The
potential for sedimentation during construction, and resulting, post-construction, long-term
stormwater runoff contributions from the site will be described and quantified."
On page 23 of the Final Scope,the"extent and quality of the information existing and needed"
indicates "Water quality assessment of current conditions in Mattituck Inlet overall all four
seasons(applicant generated)."
First, an assessment of the potential impacts to water quality due to boats arriving to the site for
storage and leaving the site to return to their base marinas or docks is more appropriately
addressed in the Impacts to Water Resources (Groundwater and Surface Waters). We propose to
move this assessment out of the transportation section, which best addresses the impacts on
transportation infrastructure.
Second,we would like to request clarification of the assessment included,,, The Final.Scope seems
to suggest that the applicant is to collect surface water quality data to document the water quality
of the Mattituck Inlet although published data through various programs is available, including
data provided by the Suffolk County Department of Health-Bureau of Marine Resources for five
water quality sampling locations in Mattituck Creek from 2000 to 2020. The DEIS proposes to rely
upon the published data from Suffolk County, as sourced below, as well as scientific data and
literature that exists for the Mattituck Inlet,including:
➢ Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), 2021. Surface water quality
monitoring data provided by the SCDHS Office of Ecology,Yaphank,N.Y.
mw< Page 3
^.u,MW I)FIVE1114Saan.w.u.M:N uNrS
➢ Existing Cornell Program data at the SYC Facility (Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Suffolk County—Long Island Shellfish Restoration Project)
➢ NYSDEC water quality data for shellfish protection—to be obtained through FOIA request
to Town of Southold Trustees office for data.
➢ Suffolk County Subwatershed Wastewater Management Plan,July 2020.
➢ Long Island Sound Study and the 2015 revised Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan.
As excerpted from the NYSDECs SEQR Manual, Fourth Edition, 2020, "the use of existing
comprehensive plans,prior ELSs, and natural resource inventories expedites scoping and reduces
the need to develop extensive new data for the current EIS." Accordingly, our proposed
methodology is consistent with the NYSDEC guidance. Please verify if such baseline data is
acceptable.
To assess the potential water quality impacts from the additional boats traveling to and from SYC
for winter storage purposes, the DEIS will rely upon the aforementioned published resources for
baseline data and the potential impacts of the boats to be stored on site would be evaluated as
follows:
w Number of existing boats under the control of Strong's Marine that use the Inlet.
➢ Number of projected additional boats that would travel to/from SYC for the purpose of
entering and exiting storage(i.e.,88).
Quantify for the expected additional boats.boat type(length and male);types of engines;
and environmental discharge data from the boat and/or engine manufacturers.for in water
movement and at idle.
iw, Total number of boats that utilized Mattituck Creep/Inlet in the 24120 boating season..
➢ Impact of the projected additional boats for storage facility.
The comprehensive boat (vessel) traffic study analysis is further requested to "discuss the
impact of increased boat traffic due to the expanded activities including devising a methodology
to police and monitor the water quality."
This request seems to further the general misunderstanding that this project will leadto an increase
in continuous boat traffic that will lead to animpact to the quality of the Inlet. The proposed action
includes two buildings for the purpose of winter boat storage. The project does not include the use
of these buildings year-round, does not propose year-round boat traffic in an out of the facility,
does not propose any additional docks,or any other facilities to house boats that arrive to the site
for storage. As expressed by the applicant throughout the process to date, the purpose of the
project is to provide indoor, heated storage for boats. The boats will arrive to the facility at the
close of boating season(i.e.,October-November)and the same boats will be removed from storage
and exit the Inlet in the beginning of the boating season (i.e., April-May). It is estimated that
approximately 88 boats per season would be stored in the new buildings. Accordingly, given an
eight-week timeframe for entry to storage in the Fall and the same timeframe to remove boats from
storage in the Spring, this equates to an average of approximately 11 boats per week or less than
two boats per day. Based on the actual proposed use, the request for the applicant to devise
methodology to police and monitor water quality suggests a much more intense use.
O,P%AM
ae � 4
gI113RI�I � 1,
Also,it is important to note that the Mattituck Inlet currently has three marinas/docking facilities
(Strong's Yacht Center,Strong's Water Club&Marina and Mattituck Fishing Station), two public
boat launches(Mattituck Creek Waterway Access Site and North Road Inlet),two fueling stations
(at the two Strong's-owned marinas),one pump out boat owned by SYC(as the existing pump out
station at the Mattituck Creek Waterway Access Site has been inoperable for two years),and is an
authorized area for boats to anchor overnight. Recognizing that Mattituck Creek is a heavily-
traveled waterway in the Town,there is no possible way to police and monitor water quality solely
related to boats that dock or elect to be stored at SYC. We propose to address those items that are
within the control of SYC.
3. Impacts on Air Quality
• The Final Scope is requiring an air quality analysis for boat traffic.
The request for an air quality analysis is not reasonable when considering the projected number of
boats(88 vessels twice per year)and the purpose of the project(i.e.,indoor,heated storage). Given
an eight-week timeframe for entry to storage in the Fall and the same timeframe to remove boats
from storage in the Spring,this equates to an average of approximately 11 boats per week or less
than two boats per day. Averaged annually, the total 176 trips(88 boat trips in the Spring and 88
boat trips in the Fall)equates to 0.48 boat trips per day.
4. Construction-Related Impacts
• "Mining" is not proposed and the Final Scope should be amended to reflect the proposed
project.
Repeated throughout the Final Scope is the term."mining," which is not proposed as part of this
development and the proposed action is not subject to a NYSDEC Mined-Land 'Reclamation
Permit. "Mining,"as defined by the NYSDEC,is defined as"the extraction of overburden and minerals
from the earth;the preparation and processing of minerals, including any activities or processes used for the
extraction or removal of minerals from their original location and the preparation such as zoashing,cleaning,
crushing, stockpiling or other processing at the mine location that makes a mineral suitable for commercial,
industrial, or construction use." The use of the term "mining" is suggesting that this applicant is
proposing to remove materials for some monetary benefit and should be revised.to"excavation"
or"cut".
5. Consistency with Community Plans and Studies
• The Final Scope requires the DEIS to include "an in-depth analysis of the action on the
following policy and planning documents, legislation, and implementing rules and
regulations...2019 Suffolk County Special Grand Jury Report: Illegal Dumping & Mining,
Suffolk County."
The inclusion of this document in this applicant's Final Scope suggests some illicit activity or
involvement in "Operation Pay Dirt." As the proposed removal of material from the subject
property is for the sole purpose of constructing a marine development at-grade with the Mattituck
Creek,the inclusion of this source suggests otherwise and should be removed in its entirety from
Page 5
the Final Scope. The DEIS will not address this source and the applicant requests an amended
Final Scope be issued.
The Final Scope is requiring studies and analyses that seem to be in direct conflict with the
Town's recently adopted(September 2020)Comprehensive Plan Update.
The subject property has existed for marine use for over 60 years. In 2017, the Strong's Marine
family acquired the former Mattituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard (now Strong's Yacht Center and
applicant) as well as Matt-a-Mar (now the Strong's Water Club & Marina), and only one other
marina(Mattituck Fishing Station)remain on the Mattituck Inlet.
In the Southold 2020 Comprehensive Plan, adopted September 2020, one of the economic
development goals stated is"Goa15: Pesrve s Enca Co ti,rtue toSu )12ort Existing and
Future Maritime se rp t j e o' within,the Town's Econoi " The ability
for large marinas to expand services that cater to customer needs was specifically recognized. As
excerpted from the stated Objective 5.4 for Economic Development, "Large marinas are facing
pressures to expand their services to include swimming pools, restaurants, boat rentals, storage
space,and other services that cater to their customer's needs.In order to accommodate this demand
and continue to promote Southold's traditional maritime heritage, the Town should consider
zoning amendments for marinas of appropriate size and location to better match the needs of their
clients."(emphasis added) While this objective seeks zoning amendments to allow for such uses,
the subject application does not require any such relief under the'Marine-ll zoning.
Further,the importance of Mattituck Inlet was specifically addressed in Objective 5.7 to"Enhance
the connection between Mattituck Inlet and the hamlet center." As excerpted, "Mattituck Inlet is
an important economic, environmental, and recreational resource in the hamlet of Mattituck.
Located just north of the hamlet center, Mattituck Inlet runs two miles into the North Fork from
Lang Island Sound,and is the only harbor on the 50 mile stretch between Port Jefferson and Orient
Point. As such,Mattituck serves as an important maritime location with the Inlet being a popular
destination for boaters.The hamlet's accessibility to water,in addition to a designated anchorage,
a Town park and boat ramp,marinas,and maritime uses located close to the hamlet center make
it a key economic driver."
It is recognized that viewshed and maintaining the community character is of importance
(Objective 5.5:Preserve the scenic views ion g t to'rown's shoreline throw h continued acquisition
of waterfront wet balancing cin its uses to include lueserved landand a ranize of outdoor
activities and public recreation),and the Final'Scope has identified the potential visual impacts as
an impact issue to be evaluated. However, the request for year-long studies of traffic, roadway
user groups, surface water quality and groundwater quality given the scope of the project for
storage space only,seems to be in direct contradiction to the stated economic development goals
in the Town's comprehensive plan.
6. DEIS Outline is Redundant or Too General
0 The Final Scope includes sections for Impacts on Ecological Resources,and Impacts on Plants and
Animals. These sections are proposed to be combined as Ecological Resources includes plants and
animals.
emw Pagei
• The Final Scope includes a section for Impacts on the Environment,requesting the DEIS to"discuss
the operations of the site and the overall impact on the environment." Pursuant to Section 617.2(1)
of the implementing regulations of SEQRA,the definition of"environment"is as follows:
(1) Fnvironment means the physical conditions that will he affected by a proposed action,including
land, air, water, minerals,flora,fauna, noise, resources of agricultural, archeological, historic or
aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth,
existing community or neighborhood character,and human health.
Accordingly,the Impacts to the Environment is accomplished through the preparation of the DEIS
and the various impact sections and is not appropriately handled in its own section as it would
require summarizing the content of the DEIS. We propose to address the requested elements
(Items 2,3 and 4)in their respective sections—ecological resources and water resources.
• The Impacts on Transportation includes a comprehensive boat(vessel)traffic study that includes
a water quality assessment that is more appropriate for inclusion in the Water Resources section.
We propose to address the potential impacts on surface water quality in the Water Resources
section.
• In the "Proposed Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS",it is noted that;
➢ Section 4.1 duplicates Section 3.8
Section 4.2 duplicates Section 3.1
Our proposed outline is as follows:
Executive Summary
1.0 Description of the Proposed Action
1.1 Project Location and Site Conditions
1.2 Project Design and Layout
1.3 Project°.Objectives and Benefits
1..4 Construction and Operations
1.5 Required Permits and Approvals
2.0 Natural Environmental Resources
2.1 Impact on Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
2.1.2 Potential Impacts
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.2 Impact on Water Resources(Groundwater and Surface Water)
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Potential Impacts
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
OPV%M Page l
2.3 Impact on Ecological Resources
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Potential Impacts
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.4 Tmpact on Flooding
2.4.2 Existing Conditions
2.4.3 Potential Impacts
2.4.4 Proposed Mitigation
3.0 Human Environmental Resources
3.1 Impact on Human Health
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Potential Impacts
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.2 Impact on Transportation
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Potential Impacts
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.3 Impact on Aesthetic Resources
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Potential Impacts
3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.4. Impact on Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
3.4.2 Potential Impacts
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.5 Impact on Open Space and Recreation
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Potential Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.6 Impact from Noise
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
3.6.2 Potential Impacts
3.6.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.7 Impact on Air Quality
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
3.7.2 Potential Impacts
3.7.3 Proposed Mitigation
wm< Pagei
3.8 Social and Economic Impacts
3.8.1 Existing Conditions
3.8.2 Potential Impacts
3.8.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.9 Construction-Related Tmpacts
3.9.1 Description of Proposed Construction Schedule and Activities
3.9.2 Potential Impacts
3.9.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.10 Consistency with Community Plans and Studies
3.10.1 Existing Conditions
3.10.2 Potential Impacts
3.10.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.11 Impact on Archeological and Cultural Resources
3.11.1 Existing Conditions
3.11.2 Potential Impacts
3.11.3 Proposed Mitigation
4.0 Other Required Sections
4.1 Use and Conservation of Energy
4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided(Short-Term and Long-Term)
4.3 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources
4.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts
5.0 Alternatives and Potential Impacts
5.1 Alternative 1-No-Action
5.2 Alternative 2-Alternative Material Removal Plan Using Barges
5.3 Alternative.3-Construct Project on Another Parcel.
5.4 Alternative 4—Construct Proposed Storage Building(s)Without Excavation
5.5 Alternative 5—Construct Smaller building(s)with Less Excavation
5,6 Alternative 6- Reconfigure or Reconstruct Existing Buildings On-site for Larger
Boat Storage.
6.0 References
a d
Page
R Y as
l
Arthur Kretschmer December 4, 2020
Mar-Sea, Inc.
P.O. Box 81
.. .....
Mattituck, NY 11952 !�,E C E I V
[�
Heather Lanza 2 ` 2EJ2 �
Town of Southold
-uatt6�YVA��� Mtif`utiuilV
Planning BoardR �iy�roi��r: Ina
; i '
4'
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Heather Lanza,
For over 85 years I have been fishing commercially on the Long Island Sound
and have been based out of the Mattituck Inlet. I support the plan that Strong's has for
new buildings at the Yacht Center. My business relies on having the services available
that they provide all year round. Without Strong's assistance my boat and business
would be affected greatly along with the other eleven commercial fishermen based out
of Mattituck Inlet and local area.
I have seen improvements since Strong's Marine took over the location formerly
knows as MIMS back in 2016. They keep their yard organized and their staff is friendly
to work with. They are dedicated especially when there is a,n emergency repair or a
challenging issue. It is important to have this type of resource to support local
fisherman. I agree with the plan to create new buildings which will ensure that the needs
of my industry, as well as others, will be supported.
Sincerely,
µ .m
A
December 7, 2020 CJI41 (i
Attn: Town of Southold Planning Board
rd
Heather, _.��. ........ . ...
For 50+years I have been a dedicated commercial fisherman based on the Mattituck Inlet,
and my business relies heavily on Strong's Yacht Center. Strong's Yacht Center does all
maintenance work to my boat, and without their assistance it would affect production of my
business. The Yacht Center has gone above and beyond to help with any emergency situation I
have run into with my boat. Without any hesitation they have diagnosed any maintenance
issue, fixed the problem and got my crew and I back out on the water in no time.
My business depends greatly on Strong's Yacht Center, and I stand with them in support of
their proposed building project. Without their assistance, myself and the other commercial
fisherman who call the Mattituck Inlet home would have to travel further for any necessary
repairs or assistance. Strong's Marine has always done well by me and my business, and I know
they will continue to do the same for anyone else.
Cordially,
,7;
Phil Karlin owner of PE & DD Seafood, Inc. Riverhead, NY 11901, (631) 236-8770
12/4/20 DECD
Dear Mr Cummings, � � ��
Board
I have been reading in the local paper about the proposed Strdn ,.....__
Marina project, on Mill Road in Mattituck. I am vehemently opposed to this
project. My family and I have lived here for more than 20 years, built our
dream house overlooking the Mattituck inlet, work very hard to keep up with
our home and pay our high taxes. That being said, the last thing we want is
to look out our windows to see two 50,000 sq ft buildings. We don't want to
see any commercial buildings on this beautiful land. We don't plan on moving
but the impact of this kind of project would crush our (as well as our
neighbors) home value. I think it is outrageous to even consider such a
permit for this commercial project. The community and environmental impact
must be considered.
I have significant concerns that the Strong's Marina family has close ties
to this community, bringing in lots of business and tourists thus influencing
the decisions on a political level. Southold Town is required to consider all
the community members, not just the ones that bring in the greatest
financial gain. I believe, Strong's already has a booming business in our town
and adding even more is bordering on greed.
I could go on and on about the scientific impact these buildings and the
project development will have on the environment but I will leave that to the
experts. I am shocked that such a project, on the Mattituck inlet would even
be considered. What is the Department of Conservation's opinion on this?
I am hopeful that our community will rally together and put an end to this
before a permit is granted. We are blessed to live in a beautiful community
and now we have to fight to keep it this way. Would you want these buildings
in your front yard?
Sincerely,
Marguerite Kitz
Mattituck, NY
Frorn: Russ Bates ;is w;n B
Subject: Proposed destruction to Mattituck Inlet by Strongs Marine �„7
Date: December 6,2020 at 3:13 PM
To: I:n;tn
Dear Sir
Please find attached an electronic copy of the letter I have mailed to you expressing my strong opposition to the proposal to allow
Strong's Marina to destroy parts of the Mattituck Inlet.
would appreciate a response and opportunity to speak with you.
Kind regards and
Respectfully submitted
Russ Bates
15 East Mill Road, Mattituck
917.685.5559
4%GFi
Letter to Brian
Cummi...20.pdf
:.
Lir,
Russ Bates
15 East Mill Road, Mattituck, NY 11952
December 6, 2020
Mr. Brian Cummings
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Via E-mail to brig n.cumiyiirlgj��', �, oto lio](L1-11 �,A S
.................
Dear Mr. Cummings
I am writing to you in strong opposition to the proposal to allow Strong's
Marina to destroy parts of the Mattituck Inlet eco-system and neighboring
properties.
I am the owner of 15 East Mill Road in Mattituck. This property is the historic
bridge keeper's house that the State formerly built after the hurricane of 1906
destroyed the original bridge. A new bridge was built, and my home housed the
bridge workers until the mid-1950s when the bridge was demolished. The bridge
connected Mill Road on both sides of the river and provided access to the Old Mill
After the bridge was demolished, my home was sold into the private market.
Since the 1840s, the Old Mill has been the most important site on Mattituck Inlet
and today, my home and the Old Mill form the gateway to Mattituck to boats
coming from the LI Sound. See E 'ibits A and B. As you can see in the below
photographs, these structures provide a scenic aesthetic that help define the North
Fork.
Adjacent to my property are two Osprey nests, one of which I have maintained
when I replaced my seawall. I worry as to how this proposed project that is
estimated to take over 13 months may impact this fragile endangered bird. It has
only been over the past 15 years that the Osprey population has returned. See
Exhibit D.
I under that this destructive project intends to destroy nearly 500 trees with
diameters of six inches or more and cut away 134,000 cubic yards of sand and
natively forested inlet hillside.
Why? In order to build two 55-foot high structures for the profit of Strong's at the
expense of the area. There are no 55-foot high structures on the Inlet area. I
understand that this might increase some tax revenues for Southold, but it will
destroy the perfect beauty of the Inlet that has been renowned since prior to
founding of Southold in 1640. The name "Mattituck" is believed to be derived from
the Algonquin word for "Great Creek," referring to these perfect views and ecology.
If you approve this destructive project, you will diminish the aestectic
character of the unique North Fork landmark and cause home values on the
water to be lowered (resulting in loss of tax revenue to you).
And yet, Strong's Marina is proposing to destroy part of that ecology (affecting
natural views at the main entry point by water to Mattituck with their five story
buildings). See Exhibits and E. The Stron s proposal will°si nifica t1v affect the
value of my home and those around nye, The river front near the Old Mill will be
s
permanently diminished as the project will turn the area into a commercial hub. It
is impossible to adequately compensate me if you approve the destruction of the
area around my home.
My other concerns include:
• The construction disruption and noise that will be caused during this 13
month project. The estimated use of 50 truck trips per day will endanger
those on the road and create a significant reduction in quality of life given
how noise is magnified on the water.
• Completion of the project will result in increased boat traffic on an over-taxed
waterway. Already, the chief of police, Chief Martin Flatley, has indicated
that Southold cannot patrol the waterway to prevent boats from speeding
over 5 mph. The additional traffic and lack of policing will make it difficult to
enjoy the water on kayaks and stand-up paddleboards as the additional boats
will increase the amount of wake on the water.
• By strip mining the hillside and destroying the forest areas for the project,
there is real potential for negative ecological impact.
• This new use will result in surface water pollution, disruption of ground
water wells, flooding, run-off and erosion
• There is high likelihood of destruction of plant and animal ecosystems.
Cornell has been attempting to resuscitate the Oyster and Clam aquaculture.
There was a time when Mattituck oyster were known across the country but
were overfished; Cornell's work is in its infancy and the approval of this
project will put it at risk.
.2-
• The local roads near the Old Mill are not appropriate for the oversized trucks
proposed by Strong's. These trucks will destroy the roads on the west side of
the Inlet and cost the city in their repair.
As you consider the project, I would share with you my experiences in living in
Mattituck over the past six years:
• Your approval board is considered quite conservative and unlikely to approve
any changes. When I wanted an outdoor shed, it took two years and payment
for architectural designs (on a shed!) because the city wants to ensure that its
unique character is preserved.
• When I wanted to add a third bedroom to the property, I was informed that I
would have to replace the septic system to a more modern one in order to get
approval. While the additional bedroom would add significant value and tax
revenue, I decided not to pursue approval, again, because of your board's
reputation for being tough.
• It took over a year to get approval for the replacement of my sea-wall despite
a significant breach of the wall.
• Even though the farm on East Mill and Reeves pollutes my well water
(resulting in a need for Reverse Osmosis), pollutes the clam pond, I have not
been able to get any response from the city.
• The road has continually degraded over the past six years so that it floods
with this polluted water and leaves potholes behind. I have sent
correspondence to Mr. Vincent Orlando and have yet to hear response. The
road needs repair and the run-off needs to be remediated.
My point in listing these items is that your department can be extremely reticent to
provide approvals, even if there are significant reasons for a change (such as the
breached sea-wall).
As you consider the significant destructive effects of the Strong's Marina proposal—
to the delicate ecology of the Mattituck Inlet, to the diminishment of the aesthetic
character of the inlet, to the noise damage and increased boat traffic to an area that
cannot support it, to the loss in home values and related taxes to the City—I cannot
comprehend why you would even consider making such a mistake.
I am available to discuss with you if you like. Also, I would appreciate your
response.
Respectfully submitted for your earnest consideration,
Rusself H. dates
_ 3.
Photographic Exhibits
Exhibit A. 15 E Mill Rd and the Old Mill Inn -
Gateway to Mattituck under threat by Strong Marine Proposal
11,11,11,
ii/i% o%%i / /D!/%%%i/i,,
r,
r
W4
Exhibit B. Historic Photo of 15 E Mill and Old Mill. The Old Mill has been
the center of Inlet life since 1844 and would be adversely affect if the
Strong's Marina Proposal is approved
THE Oa D WiLL MATTT'TUCK: L_, o,., �,4a Y,
i
i
pi0
t
5,
Exhibit C. View of 15 E Mill from the Old Mill from pilings of former
bridge- there are no 55-foot buildings, in the area
r
/ f
�i
i
f
- 6-
Exhibit D. Osprey Nests and pristine environment. Note that there are no
55-foot buildings in sight.
VVVVVVVVVVVV
„ /j f IIII
- 7-
Exhibit E. The pristine view and ecology that Strongs is requesting to
destroy. My home value will suffer from the loss of the current esthetic.
IIII
J�.
8
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:18 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong Marina Project02-0,
From: Jennifer Anderson [mailto:jenniferbanderson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:08 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong Marina Project
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I apologize this is late but I wanted to share that I am opposed to Strong Marina's proposed yacht storage
facility on Mill Rd. I live on Rosewood Drive, in Mattitick. It is a residential area that has already had to
endure dangerous summer traffic to Breakwater Beach. Cox Neck Road is not a highway. Bringing in
commercial traffic will worsen our quality of life and destroy the fragile Mattituck Inlet environment. The
nature at the Inlet is a precious asset. Destroying it with buildings will have a detrimental effect on nature,
water quality, and nearby residential homes. This area is not suitable for commercial storage or traffic. Please
protect our environment and save our precious land from over development. Once its destroyed, it will be gone
forever. As someone who grew up in Montauk, I've seen how large commercial projects can negatively change
the culture of a community. I hope to not see Mattituck follow Montauk's fate. Please do not allow this
immense project to be built in our residential neighborhood.
Thank you,
Jennifer Anderson
Mattituck,NY
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
Town of Southold
Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Heather M. Lanza, AICP
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Storage Buildings
Dear Heather,
I am a local Captain/Commercial Fisherman that has been in business for 20
years along the Mattituck Inlet. I wish to express my support for the Strong's Yacht
Center proposed building project. Having Strong's Yacht Center Marina as a resource
to service both of my fishing boats is of value to me. The location of this full-service
marina off of the Sound provides an essential port for the fishing industry. If not for this
location, then the next available marina that I could get any type of assistance with my
boat would be in Greenport.
Over the years, Strong's Yacht Center has provided service to both of my boats
in a quick and professional time frame. This allows us very little time out of the water to
keep our business operational in any time of need, especially during a pandemic. From
boat hauling, bottom painting, or engine repair; to annual maintenance and diagnosing,
my business would be affected greatly if it wasn't for Strong's Yacht Center.
It is Strong's Marine's dedication to preserving this marina, and continuing to
provide service and storage for commercial boats like mine, that helps me to stay in
business. The approval of these proposed buildings will ensure that the needs of my
industry, as well as others, will be supported. I appreciate you taking the time to read
this letter, Thank you.
Best Regards,
Captain Devin Anderson
Anderson Fisheries
781 Mill Road
Riverhead, NY 11901
P: 516-445-6888
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Mattituck Inlet Project
From: Leslie Glaser [mailto:glaserbeam@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 5:05 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina Mattituck Inlet Project
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Mattituck. My husband and I have owned our home here for
almost ten years and we consider ourselves very fortunate to live in a place where the beauty of the land and
waterways around us are a daily source of inspiration. It is for this reason that we feel strongly that it is also
our responsibility to care and protect for this beautiful environment.
We are in complete opposition to the proposed plans put forth by Strong's Marina to build two enormous
boat storage facilities. The plans call for these buildings to be erected directly next to the inlet. We have asked
a friend of ours who is an architect to look at them and his response was that it was an enormous amount of
strain to put on the land in order to build facilities of this size.
The negative impacts to the inlet, the wildlife, the health of the water and the surrounding wetlands will be
severe. We do not believe that it is an equitable bargain to destroy the health, well-being, and character of the
area simply for Strong's to expand their business and for the small amount of jobs that will be produced.
Thank you very much for your service to the community and for hearing our concerns and opposition.
Kind Regards,
Leslie Glaser and Ben Kjome
Bailie Beach Road
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Major Construction Project negatively impacting our quality of life
Attachments: Paul G_ Laurenzano.vcf
Importance: High - 2020
From: Laurenzano, Paul G [mailto:plaurenzano@kpmg.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 5:57 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Krista Marie Laurenzano
Subject: Major Construction Project negatively impacting our quality of life
Importance: High
Brian
My wife (Krista) and I were extremely upset to hear about the proposed project by Strong's Marina to build additional
Yacht storage facilities on Mattituck Inlet. We have been coming to the area for over 30 years and enjoy the peaceful
nature of the Mattituck Inlet. I would like the Southold Town Planning Board to know that we object to this construction
project for the following reasons:
• Such a project will diminish the character of our quaint North Fork Community
• The project will cause pedestrian safety concerns during the construction
• The project will destroy our local roads with the oversized trucks coming in and out hauling materials and waste
products
• The project will destroy the forest areas, create surface water pollution and harm the plant and animal ecosystem.
We urge you to deny this proposal.
Paul and Krista Laurenzano
1350 West Mill Road
Paul G. Laurenzano (he/him/his)
Partner, New York Financial Services
KPMG LLP 1 345 Park Avenue I New York, NY 10154
Office (212) 872-3428 1 Mobile (347) 256-0451
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient; any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and
may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the
1
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: MIMMS Expansion
�C �J
-----Original Message-----
From: DOROTHY RAYNOR [mailto:dotray55@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:01 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: MIMMS Expansion
I am writing in response to the proposal from Strong's Marina to expand.
This has already been applied for and denied by the town under the previous ownership With all the issues of
pollution and water quality, nothing has changed. Please do not allow this development. I have lived on
Howard's Creek for 65 years. We grew up eating shellfish and flounder from our creek, which is no longer
permitted due to pollution. Please don't degrade the creek and our water supply any further.
Dorothy Moller Raynor
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica %0 Off
Subject: FW: Strongs Marina Proposed Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: Teresa McCaskie [mailto:nofork22@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:37 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strongs Marina Proposed Expansion
Good day,
The proposal of two large boat storage buildings along the Mattituck Inlet are of great concern. Based on what
appeared to have to be done to construct these huge buildings will clearly strip the land of hundreds of trees.
Where are the wildlife that have used this area to shelter supposed to go?When trees are removed, then there
is concern about road run off into the sensitive Mattituck Inlet.How could road runoff be "good " for our
environment?
As large as the buildings are, there will be bright LED lighting placed on the exterior of the buildings that will
be on 24/7, 7 days a week 365 days a year. This type of light pollution affected human health. "Missing the
Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution" by Ron Chepesiuk . "Many environmentalists,naturalists, and medical
researchers consider light pollution to be one of the fastest growing and most pervasive forms of
environmental pollution.And a growing body of scientific research suggests that light pollution can have
lasting adverse effects on both human and wildlife health." On another note " The ecological effects of artificial
light have been well documented. Light pollution has been shown to affect both flora and fauna".
Do to the many environmental concerns that are linked to such a huge construction project, I am currently
opposed to the current proposal. As I understand it, the Mattituck Inlet and the wetlands is protected from
"any encroachment or claim by private property owners (under the 33USC sections 320 through 330) ", coastal
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form, dated March 15, 1987.
Regards,
Teresa MCCaskie
940 Woodcliff Drive
Mattituck NY 11952
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica 4
L
Subject: FW: Matituck Inlet Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Dessimoz [mailto:Gail@rdai.com]
Sent:Tuesday,December 8, 2020 12:01 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Matituck Inlet Expansion
>Please note that I oppose this expansion for he reasons cited by the Save the Inlet group.
•Gail Dessimoz
•Mattituck, NY
>Send to:brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:05 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: Optonline [mailto:llbrigg@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:13 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina expansion
Dear Mr. Cummings,
We would like to express our concerns regarding the Strong's marina expansion. We have lived on Breakwater
Road for over 27 years and are both strongly opposed to the proposed project. The environmental impact of
course is of primary concern. We have well water and shudder to think of how a huge project like this will
affect it, let alone the wildlife it the area. But the neighborhood impact will be astronomical. We love to walk
around on both West Mill Road as well as Breakwater Rd. There are no sidewalks anywhere, and we are very
distressed that the incoming business will have a very negative effect on our abilities to walk or ride around
the area. It is already particularly dangerous;I could site many times having been run off the road by careless
drivers. Alternatively I feel that this construction will not only alter our way of life but additionally reduce
property values. This is a lose- lose situation for all residents of this area and we pray that you take this into
consideration during the decision making process. We strongly protest a project of this magnitude in such a
small and still beautiful location.
Sincerely,
Rich and Lori Brigginarin
272 Breakwater Road
PO BOX 853
Mattituck, NY 11952
631-298-1996
Sent from my iPad
...................... -----........ ..........
Sponsored by
https://www.newser.com/?utm-source=part&utm-medium=uol&utm,-campaign=rss-tag)ii-ies-more
Protesters Gather at Michigan Election Official's House
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5fce7e8Odd7677e8O4cldstO2vucl
He Broke Quarantine for 8 Seconds. Now, a $3.5K Fine
http://thirdpartyoffei-s.juiio.com/TGL3131/5fce7e8lcf4a7e8O4cldst02vuc2
I
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:15 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck Building Expansion
-----Original Message-----
From: Carole Donlin [mailto:nimsuzani@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:09 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck Building Expansion
Dear Mr. Cummings.
I write in opposition to the proposed Jeff Strong expansion on Mill Lane.
I must say that I fail to understand why we must consider another completely inappropriate building project
in our town and why people cannot distinguish between "smart growth" where business growth is welcomed
but destruction of the. North Fork Environment and recourses is not.
Mr. Strong has long been a resident and business owner in the Mattituck area and he KNOWS BETTER.
Surely he can build this facility in an appropriate and profitable location without causing the kind of damage
and unnecessary loss of quality of life the current proposal will clearly bring For these reasons and though I
personally would be unaffected directly by this project, I urge you and the planning board to reject his
proposal in it's current form.
Mrs. Carole Donlin
910 New Suffolk Avenue
Mattituck,
New York 11952
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:22 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck inlet expansion
7 2,020
-----Original Message-----
From: conlonn@optonline.net[mailto:conlonn@optonline.net]
Sent:Monday,December 7, 2020 9:19 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet expansion
We are losing the flavor of the North Fork.. the boat storage buildings are an eyesore on Wickham Avenue .. in
reality,how many jobs?Now the town and Strong's are considering more?Environmentally,, aesthetically and
spiritually this proposal will further erode Mattituk's character . I am not in favor .
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:09 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica I!i (
Subject: FW: STRONG"S EXPANSION MATTITUCK INLET
From: beejchris@aol.com [mailto:beejchris@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: STRONG'S EXPANSION MATTITUCK INLET
I am opposed to the plan to construct two buildings on the property of the west side of Mattituck Inlet owned by the Strong
Marina and the Strong family.
My objection is against the removal of the wooded area and the trucking of the material over the roadways. The impact to
the residents that live in the area as well as the very necessity of the project.
Michael T. Burke
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine boat storage proposal
From: John Alfieri [mailto:john.alfieri@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:07 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marine boat storage proposal
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am a resident of Mattituck writing to express my deep opposition to the construction of
two giant boat storage facilities on the Mattituck Inlet. The Inlet is a significant asset to
Southold Town because of its natural beauty, biological diversity, and relatively
undeveloped shoreline. I believe it would be a serious mistake to degrade those
features by leveling the natural contours of the site, clearcutting trees, and replacing
them with large, industrial-type buildings. For residents and visitors alike, the loss
would be serious and lasting.
I hope you will view this proposal with the skepticism and caution it deserves.
John Alfieri
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marine building proposal
From: Priscilla Lewis [mailto:priscillarlewis@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 1:02 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marine building proposal
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am a year-round Mattituck resident and a boater, writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
construction of two massive boat storage facilities on the Mattituck Inlet. In addition to voicing concern about
the extremely troubling long-term environmental impacts of such a destructive building project, I hope to speak
for the many boaters for whom the Mattituck Inlet is a priority destination because of its relatively pristine
scenery. Currently, Strong's Marina and Waterclub are assets to the Mattituck Inlet, thanks to their attractive
and carefully maintained grounds and facilities. If the proposed construction goes forward, I fear we would
have a "Strong's Inlet" that offers fewer attractions to visitors and harms the unique natural beauty that residents
and tourists enjoy.
Thank you for your consideration of this perspective,
Priscilla Lewis
i
December 7, 2020
Attn:Town of Southold Planning Board
Heather,
For 50+ years I have been a dedicated commercial fisherman based on the Mattituck inlet,
and my business relies heavily on Strong's Yacht Center.Strong's Yacht Center does all
maintenance work to my boat, and without their assistance it would affect production of my
business.The Yacht Center has gone above and beyond to help with any emergency situation I
have run into with my boat. Without any hesitation they have diagnosed any maintenance
issue, fixed the problem and got my crew and I back out on the water in no time.
My business depends greatly on Strong's Yacht Center, and I stand with them in support of
their proposed building project.Without their assistance, myself and the other commercial
fisherman who call the Mattituck Inlet home would have to travel further for any necessary
repairs or assistance. Strong's Marine has always done well by me and my business, and 1 know
they will continue to do the same for anyone else.
Cordially,
Phil Karlin owner of PE& DD Seafood, Inc. Riverhead, NY 11901, (631) 236-8770
Arthur Kretschmer December 4, 2020
Mar-Sea, Inc.
P.O. Box 81
Mattituck, NY 11952
Heather Lanza
Town of Southold
Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Heather Lanza,
For over 35 years I have been fishing commercially on the Long Island Sound
and have been based out of the Mattituck Inlet. I support the plan that Strong's has for
new buildings at the Yacht Center. My business relies on having the services available
that they provide all year round. Without Strong's assistance my boat and business
would be affected greatly along with the other eleven commercial fishermen based out
of Mattituck Inlet and local area.
have seen improvements since Strong's Marine took over the location formerly
knows as MIMS back in 2016. They keep their yard organized and their staff is friendly
to work with. They are dedicated especially when there is an emergency repair or a
challenging issue. It is important to have this type of resource to support local
fisherman. I agree with the plan to create new buildings which will ensure that the needs
of my industry, as well as. others, will be supported.
Sincerely,
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Yacht Storage Buildingsr,i j
From: Eric McClure [mailto:emcclure@rolley.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Yacht Storage Buildings
Dear Mr. Cummings,
We're writing in regard to the Draft Scope for the Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Yacht Storage Buildings
project, SCTM No.: District 1000, Section 106, Block 6, Lots 10 & 13.4.
We don't have a lot to add to the Draft Scope, but there are some areas that stand out. The potential
environmental impacts of this project must receive the highest level of scrutiny. Mattituck Creek is an
ecologically sensitive wetland, and the Town of Southold should be doing everything it can to preserve this
finite natural resource. The planned removal of nearly 500 mature trees while climate change wreaks havoc all
around us (the mass die-off of Peconic Bay scallops is but one glaring example) should be a non-starter. In
addition, the effect of several thousand truck trips over the course of several months must be carefully
considered, as the potential for multiple negative impacts on the surrounding community are substantial. Both
of these section of the Environmental Impact Statement must be as robust as possible.
Additionally, one task that appears to be absent from the Draft Scope, and must be included, is a study of noise
impacts from the ongoing operation of the proposed buildings. The Draft Scope mentions noise from
construction impacts, but not from the day-to-day operation of the completed facilities. This must be studied.
The study of the effects of noise is especially important given Strong's history in Mattituck. We live in Browers
Woods, directly across Long Creek from Strong's Water Club, which has imposed enormous negative noise
impacts on us and our neighbors ever since Jeff Strong, who also happens to be our neighbor, acquired the
property. Strong's Water Club and its affiliated businesses, first Pace's Dockside and now Windamere, have
operated as an outdoor concert venue for years, regularly exceeding the noise levels allowed by the exceedingly
generous town code despite ongoing pleas from residents, and dozens if not hundreds of noise complaints to the
Southold Police Department, as well as entreaties to the Supervisor and Board. No action has ever been taken to
address the noise from Strong's Water Club, despite the clear contravention of the Town's stated policy "that
every person is entitled to noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and the enjoyment of his or her
property." It's hard to enjoy one's property when the throbbing of base penetrates closed windows which the
property owner would prefer to have open.
Mr. Strong's complete disregard for the peace and wellbeing of his neighbors is ample precedent for another
bad outcome at Strong's Yacht Club. The Town's inability or, worse, refusal to hold Strong's to account for the
impacts on neighboring properties is a glaring red flag for the community around Mattituck Inlet. While no
negative effect of the proposed project should be permitted to go unmitigated, Mr. Strong's transparent track
record of putting personal profit before the interests of the larges- community should be more than enough to
guide the Town's decision to reject this proposed project.
I
Sincerely,
Eric McClure and Lumi Michelle Rolley
435 Westview Drive#864
Mattituck,NY 11952
2
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica '(
Subject: FW: Strong's Storage Buildings DEIS Scoping Comments
i
From: North Fork Environmental Council [mailto:office@nfecl.org]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Storage Buildings DEIS Scoping Comments
Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board,
The North Fork Environmental Council is very concerned about the storage facility being proposed by
Strong's Marina in Mattituck. We believe that the project poses a number of serious negative impacts
that must be considered and addressed.
The size of the proposed project seems totally out-of-scale with the surrounding area. We believe the
visual impacts of such a large project will have a detrimental effect on the character of the
surrounding community. The excavation and removal of 134,000 cubic yards of soil from a hillside
will permanently alter the area, along with the construction of two huge buildings sized at over an acre
each.
The project proposes to remove approximately 500 trees comprising a native forest. Finding a native
forest in the Town of Southold is rare and the habitat that this forested area supplies for local flora
and fauna cannot be replaced. An entire ecosystem is threatened here; cumulative impacts of loss
leave very few areas for the breeding of migratory birds and other species. The forested area also
serves to supply clean groundwater as it functions as an open-space recharge zone.
Impacts to tidal wetlands also need to be addressed. The water quality of Mattituck Inlet has the
potential to be severely affected by the addition of many more yachts and sporting vessels to the
area. On-site construction will also have damaging impacts from run-off into the surrounding surface
waters.
North Fork Environmental Council recommends that all alternatives be considered for this project--
preservation of this valuable ecological site could be a viable alternative with the option of building a
similar project elsewhere with fewer negative impacts.
We thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Susan MacKenzie
on behalf of the NFEC Board
Notth Fork Environmental Co nCtl
PO Box 799
1y4 u
Mattftuck, NY 11952
NorthFoirk
phone, 631.298.8880 IEn ironine r6i Lound
faze 631.298.46494
www,NFECl,org �
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Save the Mattituck Inlet - Protesting Strong's Marine expansion on Mattituck Inlet
-----Original Message-----
From: christine rendel [mailto:crendel@me.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 5:02 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Save the Mattituck Inlet-Protesting Strong's Marine expansion on Mattituck Inlet
Mr. Cumming,
I'm writing to protest the plans by Strong's Marine to construct two large boat storage facility buildings on the
Mattituck inlet. Despite public opposition at Town Hall meetings and in print and social media, Strong's
Marine continues to disregard the devastating effect this construction and business operation would have on
our beautiful and pristine environment and our community.
The North Fork remains one of the most beautiful places on earth. Those of us who have the good fortune to
reside here do so in appreciation of the tranquility and unparalleled beauty of our area and the character of
our community.
I've lived here for 30 years, over 20 of which I've spent in Mattituck,just yards from our beautiful Mattituck
Inlet. For me, the joy of walking through the Mill Road Preserve in any season, silent except for bird song and
animals, is indescribable.Yet, if this proposal is approved, that tranquility and the character of Mill Creek
Preserve and our community will be destroyed.
Below are some of my specific concerns:
Strip-mining the hillside and destroying the forest areas. Almost 500 trees will be destroyed Surface water
pollution Disruption of ground water wells, flooding, nun-off, erosion. Most of us in the area live on ground
water wells.
Destruction of plant and animal ecosystems. The natural habitat flora and fauna of diverse native species will
be destroyed and disrupted, and birds and animals will lose their nests and food sources.
Diminishment of the aesthetic character of our cherished North Fork community Pedestrian and pet safety in
the community on the pavement-less lanes during construction Destruction of local narrow lanes and roads by
oversized trucks Impact on resale property values as our residential community becornes a disruptive
commercial hub Noise pollution and disturbance for many months. A quiet and restorative environment has a
positive impact on mental health and wellbeing. Noise and disturbance from construction and increased
heavy construction traffic will also have negative impact on my professional life.
1
Strong's Marine maintains their venture will greatly benefit the local economy and community. I very much
doubt this. It will benefit Strong's Marine and the transitory employees of out of town/state boat owners who
will transport these vessels to and from the Strong's storage facilities, adding little to the local economy.
In conclusion, I hope that Strong's Marine reconsider their plans to destroy such a beautiful area and forever
change the character of the place we all love.
Sincerely,
Christine Rendel
North Drive
Mattituck NY 11952
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
z
JOEL 1. KLEIN,
RPA
Ph.D.,
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952
December 7,2020 '
VIA E MAIL:I1ai;q rbg11axunn, 'lalt��.a^�<u 19pamt����rold.�ag'r,g:�.l
RE. STRONG'S YACHT CENTER
PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS
3430 MILL ROAD
MATIITUCK,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NY
SCTM No.: DISTRICT 1000,SECTION 106,BLOCK6,LOTS 10&13.4
DRAFT DEIS WORK SCOPE
Members of the Town of Southold Planning Board:
I am a Mattituck resident. From my home I have views of Mattituck inlet. Hence my concern that
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project be properly and thoroughly evaluated. The
following has been prepared in response to the request for public comment on the September 10, 2020 draft
DEIS scoping document for the referenced project. I note that many of the deficiencies, and the need for
further clarification regarding some issues, have already been raised by other commenters and the Town of
Southold Planning Department (the Department)(especially as detailed in the department's November 16,
2020 work session staff report. I find it distressing that the draft scope does not address in any great detail
the studies and analyses necessary to address the issues raised in the Planning Board's August 10, 2020
SEQRA Positive Declaration.
The draft scope is severely deficient in how it describes how impacts associated with on-site excavation and
the associated transport off site of excavated material will be studied and analyzed.Although there has been
some mention of selling the excavated material, the DEIS needs to address alternative plans for disposal of
any excavated material that cannot be sold. The DEIS should include an evaluation of any disposal sites,other
than commercially-operated sites specifically designed to receive fill.
The DEIS needs to address the amount of truck traffic (in addition to traffic associated with excavation)
associated with the disposal of the large amount of vegetation (including 493 trees) that will be cleared from
the project site and how that material will be disposed.
The SEQRA Positive Declaration also elaborated on concerns regarding truck traffic and impacts to local
roads, but the draft scoping document does not adequately describe how those concerns will be addressed.
The draft scope requires more detail in regard to when and how site and area traffic observations will be
made. Rather than relying on state and county data, a project specific traffic study should be made a part of
the DEIS scope. Given the importance of this issue a detailed proposal from the professional traffic engineer
to be retained for the project should be appended to the final scope.Accident data should be sought from the
Southold PD in addition to the NYSDOT. The DEIS must also include an analysis of how hundreds of'
movements by fully loaded 30-ton trucks will physically affect local roads. The DEIS must also identify how
potential road damage will be mitigated.
The Department has noted that the project has the potential to significantly impact aesthetic and scenic
resources. The draft scope is deficient in describing how that class of impacts will be addressed. The draft
scope should be revised to call for a detailed visual impact evaluation including identification of the project's
zone of visual influence (ZVI), identification of sensitive receptors (scenic views including views from
Mattitucl< Creels, outdoor recreation facilities, historic properties, etc.) ivithin that zone, and viewshed
analyses to determine if and how sensitive receptors would be affected. This issue is of special concern given
the height (55 feet above ground level) of the proposed structures. Computer-generated imagery for
viewshed changes should not be limited to views from Mattituck Creek and the adjacent roadway as proposed.
The draft scope should include an evaluation of potential fire hazards, and an evaluation of as to whether or
not the Mattituck FD is adequately equipped to respond to a fire at the site. This is of special concern given
the size of the structures.
The discussion of alternatives should not be limited to the no-action alternative and an alternative material
removal plan.Other alternatives considered should at minimum include a smaller(one structure)alternative.
Although the EAF identifies noise during construction as a potentially large impact, the draft DEIS scope
merely states that noise during construction will be addressed, with no indication of what types of studies
will be undertaken. In addition to construction-related noise, noise associated with operation of the
expanded facility beyond existing ambient levels should be addressed. The EAF also indicates that some
blasting will be involved. This is not addressed at all in the scoping document.
The scope of work needs to be expanded to include a consideration of the project's potential impacts to
historic and archeological resources. Part 11 of the Full EAF for the project indicates that the project is not
adjacent to a historic or archeological site. However,NYSDEC guidance on how to prepare the EAF notes that
in preparing responses in this section of the EAF one must ask "Does the project site contain, or is it
contiguous with,a known archaeological site,even though it may not be included on the NY SHPO inventory?"
As no archeological survey of the project area has been made it is not possible to answer this question in the
negative.
Although NYS OPRHP's Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) does not identify the project area as
archeologically sensitive,this should not be construed as meaning that the area does not have the potential to
contain potentially significant archeological resources. CRIS relies on the prior identification of archeological
sites in proximity to a given area to evaluate sensitivity. CRIS's archeologically sensitive GIS layer specifically
states: "Note that locations outside of the buffer areas may also be archaeologically sensitive." In the case of
the project area the failure to identify it as "sensitive" is a reflection of the total lack of prior archeological
surveys in the immediate vicinity of the project. The project area's location on high ground adjacent to
Mattituck Creek (believed to be part of a principal portage route used by Native Americans to travel from the
North to South shores of Long Island),suggests that evidence of Native American occupation could be present.
There are three unevaluated structures listed in CRIS within approximately 1000 feet of the project area. The
scope of work should include an evaluation as to if and how these structures may be visually or otherwise
(noise, vibration during construction) affected by the project and, if potentially affected, if they satisfy the
eligibility criteria for the State Register of Historic Places.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein. Ph.D., RPA
"wi
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Letter to Southold Town Planing Board Re: Strong's Marina project
From: vwither@aol.com [mailto:vwither@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:19 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Letter to Southold Town Planing Board Re: Strong's Marina project
Dear Planning Board members,
We wish to be counted as those who have very serious concerns
about the environmental impact of the Strong's Marine
proposed project at 3430 Mill Road in Mattituck. The objections
and concerns include:
1. The enormity of the project. It is much too large a project on the
creek, and will have a very deleterious effect on the entire area, on
bird habitat (which population, according to Cornell University,
is already declining by 30 %.) The removal of almost 500 trees is
unacceptable. It will forever change the area, have a serious effect
on bird populations, and habitat for animals, and destroy the
natural beauty of the creek. Trees are important to air quality, and
removing any amount of trees must be very carefully thought
through. We have seen much destruction of trees on the North Fork
in recent years; we cannot afford to keep this up, for the beauty of
the area will be destroyed.
2. We understand that the strip mining of the hill/cliff will entail
approximately 134, 000 cubic yards of sand which will be sold at a
profit. And that it will be trucked out, in oversized trucks, having a
very negative effect on not only the surrounding community and
neighbors, but on the entire community as it goes on for a very long
time. Removal of this much sand from this ecologically sensitive
1
area is unacceptable. Flora (native plants) and fauna will be
negatively affected. And there is the attendant issues of water
runoff, effects on wells, and a high potential for flooding. And once
this removal occurs, there is no going back.
3. Mr. Strong spoke about this project at a Mattituck-Laurel Civic
Association zoom meeting a couple of months ago. His depiction of
this project did not convey the enormity of it. Two fifty-five foot
high buildings, heated & cooled by propane, along with the
environmental issues described above i.e. destruction of the area,
habitat for birds and fauna, and effects on the residents. He was
asked about lighting, and whether there would be motion-detector
lights, and would they be "night-sky compliant" and not overlight
the entire area, which has a severe and deleterious effect on birds
and animals, to say nothing of humans. Again, an
ecologically sensitive area. He was not clear in his response about
proposed lighting for this proposed project. That is worrisome.
The undersigned, Michael Cortese, was a member of the Mattituck
Tank Removal Committee years ago, which sought to support
removal of very large oil/gas tanks on the creek, in the vicinity of
Breakwater Beach. This was successful, and today the natural
beauty is preserved for future generations as a passive-use park and
a natural habitat for generations to come.
We must be extremely careful with development pressures,
particularly in ecologically sensitive areas, as Southold moves
forward. Mistakes over the decades have been made. But in 2020,
we know much more about environmental impact, science, and
what makes the North Fork attractive to visitors and a beautiful
place to live for residents. Let us be wise, and forward-thinking in
the review of such projects which will change our environment
forever. We urge you to decline this particular proposal.
Sincerely,
2
Michael and Victoria Cortese
P.O. Box 52, Mattituck, NY 11952
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Comments re Draft EIS Scope for Strongs Marina Development
r.
/11
From: Lena Desantis [mailto:lenamdesantis@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:17 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Comments re Draft EIS Scope for Strongs Marina Development
December 7, 2020
Good Afternoon,
Please accept these comments regarding the Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
support the proposed Strong's Yacht Center Yacht Storage Buildings at 3430 Mill Road Mattituck,New York.
The following should be included in the Draft EIS.
1. Air Quality: Include an assessment of operational emissions, including emissions from stationary
HVAC sources, on-site mobile sources and vessel movements.
2. Climate Change and Resiliency: The Draft EIS should consider climate change. The future physical
climate risk due to storm surge (including sea level rise) and flooding should be considered in project
design and the Town needs to incorporate these as factors when considering project approval. This
analysis should specifically analyze the effect of rising groundwater on upland resources. The analysis
should also consider the effects of intensifying precipitation-- including more seasonal precipitation and
higher rates and more total precipitation during storms-- both during construction and operation.
3. Traffic Study: The traffic study must include the potential impacts to traffic on the north road as
well as the local access points during construction.
4. Expanded Alternatives Analysis: As indicated, only a no-action and alternative construction
alternatives are contemplated. The Draft EIS should consider one or more reduced project alternatives.
5. Reference Materials: The following policies, studies or references should be considered:
a. Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan, especially Chapters 4 and 6
b. 2014 ClimAID update (Horton et al. 2014) and the New York State Community Risk and
Resiliency Act (CRRA) SLR projections
c. Using Natural Measures to Reduce the Risk of Flooding and Erosion Guidance (NYDEC)
i
d. Community Risk and Resiliency Act Guidance for Consideration of Flood Risk in Smart
Growth Public Infrastructure Assessment (NYDEC)
e. USGS Groundwater-Flow Modeling - Long Island, New York
(b!tps://www L', S. gnters/nv-water/science/groundwater fow-modeling-loii i„sland-new-
York"c 11s nte� �Lq$ t�kse�cecetero
_ � bjecs) .
As a full-time resident of Mattituck, I am concerned about the scale of the proposed Project. My family spends
a lot of hiking in Town preserves (even prior to the pandemic). These preserves are treasures and, as the recent
pandemic showed, valuable selling points to new residents and visitors looking for open space. Most of them
however are loud, with sounds from cars on the Main and North Roads ever present. The Mill Road Preserve is
one of the exceptions and is relatively quiet. The proposed Project will impact the quality of the Preserve and
the surrounding area, especially during construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments
Regards,
Lena DeSantis,
560 Deer Drive Mattituck New York
2
se ' Save the Sound®
December 7, 2020
Mr. Donald Wilcenski,Chair
Planning Board Members
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:Strong's Storage Buildings DEIS Scoping Comments
SCTM#: 1000-106-6-10, 13.4
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board:
Save the Sound,with offices and staff in Southold and Mamaroneck, New York, and New Haven,
Connecticut, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)
Draft Scope for the above-named project. Save the Sound works in the Long Island Sound region to fight
climate change,save endangered lands, protect the Sound and its rivers, and restore ecosystems. In
addition,staff members in Southold and New Haven lead the Preserve Plum Island Coalition,which
currently has 116 organizational members, and have worked closely with stakeholders and the Town of
Southold to prepare Envision Plum Island, which presents the region's vision for the island's future.
We have reviewed the online file and Planning Department staff reports and offered preliminary
comments at the public hearing on November 2, 2020. Please accept these additional comments for
your consideration when outlining the required scope of the DEIS.
At the outset,we submit that this project, out-of-scale with the immediate surroundings and
neighborhood, requiring level land along a waterway, never should have been proposed for a narrow
site with steep terrain, adjoining a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat on its eastern border and
a Town of Southold—owned preserve to its west and south.The project will introduce a dramatic change
in use from forested,steeply sloped land to an industrial-style, big-box boat storage facility. Similarly, a
change from forest to the functional equivalent of a sand mine is a dramatic change in use.
That this project will require nearly four acres of forest ecosystem destruction and large-scale slope and
soil removal to shoehorn in two buildings of over an acre each in size next to Mattituck Inlet—involving
removal of 134,000 cubic yards of soil and approximately 500 trees and countless other biological and
abiotic elements of the forest ecosystem—clearly demonstrates that the ALaigilcant's a �s
line i m
w the wrong,
one forthedesire d_pni cq.The DEIS should include a full analysis of alternatives to the proposed
storage buildings being constructed at this particular property or present a vastly reduced project,.
P.O. Box 1850 1 Southold, New York 11971 1 631-428-1315
545 Tompkins Ave 1 3rd Floor I Mamaroneck, NY 10543 1 914-381-3140
900 Chapel Street 1 2"d Floor I New Haven, CT 06510 1 203-787-0646
v�^t�rr�s��veti��srrrxrae�'.or�o
Save the Sound Scoping Comments
Strong's Storage Buildings
SCTM#:1000-106-6-10,13.4
Better yet,we hope the Planning Board might encourage the applicant to withdraw the proposal, submit
a different project altogether, and work with the Southold Town Land Preservation Committee and
Southold Town Board to preserve the steep,forested slopes adjoining Mattituck Inlet.This would buffer
and extend the acreage of the Town-owned preserve and protect water quality and estuarine habitat.
We support the staff's scoping document,yet would urge the Planning Board to require the discussion
and analysis of the following areas of concern in the DEIS.
Ecological Communities.The DEIS should describe not simply the number of trees on site but also a
complete description of the ecological communities represented in the steeply sloped forest and their
ecological relationships to those of the adjoining Town-owned preserve.As much more than an
assemblage of trees,forests provide important ecosystem services within their bounds and for the
surrounding landscape and waterways;these ecosystem services should be described. For example,the
forest ecosystem of the subject property, contiguous with forest protected by the Town, is the last
relatively large block of native forest supplying clean groundwater to Mattituck Inlet that has not been
converted to farmland or interrupted by residential and commercial development,with their attendant
sanitary system and stormwater impacts.
Watershed.The subject property's relationship to and location within surface-and groundwater
contributing areas to Mattituck Creek should be described and mapped. Much of the immediate
watershed area of Mattituck Creek has been altered by residential development and conversion to
farmland.The Creek's headwaters area has been cut off from wetlands to the east by a tidal gate and
has been developed into marina and boat launch uses. With impacts on the creek's headwaters
curtailing the replenishment of the creek with clean ground-and surface waters,water quality
downstream becomes even more dependent on remaining undeveloped open space.
Soils.The DEIS should describe the types and tested physical characteristics of the soils on site that will
be subject to excavation,future load bearing, and installation of sanitary systems and stormwater
conveyance systems.The location, size, and thickness of any clay or buried peat formations should be
described and mapped.
Mattituck Inlet and Wetlands.The DEIS should not only describe onsite and nearby tidal wetlands and
the NYSDEC's input; it also should describe ecological communities in those wetlands and their
ecosystem services.
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat(SCFWH).The Mattituck Inlet SCFWH documentation
should be presented in the body of the DEIS (not the appendix) in its entirety. Potential impairments to
the SCFWH described in the documentation should be analyzed in light of the subject proposal.
Water Quality.The DEIS should describe Mattituck Inlet's water quality, including, but not limited to,
dissolved oxygen,clarity, eutrophication, and sustainability for estuarine and marine life, as well as
existing sources of stormwater.The potential for sedimentation during construction, and resulting, post-
construction, long-term stormwater runoff contributions from the site should be described and
quantified. Flooding and storm surge conditions may wash great quantities of land surface sediments,
oils, greases, materials,septic system waste, and other pollutants into Mattituck Creek.The relationship
of final landscape elevations to the potential for nor'easter and other weather events to inundate the
property during and post construction must be discussed in the DEIS to fully afford proper review of
2
Save the Sound Scoping Comments
Strong's Storage Buildings
SCTM#:1000-106-6-10,13.4
adverse water quality impacts.The increase in frequency of potential inundation events related to
predicted climate change effects also should be discussed.
Cultural Resources.The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
should be consulted to determine the potential for the occurrence of significant cultural resources at or
near the site. Elevated overlooks and shore areas near wetlands and waterways in the vicinity of Long
Island Sound often have been found to have cultural significance related to use by people in the region
for 10,000 years prior to European contact, as well as by colonial and later residents.The DEIS should
present OPRHP's determination as to whether further examination of the site is required in this context.
Neighborhood character.The historic and rural character of this section of Mattituck Inlet depends in
part on the presence of the steeply sloped,thickly vegetated forest on and adjoining the site.This
should be recognized in the DEIS; permanent and irreversible adverse impacts on neighborhood
character related to destruction of the forest on the slopes of the subject property should be fully
discussed.The impacts of introducing big-box storage facilities on the neighborhood character
surrounding the site,the areas facing the site from across Mattituck Inlet, and the character of the
general area traversed by boaters using the inlet should be presented and given thorough analysis.The
aesthetic impacts of removing native forest and hillside upon the bucolic setting of the site should be
included; aesthetic matters are a proper concern of SEQRA review.
Potential for catastrophic slope failure.The preparers of the DEIS should not rely solely on published
soil surveys or soil borings performed by others for a project involving excavation of 134,000 cubic yards
of a forested hill's soil,especially one adjoining a waterway. Without specifically targeted and carefully
undertaken soil borings to inform an excavation plan,the potential exists for a catastrophic mass soil
movement event during, or subsequent to, disturbance of the steep slopes by heavy equipment.The
proposed excavation could cause sudden faulting and structural disturbances associated with the slope
and soil slumping to the immediately adjoining and steeply sloped preserve, as well as cause
sedimentation in the waterway.Sedimentation can have a devastating effect on the estuarine life in the
inlet because of rapid burial and destruction of benthic organisms, such as shellfish or crustacea.
The final angle of repose for the newly established slope to be held up by a "concrete and evergreen
retaining wall" should be designed to be less than 45 degrees. The DEIS should discuss the effect of
precipitation on the reestablished steep slope with regard to potential exacerbation of soil movement. It
also should show the new retaining structure can adequately support the final slope and resulting
hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
Forest Destruction.The DEIS should discuss the cumulative effect of the elimination of the forest on the
subject property on the total native forest cover in the Town of Southold. Native forest cover in the
Town is relatively rare in comparison with agricultural land and residential/commercial development;
remaining patches are isolated from one another, existing as "islands" in the overall landscape. What
patches do remain are of varying sizes,spatial relationships with wetlands and waterways, and habitat
value. Destruction of the forest area to be excavated will have adverse impacts not only in terms of net
forest loss in the town, but also will have specific adverse effects on wildlife, including birds,seeking
deep forest cover. It also will affect those species with large home ranges which travel between forest
patches.
3
Save the Sound Scoping Comments
Strong's Storage Buildings
SCTM#:1000-106-6-10,13.4
The loss of forest, particularly where such high-carbon-sequestering trees as oaks predominate,should
be discussed in terms of the overall threats from climate change and prevailing scientific guidance to
restore, rather than eliminate forests.
Further,the destruction of the forest on the slopes will cause what now is forest interior to be exposed
as a new forest edge,very close to the boundary of a 25.29-acre,Town-owned, preserve.There are
numerous associated adverse impacts that should be discussed in the DEIS, including:
• direct harm to the preserve by reducing the overall size of the forest and by removing its buffer
area trees that had developed in a high-wind environment;
• exposure of trees that grew in an environment protected from high wind to northeast winds,
with attendant potential for: destabilization of root systems and tree throw; drying of soils;
increased light exposure from sunlight and night-time lighting at the storage facility and marina
(effects on plants, as well as insects and wildlife, requiring shade and moisture); introduction of
invasive species to disturbed soils; higher soil temperatures and effects on seedling growth and
forest regeneration;
• reduction in forest litter because of convective drying and windblow; result in reduction of
nutrients available for plants and increase in the effects of drought conditions in summer and
the depth of freeze events in the winter;
• increase in the ratio of forest edge to forest interior that results from decreasing the overall size
of the forest, including impacts of physical damage and biological invasions;
• reduction of uninterrupted forest cover on successful nesting of warblers,thrushes,vireos and
other songbirds;
• reduction or loss of populations of wildlife species requiring the seclusion offered by forest
interiors and those requiring nocturnal conditions without artificial light intrusion;
• degradation of habitat because of noise reaching further into the forest, both during
construction and permanently,from traffic and operations at the marina and storage site.
Adverse Impacts on Use of Public Property. By excavating near the boundary of the town-owned
preserve and opening up what now is a forest interior to a vast excavation pit—as well as the back and
rooftops of big-box, boat storage buildings—the project is changing the use, intensity of use,and the
capacity to support existing uses of public property.Visitors to the preserve venturing near excavated
area of the subject property would need to avert their eyes along the northeastern boundary of the
preserve or avoid it altogether to enjoy a true forest walk experience. Following construction,while
nearing the boundary, hikers might see a straight line of installed evergreen or other trees planted at
the edge of a cement retaining wall, over or through which they would see a football-field's length of
flat storage-facility rooftops—hardly a desirable preserve hiker's experience. Absent this project, a hiker
finding and peering past the preserve boundary would be likely to see more forest and, possibly,
glimpses of the inlet and wetlands beyond.The DEIS should analyze the adverse impacts of this project
on the public's enjoyment of its preserve property during and following construction. Impacts related to
noise, changes in view-sheds, loss of wildlife, and alteration of a sense of place should be discussed.
Irreversibility.The preparers of the DEIS should give serious attention to this required section of the
DEIS.The probability of occurrence is 100%that a great deal of solid waste will be generated from site
clearing (despite its profitability to the landowner); 100%that the use will be changed; 100%that there
will be lasting construction impacts; and 100%that there will be deforestation.There will be permanent
impacts on the publicly-owned preserve and permanent impacts on community character. Permanent
impacts will result from the loss of forest vegetation. (Whereas excavated sand might be replaced at
4
Save the Sound Scoping Comments
Strong's Storage Buildings
SCTM#:1000-106-6-10,13.4
great cost, a mature forest would take hundreds of years to regenerate. Even if one were to accept the
preposterous hypothesis that a mature forest could regrow on the newly created excessively steep
slope, in the intervening several centuries the adverse effects of opening the canopy and disturbing the
substrate to within feet of the nature preserve would be many and would be irreversible.)
We are encouraged by the Planning Board's demonstrated interest in seeking public input by extending
the hearing and comment period. We suggest the DEIS examine this project with attention not only to
the above-mentioned concerns, but also in light of the Town's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan
update;Article 6,7, and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code;state and local wetland laws; Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area regulations;flood zones and implications for sea-level rise; and the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) policies. We recognize that the LWRP promotes the
advancement of all its policies at once. If all relevant policies cannot be advanced simultaneously by a
proposal, it should be found inconsistent with the LWRP.
We submit we admire Southold's hard work and success in preventing construction of big-box stores
and establishment of national franchises in the Town. We hope you similarly will consider the
appropriateness of allowing sensitive ecological areas to be the sites of big-box boat storage facilities,
such as the oversized yacht storage and maintenance project now proposed for your irreplaceable
environmental asset,the sensitive Long Island Sound tributary known as Mattituck Inlet.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns and send you our suggestions for the DEIS you
wisely are requiring.
Sincerely
Louise Harrison
New York Natural Areas Coordinator
Save the Sound
Iharrison savethesouncf.M
5
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 11:51 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Project
2020
From: John E. Breen [mailto:jebreenl8@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 11:46 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Molly Deegan
Subject: Strong's Marina Project
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I live at 305 North Drive, Mattituck very close to where Strong's Marina is
proposing to expand their business. I am confused and cannot comprehend
how a project of this scope could even be contemplated.
Myself and my family enjoy the natural beauty and serene tranquil quality
of our Mattituck neighborhood. This project will most certainly have a
devastating effect on our local environment both short and long term.
The cause for my confusion is the fact that the Town of Southold is such
an ardent leader and supporter of land preservation which I applaud. I feel
strongly that this is the perfect opportunity for the Town to step in and do
what they best..."Preserve and Protect" our diminishing natural resources.
I feel this project should not be approved because of the irreversible
negative impact it will have on the surrounding area.
Thank you very much for understanding my concerns. Please feel free to
reach out if you would like to discuss this matter further. (917) 435-8098
Sincerely,
John E. Breen
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:30 AM
i
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Project - Planning Board
From: George & Lynn Summers [mailto:summers@optonline.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 10:16 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina Project - Planning Board
December 6, 2020
Ladies & G entlemen of the Planning F)oard.:
We are writing strongly to object to the Project that is being evaluated in the ])raft
Scope of the Draft E_nvironmental Impact Statement for the Strong's Marina Proposal
for two gigantic 50' high 50,000 59 ft. boat storage facility buildings at 3430 Mill Road on
Mattituck Inlet.
We object to this project for several reasons:
1. The project would decimate the forest and wetland area, which is already
threatened from several sources 6y pollution, boat traffic, and tidal flow.490
trees will have to 6e removed to malce way for these eyesores.
2. To accomplish the project, 15+,000 cubic yards of hillside sand will have to 6e
removed, resulting in an unsightly destruction of the vulnerable cliff that forms
the inlet and in heavy truck traffic on the small local residential roads
surrounding the project (50 truck trips a day for 13 months, 6 days a week,
gam-4pm).
3. This will be a structure the size of which has never before existed in the
Mattitucic area. it will 6e ugly, diminishes the esthetic character of all who view it
from homes across the inlet, from boats entering and leaving the inlet, and from
anybody riding 6,9 on the roads. Furthermore, it will diminish the property values
of homes on both sides of the inlet.
I
4. Approval of this Project will set us on a slippery slope that will result in dozens
of structures each bigger and uglier than the one before.
Yours truly,
G EOR G L & LYNN 5UMMLRS
1 290 Qriole Dr. , jouthold , NY -
Former residents of Mattituck since 1970.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
3331 Grand Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
647.866.7466
November 22, 2020
i
Brian Cummings, Town Planner
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
ian.cummin2s(rr)towii.southold.ny.us
Re: Strong's Marina Expansion on Mattituck Inlet
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am writing to share my concerns about the Strong's Marina expansion project on the
estuary that is Mattituck Inlet. I agree with the town planning board's determination that this
project will have permanent and large-scale environmental impact. See State Environmental
Quality Review determination of TYPE 1. This project will have an enormous and permanent
environmental impact as it is proposed in an area that is designated as a NYS Department of
State (DOS) Significant Coastal Habitat.
As someone who lives opposite the current Strong's Marina site, I am concerned about
the negative impact on the ecology of Mattituck Inlet, and on the native species of birds, plants
and animals. I encourage the board to consider how this project will exacerbate existing light
pollution beyond the current floodlights that run 24 hours/day at the Marina and are directed at
my property. Further, there will be an increase in sound pollution: (1) during the extensive
excavation and building; and (2) persisting over time from increasing the number of boats
docking, being serviced, moved and stored in front of my property. I worry that significant
advancements over the last twenty years to reduce water pollution in the inlet to make it safe for
shellfish will be lost due to an enormous increase in this boat pollution.
Additionally, this project does not align with Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (2020)
"for the future management of the Town's expected growth and for encouraging economic
activity suitable to the Town's character." Southold has a mandate to protect and preserve
natural habitats including water and wildlife resources, and risk of erosion from natural disasters
and weather patterns. Planning for the future growth of the town and economy should be aligned
with preserving the natural resources of the area.
Here, the Strong's Marina expansion project aims to remove 134,921 cubic yards of sand
(364,286,700 lbs.), and the removal of 493 trees that form a large bluff that are the natural
habitat of birds and animals. Further, this excavation destroys the geological and soil features
that minimize the impact of storm weather on properties. This contradicts Southold Town's Plan
in the following ways:
WATER RESOURCE
Goal 5: Protect Freshwater and Marine Habitats
• Objective 5.2-Protect tidal and freshwater wetland habitats with "buffers to ensure long-
term viability of the town's wetland."
LAND RESOURCES
Goal 1: Protect Soils and Geologic Features
• Objective 1.4 -Preserve the unique geologic features of the Town through avoidance
and/or minimization of impacts from development and natural disasters.
Goal 2: Protect Upland Habitats and Trees
• Objective 2.1-Preserve and manage the Town's grasslands, old field, and woodlands
habitats to achieve the highest ecological quality and species diversity
• Objective 2.2-Protect and restore upland habitat ecological quality by adhering to the
following measures
Goal 3: Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
• Objective 3.1-Protect and manage sustainable fisheries habitats.
• Objective 3.2-Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological
communities.
• Objective 3.3-Protect and restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.
I urge you and the Southold town planning board to consider the document: Costal Fish and
Wildlife Assessment Form (October 15, 2005) available at:
https:Ilwww.dos.ny.govlopd/programs/consistency/HabitatsILonglsland/Mattituck_Inlet_Wetlan
d pdj, that identifies the Mattituck Inlet as "irreplaceable" and as a NYS DOS Significant Coastal
Habitat. This government document makes a solid case to oppose the scale of the Strong's
Marina expansion and to seriously consider the significant, far-reaching and permanent impact
this will have on our inlet and natural resources.
Thus, I strongly oppose the expansion of Strong's Marina based on the environmental impact on
the inlet and on my property.
Sincerely,
Russ Bates
1.5 East Iill Road, Mattituck, NY 11952
December 6, 2929
:m. Brian Cummings
PO Brox 1179
Southold, NY 1 971
Via E-mailto mm� na.�Lpa�7� �,„r �u atidw°aaa aq&-aaal4� ,a, ,_
Dear Mr. Cummings
I. am writing to you an strong opposition to the proposal to allow torn s
Marina to destroy parts of the attntanck Inlet eco-system and neighboring
properties.
ertie,s.
I aaria the arowma.er sof 1.5 East Fl,l.lnl :g. oaaal l.un 11rl:aaapl.tun.ck. This property is the historic
l:arl.dg e keeper gin house that daa.aa State f'6rano;:„rly built after the huir.-'ricane of 1.90
destroyed the original.bridge.A.new bridge was built, aa.xa.d nand• pnroan:nc housed the
1:oridg„aa workers a ji-.rt➢.the mid-19t"")'Os when tine bridge was demolished, The fl.oa"id—e
ccornrnaoaep,nnrl Mill Road on both sides of the n~liner aaan.d provided a:a.a c ess to the (Ad Nl'.pll.
After the bridge was demolished, ]flay home was sold.into the private m.ta.a`k&:t.
inncnu the 1.840s„ tlaaa Old.Mill has been the most important she on NNl@arti.ti;aa.a:k Inlet
and today, rr..a `l:n.aornn.aa and. the Old,Mill form,the gateway a::o Maaa>a�l..aancla:to boats
conning Vin:°aonnn the LI Sound.d. ,Saga 1r,''x aa�aaas N ..and_ BAs you can see in.the g)aol.aow
p.oh oto raa.pol~ns„ 6b.esaa structures pawn:°aoarl.de as scenic aes,tbetic that help:) define the North
Fork.
Adjacent to My property rty Ospreyaretwo masts, one of which 1. haveu.a.aaal.naaau,.H.1ed,
l°aa:ann.1. replaced my seawall. I worry as to how this p r opoaosed gorooject that is
awstiirraaated to take over 1.3 nanaonp:hs rnaay impact this fragile endaaaa.g a;n°aaal bird. 11. has
only been over the poria; ,5 years that the Osprey pop:oaalaaplasnn has, returned, See
Eoa:l�nlbi 1”
I under that this destructive project intends to destroy nearly 500 trees with
diameters of six inches or more and cut away 1349000 cubic yards of sand and
-natively forested inlet hillside.
Why?In order to build two 55-foot high structures for the profit of Strones at the
expense of the area.There are i.-io 55-foot high structures on the Inlet area. I
1111derstand that this m.ight increase some tax revenues for Southold, but it will
destroy the perfect beauty of the Inlet that has been renowned since prior to
founding of Southold in 1,640. ,,rhe name "Mattituck" is believed to be derived fiorn
the Algonquin word for"Great Creek," referring to these perfect views and ecolog'y.
If you approve this destructive project, you will diminish the aestectic
character of the unique North Fork landmark and cause home values on the
water to be lowered (resulting in loss of tax revenue to you).
And.yet, Strones Marina is proposing to destroy part of that ecology (affecting
natural views at the main,entry point by water to Mattituck with their five story
buildings). See Ex1,ii1)it:s, Q and E. 1,11)1(_5 t�Vom .-L)19z)( .a!Ailaf
value of.mv homp and.those around.me. The .river front near the Old Mill will be
permanently_d...
iminished as the project Will tLUm the area into a commercial hub. It
is h.npossible to adequately compensale me if you approve the destruction of the
area around.my home.
My other concerns include.
The construction disruption and noise that will be caused during this 13
month,prqject.The estimated use of 50 truck trips per day will endanger
those on the road and create a significant reduction in quality of life given
hmv naise is magnified on the water.
Completion of the project will result in increased boat traffic on an over-taxed
waterway. Already, the ebief of police, Chief Martin Flatley. has indicated
that Southold cannot patrol the wate:nvay to prevent boats from speeding
over 5 mph. The additional traffic and lack of policing will make it difficult to
enjoy the water on kayaks and stand-up paddleboards as the additional boats
will:increase the amount of wake on the water,.
By strip mining the hillside and.destroying the forest areas fbr the project,
there is real potential for r�.egafive ecological impact,
This new use will result in surf"ace water pollution, disruption of ground
water wells, flooding, run-off and erosion
There is bigh likelihood of destruction of plant and aninial ecosystenls.
Cornell has been attompting to resuscitate the, Oyster and Cham aquaculture.
There was as dine when N—lattituck oyster were knovvii the country but
were overfished; Cornell's %vork is in its infancy and the approval of this
project will put it at:rislc
2
The local roads near the Old Mill are not appropriate for the oversized trucks
proposed by Sero ng's. These trucks will destroy the roads on the west side of
the Inlet and cost the city in their repair,
As you consider the project, I would. share with you my experience..s in living in
Mattituck over the past six years:
0 Your approval board is considered quite conservative and unhkely to approve
any changge& When I wanted.an outdoor shed, it took two years and payment
for arcIritectural designs (on a she&)because the city wants to ensure that its
unique character is preserved.
0 NVl.,ien,.I wanted to add as third bedroom to the property, I was informed that I
would have to replace the septic system to arnore modem one in order to get
approval. INThile the additional bedroom would add si&mificant value and tax
revenue, I decided not to pursue approval, again, because of y(mr board's
reputation for being tough.
# It took over a year to got approval for the replacement of my sea-wall despite
a significant breach of the wall.
a Even thoug,li the farm.on East Mill.and Reeves pollutes any mall water
(resulting in a need for Reverse Osmosis), pollutes the clam pond, I have not
been able to get any response from the city.
M -
0 The road has continually degraded over the past six yean; so Film t itfloods
with this poliuted water and leaves potholes behind. I have sent
correspondence to Afr. 'Vincent Orlando and have yet to bear response. The
road need-,repair and the run-off needs to be remediated.
My point in listing these items is that your department can be eN.at-emely reticent to
provide approvals, even ifthere are significant reasons for a charl'pgm (such as the
breached sea-wa-11).
N ri
As you consider the significant destructive effects of the StrLfa om;s na proposal
to the delicate ecology of the TIVIattituck Inlet, to the diminishment ofthe aesthetic
character of the inlet, to the noise damage and increased boat traffic to an area that
cannot support it, to the loss in home values and related taxes to the City - I cannot
comprehend why you would even consider making such as mistake.
I am available to discuss with you if you like. Also, 1 would appreciate your
response.
Respectfully submitted for your earliest consideration,
Bates
A,
Photographic Exhibits
Exhibit Aa 15 E Mill Rd andthe Old Mill Inn
Gateway ay to Mattituck under threat by Strong Marine Proposal
Nou
✓l ry iy� 9✓ ✓
✓P ✓Ids pp/ � �4 y ( n � � vfr dy
,f
re
� t
v
ymy °� �l� Gl✓�r�t,w� r i7?yir lY �y� .", `
� ✓ w �f
✓ ��� l � �/�r�//r (y�J�� � �"i*,�.w'��i"q�"�^'�' igrf iY �'� /I�11!
Exhibit B. Historic Photo of 15 E Mill and OldMill. The Old Mill has been
the center of Inletlife since 1844 and would e adversely affect if the
troy$ s Marina Proposal is approved
n
r �z,
d �M
�w
i
N,
Exhibit C.View of 15 E Mill from the (old Mill from din 's offormer
brare no foot buil h i the area
,
v
�N,l� i
niUr,mv
i
Exhibit D. Osprey Nests and pristine environment. Nate that there are no
55-fret buildings in sig
�, �,✓,��r�� 6„� � Irl ) �� , r � r,�i�///���� � ,
r ✓/ l % f
1 c
✓� � it i ,�� %�/ ��irr>�����/�/,ai%/��r�r�����o��, r,
I lig �✓,� � �,' 1 , � „� //f� l�� �/,, /�/f/ ��r�//// 1�i L,
1 �i � 9 1 �� 1. � /l / � / � ,�✓y�,/ //�, it f /,, �//,r , �
n
Jr / r ! ✓ ice �
„�� ✓iir�r r r , i r �r �
i i �/ i i✓ ����� i i r/, r ,//. ,..iii, /� %
i /��� i /��f���/�✓,��/✓ � ,�/,� 6i✓/��/i, i it ii///ii ,,, of//i,�r
i ,✓ //r>I, .�ii /�i„✓iiia/.,coif/,//,�Di��/� %/ riii:/ r✓ �i,i �/
ri
����, ��.,, . : ✓ ✓, :' rte,
✓ rr ���/� � � �y /�1 � ��' �r��rl/��� lir i/li
nIY%� ���n �n�' i�i�� f�/ ����I rI�%l✓ �fri�////r//✓r �✓/� ;/�Y''I i
�Ih�, ��/� ��,,,, r✓���� �”'�F�%r��i/lid rfri�i, r �i lr ii/,r�� r ��� r �Orlrir
!!w ;, �!ni i Jry/� .�/'i/r ✓r y //ii / /iry/i� //fir// �✓ �,h, .
ny�y��' //l�, r `�„'�„,.� U�Itij t”////1/�f//rrf l i�ri ioi r��/%rr� /'/O Iri rri/�%✓✓/f�/���,i���,�e�.
7 ��li%rlrr/✓a �//jiGrl, r/rt�n�rrrl///r�r /� /✓ii r
ai � y r✓r oh,« �l r �r✓I 1 r„�� / r
R✓ r n ✓r � y'` ��� J
�I
%%rr��rli t
ilr✓�/ r Y
I�
o
r
f
Exhibit E. The pristine viae and ecology that Strongs is requesting to
destroy.My home value will suffer from the loss of the current esthetic.
lil
f
a
u
,
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:28 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings: Aesthetic Resources and
Community Character
.. . ....... ........ . ._ .,......
From: Anne Sherwood Pundyk [mailto:annesherwoodpundyk@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 2:21 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Russell, Scott; Evans, Louisa; Doherty, Jill; Dinizio, James; Ghosio, Bob; Nappa, Sarah
Subject: Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings : Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
Dear Brian,
Please include my comments about aesthetic resources and community character in the Southold
Town Planning Board's discussions regarding the Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for this project:
With respect to the impact on the aesthetic resources and community character discussed in the Draft
Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage
Buildings, many issues should be carefully examined. First, the scale of the proposed buildings should
be fully evaluated. The footprint of a single one of the two proposed buildings is double the size of any
existing structure on any of the branches of the Mattituck Inlet. Together that makes the project four-
times bigger than any existing structure. Their height of 55 feet exceeds any existing edifice, as well.
In addition to their inappropriately large,jarring presence as industrial-grade structures amidst the
low, graceful natural curves of hillsides and shorelines throughout the Mattituck Inlet, the transition
from the proposed work to the neighboring properties should be scrutinized. The two new structures
will be jammed into an enormous, hard-edged, geometric canyon abruptly cut into the hillside and
edged with concrete artificial "landscaped"walls. The transition from this ugly, disrupted area to the
rolling, wooded properties, including the neighboring Mill Road Open Space Preserve will be an
aesthetic eyesore impossible to miss. Together the scarred landscape and massive structures will look
like a shocking, tragic wound on the shoreline.
With respect to the land side views of the subject property, the massive scale of the work to remove
134,000 cubic yards of sand along with nearly 50o trees and construct the two giant structures and all
related site work will impact the character of the quiet residential and agricultural neighborhood
along the small, two lane access roads: West Mill Road and Cox Neck Lane. The "off site" construction
needs for the removal of this large amount of material, storage of all building and site work
construction materials, and truck and equipment access and parking will certainly overtake the
adjacent land Zoned as Low-Density A (R-80.) This chaotic activity will be visible from the road and
severely negatively impact the calm, natural character of the community. This construction-related
activity will scar the landscape well after the project is completed leaving the community with an eye-
sore, where there was once, wooded landscape as is found along many sections of these backroads.
1.
Thank you,
Anne Sherwood Pundyk
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
(917) 612-1863
Anne Sherwood Pundyk
@annepundyk
Artsy
Instagram Live Performance: "VOICE OVER PAINT," May 16 @vsopprojects.
Fiction: The Hoosac Institute Journal 4, 70j-nbie--Sister s,-Ap-E f, Launch event POSTPONED.
Video Profile:Anne SherlQood Puncluk: Peto
q-jjq1ci7jq,(!o1 fain( by Molly Mary O'Brien
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
Date: November 30, 2020
To:Southold Town Planning Board&Southold Town Planners - -- -- -
Delivered via e-mail to Heather Lanza, Brian Cummings, & Mark Terry,Southold Town Planners
From:James &Tara Neumann, 750 East Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952(Tax Map 107.-1-1.3)
r _IMLanjiCcnonhforkgpital.cor
646-637-1549
Re:Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings Draft Scope-Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ("DEIS")Additional Response
This response is in addition to the response sent on our behalf by Attorney Eric Bressler and deals
primarily with the scope of the study to be undertaken,supplemented with some general points about
the project and site. For efficiency some of the Draft Scope DEIS document dated 9/10/20 has been cut
and pasted below. An overriding concern is the expertise and potential bias of those performing the
study. It would be preferable if the expertise and independence of the measurement/assessment of the
environmental impact could withstand any scrutiny. This can only be accomplished by appointing an
independent firm(s)with no financial or political connection to the applicant or the Town. In general the
environmental studies need to be detailed and undertaken over a multi-season if not multi-year period
to properly assess the impact of the commercialization of the formerly residential inlet. The scope
document should incorporate these points.
To help reframe the Draft Scope requirements,adherence to the Town of Southold's adaptation of the
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan "LWRP") needs to be carefully integrated into each aspect of the
Scope document. This proposed project flies in the face of all the below objectives:
The following is a categorized list of the Town of Southold LWRP policies:
DEVELOPED COAST POLICIES
Policy l Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances
community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infi-astructure,
makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of
development.
Policy 2 Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold.
Policy 3 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Southold.
NATURAL COAST POLICIES
Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem.
Policy 7 Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold.
Policy 8 Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste
and hazardous substances and wastes.
From 2.3
Protect and enhance resources that are significant to the coastal culture of the Long
Island Sound.
A. Protect the character of historic maritime areas.
Historic areas of maritime activity are significant to the coastal culture of the
Town as well as the State of New York. In Southold,the Village of Greenport,
Mattituck Inlet, and Orient-Oyster Ponds have been designated as historic
maritime areas that are significant to the Long Island Sound region.
1. Preserve traditional uses which define the maritime character of the area.
2. Preserve maritime character by maintaining appropriate scales, intensity of
use, and architectural style.
3. Provide interpretive materials in appropriate settings to augment the
public's understanding and appreciation of maritime heritage.
Natural Environmental Resources
Soils and Topography
Comments:
• The extreme changes to the grade seem to be without precedent,certainly on the inlet. While
this should never even be considered given the unknowns on effect,some attempt on
studying the effect of grade change must be undertaken as part of the scope.
• Removal of a huge amount of sand to be replaced with structures also needs to be studied as
to effect on the environment. The functionality of the sand as a part of the make-
up/environmental functionality of the land and its proposed removal needs to be studied
carefully.
Water Resources (Groundwater and Surface Waters)
Comments:
The assertion by Strong's via Cuddy that a marina has no negative impact on a waterway deserves to
be carefully studied and incorporated into the scope. This study needs to establish a baseline from
multiple seasonal periods which can hopefully be compared to prior waterway studies.
Waterway
• The level of pollution from run-off and boat traffic needs much more attention. Boat traffic in
the Mattituck Inlet has dramatically increased over the last five years. This in itself needs to
be studied and documented. How can an impact be determined without any knowledge of
the baseline and some study of the adverse effects to date?
There has been significant erosion from natural shorelines as the shoreline has hardened and
boat wakes take their toll. This needs to be studied for the added impact that boat traffic has
on the shoreline and sea bed.
The Yacht Center plans to house increasingly large yachts in the proposed buildings. The
current fleet of large yachts cannot turn around at mid to low tide without significantly
stirring up the bottom. A study of the impact of increased size boats, both length and draft,
needs to be part of the scope.
A significant water quality study must be included in the scope. It should incorporate all the
different seasons which will help to delineate the negative effect of boat traffic and run-off,
especially during the summer season when usage is heaviest.
Ecolo ical Resources
This section of the DEIS would address the existing ecological resources on the subject property.As
part of the DEIS, a qualified biologist/ecologist will inspect the site to determine the vegetation,
wildlife,and general habitat character.An inventory of flora and fauna,as observed,will be prepared
and included in this section of the DEIS, and an assessment of the species that could be expected to
utilize the subject site will be performed. Protected native plants; plant and animal species listed as
endangered,threatened,and special concern( or with other protective status),will be identified,
including the noted piping plover,southern sprite,and Eastern box turtle,and suitability of habitat as
roosting or summary foraging habitat for protected New York State and Federally-protected bat
species.An assessment of potential impacts to the contiguous Town of Southold woodland identified
as 25.29 acres to the south (SCTIVI 1000-106-6-20.3) and the adjacent tidal wetlands of Mattituck
Creek will also be performed.Consultations with the New York Natural Heritage Program will be
undertaken for site information.This section of the DEIS will include the quantitative impacts to
habitats as well as a qualitative assessment of the impacts to plants and animal species. Mitigation
measures to reduce potential impacts will be identified.
Comments:
General:The impact on the ecological resources is perhaps the most crucial and thus needs detailed
study. The Scope fails to provide any specifics about the level of detail of the aspects of the study
including a needed multi-year duration.
Flora/Fauna: There are many more species than those identified dependent upon the health of the
ecology, particularly the waterway and the wetlands surrounding the project site..
There is significant migration of land-based species from the west to the east side (&vice-
versa) that needs to be studied. Included are wild turkeys, egrets, and herons. The impact on
each of these species and their ability to tolerate additional noise, water degradation,
wetlands loss, and wetlands health needs a multi-year study to properly evaluate the impact
of such a large scale project.
0 Fish and shellfish have also been adversely affected by pollution and boat traffic over the
years. Blue crabs had all but disappeared but were staging a comeback,this needs to be
studied and quantified.
Algae types and levels need to be included in the study so that changes can be monitored
(again a baseline). There is no question that the type and amount of algae has changed over
the last ten years as the water quality has declined
Wetlands:
No idea how the DEC permit for some elements and the non-jurisdiction for others came to be
given the location, massive scale,clear impact on the wetlands(adjacent and across), and
future operation of the project. . A FOIL request has been filed with the DEC for the
paperwork. There was no notification on this permit. The DEC needs to be actively involved
in the evaluation of the impact and a review of this should be part of the scope.
Human Resources
Transportation
Comments:
In addition to vehicular and truck traffic increases emanating from the proposed project,there also
needs to be a careful study of boat traffic. The study should include type of boat including length,
etc, registration of boat to discern transient vs. local,obeyance of local laws including speed and
adherence to pump-out ordinances. The dramatic increase in transient boat traffic has made safety a
major concern on the waterway,the safety issue needs to be addressed and incorporated into the
scope document.
Employment
The promise of additional full-time employment, presumably of Southold Town residents, has been
offered as a primary community benefit. The scope should include some study of the current levels of
employment by Strong's at the site and a delineation of the employment that would be generated by
job description, salary+ benefit levels, etc. The impact of additional emploees in terms of traffic,
noise, environment, etc also needs to be in the scope.
Commercial:
There is a claimed benefit to the local economy by the applicants. This needs to be studied
and quantified. It should include data about stored boat ownership and where the boat is
docked during the season. This local economy economic impact should be part of the scope.
Local ownership by the Strong family has been emphasized. It should be studied how new,
non-Southold resident ownership might impact the operation, including continuation of
concern for the environment and community professed by the Strongs.
In the event of a fall-off in marine storage business what is to prevent the use of the
structures for alternate purposes. Alternate structure use and the impact needs to be studied
and perhaps included in the scope. This really may need a modification to the uses under the
current zoning to protect the inlet and surrounding land.
There has been some discussion about the sale of the sand and the project being dependent
on the"strip-mining"of the hill in order to finance such a large project. The scope should
include some study of this commercial sand excavation for sale ($2 million+?) as it considers
benefits to the other taxpayers on the inlet and beyond. It seems inconceivable the Town
would permit the removal of that quantity of sand from any other property in Southold Town
and especially on the waterfront. If the Neumann family were to build another house on the
waterfront could we remove enough sand to finance the build? The scope needs to be
amended to deal with the issue.
Aesthetic Resources aqd_Community Character
This section of the DEIS will describe the existing viewshed and general consistency or compatibility
with existing elements of the community will be described.As part of the assessment of impacts on
visual resources, 3D computer-generated imagery would be provided to depict post-development
viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and the adjacent roadway.The proposed buildings and
cement and evergreen retaining wall, as well as the site and building lighting,would be described.The
impacts to the community character as it relates to changes to the existing natural landscape with the
proposed development would be evaluated.The impacts to community character as it relates to the
viewshed from waterway(Mattituck Creek) will be evaluated and the project's consistency with the
proposed use of land as set forth in approved L WRP,will be discussed. Measures to mitigate impacts
will be identified,as appropriate.
Community Charac„t„gr: The claim that"Project will enhance community character by construction of
two new boat storage buildings"in the LWRP section of the application needs attention as does the
additional assertion that"The proposed project will not have a negative impact on the visual quality
or scenic resources of the Town of Southold". It is clear that there is a big difference between a small
marina embedded on a mainly residential body of water and a vastly expanded commercial marina
with two new towering structures with the stated goal of becoming the largest service marina in the
Northeast. From the Ngr-t„hforker (9/2018) ”when he and Ryan wanted to pursue what is now the
Strong's Yacht Center on the west side of Mattituck Inlet, which they hope will grow over the
next five years to become the largest yacht service facility in the Northeast. ". It is not
appropriate from a community standpoint and clearly not from an ecological standpoint. The Inlet is
too fragile and simply does not lend itself to large yachts that cannot pass each other or turn around
at mid-tide in most places. The scope needs to include the appropriateness of the site for such a
commercial operation, perhaps better suited for New London or other primarily commercial harbors.
Adherence to the LWRP needs to be studied for this and any other future expansion. The zoning as
MII is perhaps inappropriate for the site and needs to be reconsidered which can be incorporated into
the scope.
Aesthetics:
This is a glaring issue that is the polar opposite of the Town's claimed objectives for the waterfront.
As part of the scope a survey should be conducted from both residents and transients as to
the aesthetic appeal of the current sheds,which never should have been permitted per the
LWRP, and the proposed sheds that will tower above them. The scope should include the
obligation to hire outside experts to provide a detailed report on waterfront development
from an aesthetic angle in an otherwise rural, residential inlet.
Not only should the new sheds be disallowed but the existing sheds should be removed to
restore the original aesthetic of the Inlet. A small neighborhood marina that provided access
to boating for town residents has been converted to an industrial behemoth catering to the
yacht community,consisting primarily of non-residents generating no tax or other Town
revenue.
Use of Land: The scope should include a study of the use of the land relative to its size,topography,
and adjacency to the waterway, and residential land. Perhaps this might be considered under the
alternative uses title and might include removal of existing storage sheds, as above.
Noise: The scope must include some measurement of the operational noise level emanating from the
Yacht Center including hours, decibel level,source, and impact on residential quiet enjoyment as well
as wildlife. The noise at today's increased level of operation is non-stop and at a window-shaking
decibel level,this needs to be studied and part of the scope.The scope also must address monitoring
of the noise level on a go forward basis.
ALir—QUO-1 Rt
This section of the document will address mobile source impacts (i.e.,those related to construction
activity)and post-development impacts to biomass as a result of the proposed land clearing activities.
An air quality assessment will be performed and appended to the DEIS and summarized in the body of
the text.The air quality assessment would include the following:
Comments:
This needs to include not just the temporary impact from construction but the impact from operation
as relates to machinery, auto traffic, boat traffic, etc.
Construction-Related Impacts
This section will address the construction-related impacts related to vegetation and material removal,
site preparation, and construction activities.The proposed excavation plan will be presented,and the
impacts associated with noise,traffic and land disturbance activities ( e.g., dust)will be assessed.
Measures to mitigate impacts will be identified, as appropriate.
Expanded Operation Irnjcts
There needs to be an assessment of what the impact of the expanded operation might have on all
areas. Some examples include:
Hours of operation, particularly of heavy machinery. During the hauling and launching season
the hours of operation of the travel lift are from 8 AM to 6 PM on a consistent basis. This is a
multiple of the hours of operation previously and a study needs to be done to determine the
current change and future change. Other boat moving machinery and cleaning apparatus are
in near constant operation clearly impacting the quiet enjoyment of residential properties in
the area (my windows shake). This is overhead helicopters on steroids in terms of impact.
Additional equipment to be allowed including additional/larger lifts need to be vetted and
included in the scope.
Washing of boats,fueling of,and operation of boats pollutes the waterway. The impact of
increased fuel spills(which have been observed much more frequently both small and large)
and more spillage of cleaning materials and removed materials into the inlet need to be part
of the scope and studied in detail. Unfortunately,the more use of a waterway means more
refuse that ends up in the waterway deliberate or not. This should be studied,quantified, and
the mitigation made part of the scope.
The only pump out boat on the inlet is now run by Strong's. The pump out adjacent to the
State ramp is typically not functioning. From a survey of boaters it has repeatedly been heard
that boaters are not following the rules and pumping overboard into the inlet. The scope
needs to include a study of the impact of increased boat traffic due to the expanded activities
including devising a methodology to police and monitor the water quality. Many inlet
residents swim and recreate in the inlet. Further rendering the inlet to be unswimmable more
often obviously has a negative impact on the community,quiet enjoyment of property
purchased for access, and valuations (and ultimately tax rolls).
There are already boats for rent on Airbnb docked at the Yacht Center which may be leased on
a short-term basis. Couple this with increased tenancy by boat owners/guests and the
potential impact on the area becomes large from multiple environmental angles. This needs
to be studied and also reflect the level of residential complaints from the other Strong's
facility at the head of the inlet as a harbinger.
Other Re uired Sections
Use and Conservation of Energy-This section of the DEIS will describe the proposed energy sources,
expected levels of consumption and means to reduce consumption. Consultations with the service
providers (PSEG LI and National Grid)will be undertaken and the findings and recommendations of
these providers will be included.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects-This section enumerates those short and long-term impacts that cannot
be mitigated.
Again the assertion that increased marina activity has no permanent impact needs to be studied and
clearly refuted. If the expansion is permitted, undoing the unavoidable effects described herein will
not easily be mitigated or reversed.
Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources-This section includes a brief discussion of
natural resources consumed as a result of project implementation.
Growth-Inducing Aspects-The potential growth-inducing aspects of the project will be presented in
this section.
One commercial project begets more commercial projects as evidenced by the poor decision to allow
the last MIMS' sheds to be built. The scope needs to deal with expansion beyond the current
proposal including acquisition of additional property,contiguous or not, on the Mattituck Inlet which
would further commercialize the Inlet. The applicant(as above) has informed the public as to their
commercial aspirations: "which they hope will grow over the next five years to become the largest
yacht service facility in the Northeast. ". This goal is in direct contradiction to the professed
environmental concerns of the Town and the Inlet denizens. A review of the location and size of non-
residential zoning on the waterway needs to be reviewed,and made a part of the scope.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:27 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings:Transportation
From: Phoebe Pundyk [mailto:phoebepundyk@gmail.com] `
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 4:39 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Russell, Scott; Doherty, Jill; Ghosio, Bob; Nappa, Sarah
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings: Transportation
Dear Brian,
The Town of Southold Planning Board should make sure that the Draft Scope of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement takes into consideration the existing unsafe traffic flow along Cox
Neck Lane and West Mill Road. I live on West Mill Road and jog or walk daily in our neighborhood. It
has become increasingly unpleasant as I frequently have to jump off of the side of the road as cars
and trucks speed by me. These dangerous conditions will be further impacted by the proposed boat
storage expansion project. The current speed limit—which is already too high—of 35 miles per hour is
not being enforced. Private cars and trucks, commercial vehicles and vehicles towing boats do not
maintain the posted speed limit.
Over the last 18 months members of the community who live on West Mill Road and Cox Neck Lane
and the adjacent side roads have expressed their concern to the Town of Southold Traffic
Commission in writing, in person and over the phone. The response has been to explain that this
worrisome problem occurs throughout the area and the solution has not been found. In other words,
the Town Southold does not currently have the resources to solve this problem and keep
their citizens safe. As a result, the problem persists and because the speed limit is not enforced,
drivers through habituation have normalized unsafe speeding on these narrow, two-lane roads
without shoulders or sidewalks.
There are two characteristics that make West Mill Road and Cox Neck Lane particularly dangerous.
The first is a blind curve just before Breakwater Road, which leads to the beach. The other is an over
a mile long straight-a-way with no stops or breaks. The speed limit of 35 MPH is too high and should
be lowered to 25 MPH along with the addition of stop signs at key intersections.
If there are not enough resources to control traffic before the construction starts, once the project is
underway our unsafe transportation routes will become all the more dangerous. These roads are
used everyday by pedestrians, bicyclists, families with children, dog-owners and their pets as well as
students being picked up or dropped off by local school busses. This is a residential neighborhood
whose members will be endangered by the dramatic increase of heavy-duty commercial construction
vehicles and equipment traveling on our narrow roads. In addition, these roads are not suitable for the
increased scale of the traffic proposed. They are generally always in need of repair and will not hold
up under the increased traffic making them additionally unsafe.
1
The Draft Scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should also carefully consider the
calculations given in the project description about how many truck loads per day and for how many
days they will travel on the neighborhood roads. Grim as it sounds to have large trucks continually
passing in both directions from 9:am to 4:00pm six days a week for months on end, my guess is that
the reality is going to be worse. Generally speaking, assumptions about construction schedules are
optimistic and unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected site conditions, weather, pandemic,
and work flow may disrupt and lengthen the proposed schedules. This likelihood should be taken into
account and discussed as part of the Environmental Impact and its relevance for the safety of
Mattituck's citizens.
Thank you,
Phoebe Pundyk
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
(917) 612-1872
2
From: Cummings, Brian A.
m
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:26 AM j 1
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet - Strong's Proposed Marina , -
_ 1
From: Beth Lebowitz [mailto:bethlebowitz99@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 2:22 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc: Charlotte Raible; Jerry Adler; Wayne Weiss; savemattituckinlet@gmail.com
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet - Strong's Proposed Marina
To: Town of Southold Planning Board
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am a resident of 465 Harbor View Avenue, on the east side of Mattituck Inlet and have a clear view across the
wetlands and Inlet of the marine traffic, the Old Mill and the industrial sites located south of the mill. The
reason my husband and I chose to purchase this particular property was the view of the inlet and the wetlands.
I recognize as a city planner for the City of New York for over 40 years, that commercial development that
brings taxes into a community and provides a service to local businesses is valuable to its economic well being.
At the same time, development projects are often overly ambitious as to size and the impact on the local
environment, trees, flora and fauna habitat, waterways, drainage and runoff, potential effects
creating flooding, erosion as well as the impact on immediate surroundings especially when residential as
opposed to commercial must be acknowledged and put into balance.
Once the the impacts associated with this scale project are documented, an effort by the Town of Southold
Planning Board to bring the proposed development into a scale that will have fewer impacts, in addition to
mitigation measures should be imposed.
For example, the proposed development would remove nearly 500 trees of 6" diameter. This is an enormous
loss of both habitat for flora and fauna, and carbon dioxide sequestering. The planting of even an equal number
of trees of 6 inch diameter may mitigate the loss of carbon dioxide sequestering but would not address the
removal of habitat providing support for plant and animal ecosystems. I recommend that in order to mitigate
the loss of so many large that trees with at least 6 inch diameter be replanted as nearby as possible and clustered
for flora and fauna support, again if possible.
The digging out of the hillside to provide access for large boats from the inlet to the marina will inevitably
result in erosion and run off that would be ongoing. Stabilizing the hillside adjacent to the inlet minimizing
storm runoff, while providing filtering for runoff during rainstorms to reduce the possible contamination of the
inlet is essential.
Traffic along the local residential neighborhood streets during construction is inevitably going to bring noise,
vibration and damage to street surfaces and possible houses. Steps must be taken to minimize this disruption
and damage with trucks limited to certain hours, low speeds and the number of trucks per day. hi addition the
streets may require temporary traffic signals to increase safety for the residents trying to exit and enter their own
i
driveways. At the end of the project, the street must be repaired. Since the number of boats currently proposed
for the marina is large, it is likely to generate more traffic after the project is completed and large trucks may
bring large boats to the marina. Traffic mitigation would be required and the marina should limit the number of
trucks per day and limit the number of hours per day that service trucks would be allowed. A reduction in size
of the marina and reducing the number of boats for this proposed development would be the obvious
mitigation.
All of the acknowledged impacts that this project would generate would be mitigated by a significant reduction
in size of the development and should be considered as a way to thread the needle between supporting economic
development of important local commercial activities of fishing and pleasure boating and the negative impact of
large commercial development along the. Waterways. Water dependent uses and residential development need
to share the access to the waterways with the least disruption possible and threat to health and safety of the
existing residences.
Absent a serious reduction in size of this proposed development and mitigation of all the known negative
impacts I am opposed to this project as proposed.
Sincerely,
Beth Lebowitz
465 Harborview Avenue,
Mattituck,N.Y. 11952
917-459-7140
Beth
UP
FOR THE EAST END
December 4, 2020
p Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Strongs Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
"Draft Scope" Comments
f SCTM# 1000-106-6-10 and 13.4
Dear Chairman Wilcenski
I write on behalf of Group for the East End to offer the following comments with
respect to our review of the Draft Scope for the above-referenced project, as
m submitted by the applicant on September 10, 2020.
1.Summary Statement:
The proposed action represents a very significant and environmentally intrusive
development proposal on a geologically constrained parcel, that is also located in a
dynamic and vulnerable coastal environment. Specifically,the subject parcel is
characterized by a diverse array of environmental constraints ranging from steep
slopes and shallow groundwater elevations,to potential areas of high erosion,
flooding and runoff potential. The subject application's proposed excavation is also
extensive and represents a substantial issue of concern in and of itself, which must
be fully examined as part of the overall project review.
In light of these numerous environmental sensitivities, and the proposed action's
potential for significant environmental impacts, the importance of a thorough and
objective environmental impact assessment is critical to both the public and the
d planning board's capacity to assure the most environmentally responsible outcome
for this parcel.
�r
A summary of our specific concerns and recommendations is provided below..
2. Consistency with Underlying Studies, Designations and Plans:
The sensitive nature of the Mattituck Creek environment has long been examined
and recognized by a range of governmental entities involved in the planning,
conservation and land use decisions for the project area.
In an effort to assess the subject proposal's compatibility with current conservation and
land use planning documents/designations, the DEIS should provide a section focused on
the consistency between the proposed action (and alternative actions), and the relevant
goals, objectives, and standards of existing planning, land use and policy documents
s.relevant to the subject site and its surroundings.
1 g
The DEIS assessment should include, but not be limited to, an assessment of the
following policy and planning documents, legislation, and implementing rules and
regulations:
-Southold Town Comprehensive Plan Update (including the following topics):
Natural Resources & Environment
Community Character
Y
Land Use and Zoning- (Marine Zoning Update)
Natural Hazards
Economic Development
-Transportation and Infrastructure
-Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan & Policies
State and local wetlands protection laws
-The Mattituck Watershed Management Plan
- "NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper" -with respect to wildlife evaluation
- NYSDOS Coastal Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat designations (Mattituck Inlet)
-Articles 6,7 and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
- 2019 Suffolk County Special Grand Jury Report: Illegal Dumping & Mining, Suffolk
County
3. Alternatives:
An assessment of reasonable alternatives, and impact mitigation measures that can
provide the greatest practicable protection of the environment, are among the most
valuable statutory provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.To
accomplish this assessment, Lead Agencies are granted substantial latitude in requiring
attention to such alternatives both in terms of those alternatives required, and the level
of detail that is required for each alternative to be considered.
To assure this level of assessment, and mitigation, it is incumbent upon the planning
board to require that a DEIS provide for an assessment of a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action be considered, and that such consideration be
provided at a level of detail that is suitable for comparative assessment alongside the
/ / applicant's desired action [See NYCRR: 617.9(b)(5)(a-g)]. Given the complexity of this site,
' it would not be sufficient to consider only the applicant's desired proposal,the no action
proposal, and the applicant's desired proposal with an alternative materials removal
/
Re",
r
plan.
r i
rl
/ J
In the instant case the property's MII zoning category bestows a number of potential
primary uses on the site. As such, it would be reasonable for the planning board to
require consideration of design and use alternatives (inconformity with existing zoning),
which could reduce potential environmental impacts associated with the subject action.
Likewise, alternatives for a boat storage facility with an alternative structural design,
alternative building size, or site configuration that offers the potential for reducing
environmental harm associated with the proposed action should be considered.
Information related to any future development plans or potential development
expansion on the site should also be discussed in the DEIS, as any future development
potential is relevant to the required assessment of the property's overall development
potential over time. Likewise any proposal ro osal bY theapplicant to reduce or surrender
future potential uses of the property are also relevant for consideration by the planning
board in evaluating the overall potential for environmental harm and mitigation.
4. Excavation:
The proposed action requires an extensive amount of excavation, which will ultimately
result in significant off-site transport of sands and gravels extracted from the site.
Because of the extensive nature of this excavation,the DEIS should provide a complete
evaluation of impacts associated with all proposed mining, erosion, materials transport
(including roadway impacts and impacts on nearby residential development), materials
storage, materials sales, materials processing, vehicle operations, and habitat
destruction, as well as any future precedent for other highly constrained parcels with
similar development potential.
Detailed attention must also be given to any visual impacts of the proposed excavation,
any erosion/runoff/fugitive dust potential associated with site excavation, the
engineering plans for all slope stabilizing construction, revegetation plans, construction
timelines, as well as truck size details, roadway impacts and trip assessments. The DEIS
„ 1
should also address specific provisions for performance bonding to assure appropriate
reclamation/restoration of any areas (including local roadways)that may be required
after excavation, or in the event that the project does not come to completion after a
specifically defined period of time.
5. Community and Visual Character:
The preservation of Southold's historic, small town identity has been at the forefront of
nearly every planning and development discussion undertaken by the town over the last
decade.
loin
/'
/15
/ / ' //i.'✓/,,,///iii%iii//J
%�/////ii ji�/ ✓,,,,,/�/,r/�//1f�1��/�� Without question, the importance of Southold Town's beautiful visual character is highly
valued by its residents and incorporated as a key planning goal in the town's recently
adopted comprehensive plan update.
If constructed the subject proposal may significantly alter the shoreline character of
Mattituck Inlet environs and this potential impact must be fully evaluated. To accomplish
Ui/��/y !�, �� ��1f✓,/;j this goal,the DEIS must include detailed visual renderings (with both dimensional relief
and color) of the proposed action, and alternative actions,to reflect how the
development would be viewed from the waters of Mattituck Inlet, as well as any
surrounding residential development. In the absence of such detail, it will be impossible
to render a rational decision about how the proposed action can conform to the town's
number one community character priority (as stated in the Comprehensive Plan Update),
which is to "protect its scenic resources".
/
6. Climate Change
SEQRA's implementing regulations require an assessment of measures to avoid or reduce
an action's impacts associated with the effects of climate change such as sea level rise
and flooding.[See NYCRR:617.9(b)(5)(iii)(i)]. We do not see this issue listed among the
applicants discussion topics in the draft scoping outline and ask that it be included in the
forthcoming DEIS. The potential impacts associated with coastal flooding, storm events,
and rising sea levels can impart or exacerbate environmental impacts on coastal
development and coastal environments and should be an important part of the planning
board's overall impact and alternatives assessment.
7. Conclusion:
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments in an effort to assure the
most thorough and objective assessment of the proposed action. It would be our hope
that the issues identified in this letter can be integrated into the Draft Scope submitted
1,
by the applicant and included in the Final Scope when it is prepared by the Town of
Southold. It has long been our experience that the integration of community concerns at
the earliest stages of review, assures the most timely and transparent public review
process while also providing a Lead Agency with the greatest amount of information
upon which to make its most well-informed decision. We look forward to the continued
review of this proposal and remain available to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration.
t Sincerely,
/
Robert S. DeLuca
President
bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org
cc: Heather M. Lanza AICP, Southold Town Planning Department
r
4
,.
", /�i/iia✓moi%/!/
,..
0" iii
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:31 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Save the inlet
i
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike [mailto:mpiscatelli@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:04 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Save the inlet
I am a long time resident of the north fork and have contributed to the open space fund numerous times as I
have moved a few times. I think this was an absolutely genius move on our local planning board and
leadership for our town. It has brought tranquility, value, and has made the north fork a destination. People
come from all over to visit and support our local business. I get that this proposed new structure will creat jobs
for a year or so but otherwise there is little value to the north fork. In my option it would be not the best
structure to look at as well as the traffic going down a road that just was not created to transport 20,30,40 foot
boats that are wide and need large trucks to move back and forth at the minimum of twice a year.
As much as I know the strongs business has employed many locals and do provide a great service to the locals
and the weekenders who spend the time that they are here supporting local businesses I think it's just not a
good idea.
Let's try to have a balance between keeping the north fork a desirable destination and having some nice
convenient things that make it a little easier for all of us.
I remember not too long ago I had to drive to Riverhead for a happy meal.But do I want another fast food
restaurant. HECK NO.. I was very happy with a bowling alley and a Rite Aid. These little changes add up.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:45 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Save the Mattituck Inlet
From: John Feldmann [mailto:john.feldmann@stonybrook.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:44 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Save the Mattituck Inlet
Good morning Mr. Cummings,
I am a homeowner who resides year long at 525 New Suffolk Road in Cutchogue.
I wish to express my opinion and hope the project for 2 boat storage buildings is not approved. This is a luxury
item being proposed and not a necessity. To compromise the beauty of the area, the natural plant and tree
growth and the wild life it supports is unwarranted. In my opinion, the area should not be destroyed for
profitable gains.
Thank you,
John Feldmann
-Best,
John Feldmann
Associate Facilities Program Coordinator
Residential Project Manager
Campus Planning Design and Construction
Research and Support Services Bldg Rm 160
Stony Brook,NY 11794
T 631.796.9739
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:31 AM
70: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck inlet strongs marina 2020
1
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Byrne [mailto:kevinbyme70@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 7:53 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet strongs marina
Dear Brian,
We all love the north fork and I guess the hard thing for you is balancing the needs of the local economy and
preserving what makes the north fork so special. Over the past 5 years we have seen the north fork get
gradually busier with traffic build up especially in fall. Fall on the north fork feels like summer in the
Hampton's !
I read about the plans for mattituck, I would encourage you to reduce the scope of this plan. Strongs do
provide a good service in the area but I would worry that a bigger boat yard brings bigger boats and well..
wealthier people in and out all of which will have an impact on the character of the area. Also removing
woodland for this project is not in keeping with the area.
Lastly traffic has become a problem in recent years so I fear more will put pressure on local roads and lead to
more accidents.
The town does a great job in my humble opinion balancing these things, keep it up!
Best
Kevin
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:31 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Expansion
l
-----Original Message-----
From:Joe [mailto:aafuchs@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday,December 7, 2020 7:39 AM
To: Cummings,Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina Expansion
Dear Sir,
The North Fork is cherished for its rural character and beauty. The expansion proposed by Strong'd is totally
inconsistent with those values.
Let's not destroy what we all enjoy to satisfy a single business.
Adrienne &Joseph Fuchs
Cutchogue
Sent from my Wad
ATTENTION: This email carne from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:30 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica (U
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Expansion
From: WATSON [mailto:northfork@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 7:38 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marine Expansion
Good Morning,
I live directly across from Strong's Waterclub and have personally experienced the invasion of
business expansion. During the spring, summer and fall the noise pollution is unbearable and
although many complaints have been filed, the "beat goes on". This proposed building plan is just
another expansion that holds potential to destroy our peaceful North Fork - more specifically Mattituck
Inlet. I can't even image what the environmental damage will entail. Promises are made and easily
forgotten after permits are issued. Please do not let these ugly buildings ruin our beautiful creek!
Audrey Watson-Wigley
CONFIDENTIAL - COMMUNICATION -NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE -NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION
Deputy Chief Instructor
Suffolk County Fire Academy
CIC Suffolk County EMS
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:30 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck inlets
-----Original Message-----
From: cindy.mckinney77@gmail.com [mailto:cindy.mckinney77@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 7:32 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck inlet
Dear Mr Cummings,
I am concerned about the proposed yacht storage buildings. I hope the proposal will be rejected in order to
protect the surrounding community and the environment.
Thank you.
Cindy McKinney
East Marion
Sent from my Whone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:30 AM j
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck Inlet boat storage buildings project
1
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Klein [mailto:asklein52@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 7:29 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck Inlet boat storage buildings project
The big question is does Mattituck or any other North Fork town really need such an enormous amount of
boat storage? And do the residents who support the entire area and maintain it to near perfection deserve or
want the devastation, interruptions and loss of beauty, woodlands, and natural living they currently enjoy and
deserve? Will it potentially be good for Mattituck and the Inlet area?
The town administrators must help protect the beauty and enjoyment of living on the North Fork, and it is not
an easy task. This is a huge responsibility on your part to make every effort necessary to determine what the
best decision will be for those who live in and support this town and the surrounding area. How will it affect
the current and future residents short and long term? Please take the time needed to complete a fair and
proper study.
Be safe and be well.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:30 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Boatyard Project
i
t
-----Original Message-----
From:John Schwetje [mailto:jjps56@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday,December 6, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Boatyard Project
I'm writing as a resident of Brower's Woods in Mattituck to voice concerns over this proposal for expansion of
Strong's commercial presence on Mattituck Inlet. As a point of context, my home is not on the Inlet.
Potential environmental damage to natural habitats in the construction area, further future storm and waste
runoff into waters from the completed site, and a large new commercial footprint in Mattituck are my main
objections to seeing this plan move forward.
Furthermore, it seems that the facilities created will generally cater to larger sized watercraft. These are hardly
being built as sheds for canoes or kayaks. The vessels to be housed in these large buildings, and trucks
transporting them, will lead to other environmental and quality of life concerns.
The few full time jobs this project might lead to are also unlikely to employ people earning salaries that would
easily enable possible home ownership locally. Those gaining most would be owners of land clearing,
construction, and marina businesses,none of whom seem short of work or income.
Finally, the short term noise, pollution, and disruption from building this facility would disrupt the area
nearby in a negative way that no foreseeable future benefit might realistically warrant.
Sincerely,
John Schwetje
Sent from my iPhone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:29 AM
j
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's marina building exspansion
-----Original Message-----
From: david mann [mailto:activeman62@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday,December 6, 2020 2:03 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Strong's marina building exspansion
Please deny permission for the two new storage I think these people have enough money already. Dave Mann
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:29 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
i
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina project
f
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancydeegan [mailto:pianonan@optonline.net]
Sent: Sunday,December 6, 202011:26 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc:John Breen;Deegan Breen Molly
Subject: Strong's Marina project
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I live at 500 North Drive,Mattituck, on the creek,just a few doors up from Strong's Marina and I am disturbed
and angry that this major project could possibly be approved.
The destruction of earth and trees is bad enough. But huge propane loud tanks,ugly building for large power
yachts and multiple truckloads daily in this beautiful natural quiet area is beyond belief.
The worst local traffic in this quiet area is the happy pedestrians and children on bikes. The actual motor traffic
is sparse and every driver is vigilant and obeys the speed limit.
I sincerely hope this despicable project does not receive approval by the town.
Very Truly Yours,
Nancy Deegan
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:29 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
i
From: Termini, Susan T- Flushing, NY [mailto:Susan.T.Termini@usps.gov]
Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 11:17 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
STOP THE CRAZINESS. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE DO NOT WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF WILDLIFE, PLANT LIFE
AND ALL THE OTHER
HAZARDS THAT COME WITH THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER AREAS IM SURE THAT THIS
COULD BE CONSTRUCTED.
OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL DESCREASE ENORMOUSLY. THIS IS NOT FAIR TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA.
TOWN RESIDENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS
SUSAN TERMINI
160 ROSE LANE
MATTITUCK, NY
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
Dec 5, 2020
Re: The Strong's Marina expansion
As a resident of West Mill Road, Mattituck, the case against this project is obvious:
b Potential impacts of strip-mining the hillside and destroying the forest areas,
• Surface water pollution,
Disruption of ground water wells, flooding, run-off, erosion,
• Destruction of plant and animal ecosystems,
0 Diminishment of the aesthetic character of our cherished North Fork
community,
• Pedestrian safety in our community during the construction,
0 Destruction of local roads by oversized trucks,
• Impact on resale property values as our residential community becomes a
disruptive commercial hub.
What's less clear is the argument in favor of the project beyond vague statements
about economic benefits.
As part of the environmental study there should be an economic study, one that puts
fact-based numbers to the true economic impact for the community.
Only with a rigorous economic study can we know what's on the positive side of the
ledger for the community. We know what's on the cost side: the degradation of our
local quality of life, our safety, and our environmental ecosystem.
Further, there should be independent validation of the economic feasibility of the
project itself and of the market to sustain the business. The risk, of course, is that
the project is under-funded, leaving the community with the scorched earth and
none of the economic upside, or, that upon completion there no sustainable market
to house so many yachts, leaving the community with a set of oversized white
elephant buildings and the surrounding ecological and residential damage for
nothing.
If this project goes forward the price the community will pay will be high; we should
see a full accounting of the potential economic gains as well as transparency into the
support to finance and maintain the business.
Sincerely,
Jeff Pundyk,
1185 West Mill Road,
Mattituck
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:27 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Marina project, Mattituck NY
From: marguerite kitz [mailto:margueritekitz@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 4:43 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Marina project, Mattituck NY
Dear Mr Cummings,
I have been reading in the local paper about the proposed Strong's Marina project, on Mill
Road in Mattituck. I am vehemently opposed to this project. My family and I have lived here for
more than 20 years, built our dream house overlooking the Mattituck inlet, work very hard to
keep up with our home and pay our high taxes. That being said, the last thing we want is to look
out our windows to see two 50,000 sq ft buildings. We don't want to see any
commercial buildings on this beautiful land. We don't plan on moving but the impact of this kind
of project would crush our (as well as our neighbors) home value. I think it is outrageous to even
consider such a permit for this commercial project. The community and environmental impact
must be considered.
I have significant concerns that the Strong's Marina family has close ties to this community,
bringing in lots of business and tourists thus influencing the decisions on a political level.
Southold Town is required to consider all the community members, not just the ones that bring
in the greatest financial gain. I believe, Strong's already has a booming business in our town and
adding even more is bordering on greed.
I could go on and on about the scientific impact these buildings and the project development
will have on the environment but I will leave that to the experts. I am shocked that such a
project, on the Mattituck inlet would even be considered. What is the Department of
Conservation's opinion on this?
I am hopeful that our community will rally together and put an end to this before a permit is
granted. We are blessed to live in a beautiful community and now we have to fight to keep it
this way. Would you want these buildings in your front yard?
Sincerely,
Marguerite Kitz
Mattituck, NY
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:27 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina proposal
From: Terri Brady-M6ndez [mailto:camomile@optimum.net]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:33 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina proposal
Dear Mr. 'Cummings and Members of the Town of Southold Planning Board:
I am writing to you to object vehemently to Strong's Marina's proposal to build two 55-foot high SF
propane-heated structures at 3430 Mitt Road to store yachts during the winter on Mattituck Inlet.
Construction of these buildings will destroy over 450 indigenous trees that will negatively affect
the flora and fauna of many native species, and destroy 134,000 cubic yards of sand and forested
hillside. In addition, the project itself will require materials to be trucked into this residential
area on a full-time basis for over a year, disrupting traffic for residents, pedestrians, and vehicles
alike. Moreover, installation of these buildings to house yachts will lead both to increasing the
already over-taxed waterway in Mattituck Inlet,
as well as adding to the progressively threatening
pollution of this waterway that has affected both surface water and ground water in our area.
As a staunch conservationist and an active member of the North Fork Environmental Council, the
North Fork Audubon Society, the Long Island Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, I am alarmed and distressed at how Strong's Marina's proposal will further destroy the
precious habitat that is unique to our town.
Since I became a resident of Mattituck over 25 years ago, I have witnessed the constant
deterioration of our local environment as more and more industries and individuals have chosen to
instali, ecologically unsound buildings and residences without a thought to how it destroys the
natural beauty of our environment. We cannot and should not allow any project this massive to go
forward.
For all of these reasons, I am imploring you and the members of the Town of Southold Planning
Board to deny Strong's Marina's proposal, to build the two structures on Mitt Road. The additional
destruction of our invaluable native habitat must not be approved!
Thank you for this opportunity to express my unequivocal opposition to granting Strong's Marina's
project proposal.
Sincerely yours,
Terri Brady M6ndez
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:27 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Opposition to the Draft Scope of the Strongs Marina Expansion
Project/Environmental Impact
I;�`,'J
1�
From: Catherine C [mailto:catherinecanade@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Opposition to the Draft Scope of the Strongs Marina Expansion Project/Environmental Impact
Dear Mr. Cummings,
We are among the neighbors who strongly oppose the Strong's Marina Expansion Project.We live on West Mill Road, approximately a
quarter of a mile from the proposed site,which is designated to be the access road for the trucks that will be removing 135,000 cubic
yards of sand, roughly 27 truckloads per day,for more than a year,which will not only destabilize the open space woodland
preserve but promote erosion,affect runoff and potentially impact groundwater and well water.
There will be a two fold negative impact on our quiet community,the first from the increased danger from trucks and equipment going
back and forth hauling sand to our children playing outside, our dog-walkers, and our walkers,joggers and cyclists, on a road where
speeding traffic is already a major problem,which we have voiced in the past to the town of Southold.
The second is from the devastating environmental impact of the project on our waterways and native forests.Almost 500 trees are
designated for destruction, along with the loss of the accompanying flora and fauna. Further, we, as a wooded residential community,
should not bear the risk of the storage and potential explosion of the 8,000 gallons of propane proposed to be stored to heat the Stong's
new yacht storage sheds, plus the 800-1,000 gallons of fuel multiplied by the proposed additional 80 yachts. Such storage, if
necessary, should be restricted to industrial/commercial areas.
We strongly encourage the Town of Southold Planning Board to take a closer look at the scope of this project and its
environmental impact and conduct an independent environmental review of the project, rather than one paid for by Strongs,which we
are concerned will be biased in Strong's favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Canade and Lori Panarello
1065 West Mill Road
Mattituck
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:26 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Proposed Construction at 3430 Mill Rd;Mattituck,NY
2 5 2 f
-----Original Message-----
From:
essage-----
From: Charlotte Raible [mailto:c.raible@icloud.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 10:04 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] -Proposed Construction at 3430 Mill Rd;MattituckNY
Mr. Cummings,
It has been brought to my attention that there is proposed construction of two boat sheds at 3430 Mill Road in
Mattituck.
I would hope that there will be extensive precautions taken to protect the environment before undertaking the
project.
Specifically, an environmental impact report conducted by the DEC, which would take into consideration any
nesting wildlife, and runoff from the construction. Hay bales are usually used for that purpose,but I think that
such a large scale project would require something more resistant to water and silt. I would hope that
extensive drywells and drainage would be required for water cachement from paved and roofed structures.
The loss of trees in the area should require extensive replanting of trees and ground cover.
Also Strong's Marina's project would require extensive use of commercial vehicles on West Mill Road and
Cox Neck Lane, and should be held responsible for the repair of any resulting damage to the roads.
In addition to that, these commercial vehicles would be driving through the Mill Road Preserve to access the
construction site, which would disturb the wildlife, and I propose that traffic should be limited to certain times
in a day.
Finally, neighbors are concerned about commercial buildings being an eyesore on the inlet, as well as a source
of pollution of the water due to the increased number of diesel powered boats. Perhaps a tree screen with
native trees such as Eastern Red Cedars could block the view of the facility from the water and road which will
provide an effort to preserve the natural beauty of the inlet, and replace part of the loss of green space.
This is a complicated project because of it's location, and we as a community need to be responsible in our
stewardship of the North Fork.
Thank you for your consideration.
Charlotte Raible
625 East Side Ave
Mattituck, NY 11952
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:26 AM
I
To: Michaelis, Jessica
i
Subject: FW: New Boat Storage Construction ;,
I
From: Maureen Fritch [mailto:mfritch@EElectricalContracting.com]
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:20 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - New Boat Storage Construction
Dear Mr Cummings,
I am writing because I am very concerned over the environmental impact, as well as quality of life to
the Mattituck inlet.
The project does not benefit the community whatsoever. This is a business venture.
The wildlife that lives in this area should be cherished as well as the woodlands. Little by little with
expansion of the North Fork as well as Mattituck is beginning to disappear. Soon we will lose what
we have strived to protect for so long and to preserve.
The ecological impacts will be great as well as an eye sore to the community. The community and the
Preservation board ensure that this inlet is protected with strict guidelines. I believe the community
should be able to decide since we are the ones who live in this inlet and support our community.
To pay the taxes we pay and then to lose our tranquillity, nature and to add noise pollution is totally
unnecessary.
We are totally opposed to this project.
Very Concerned,
Maureen and Joseph Fritch
975 Westview Dr
Mattituck, N
631 7932292
SCM fc-0111 MY V(:1"iZO11, SMIISLUII Galaxy snia-tpfiorie
7.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:26 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica ? 12�1
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina Proposal
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbra Salerno [mailto:bsalerno77@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 6:27 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina Proposal
Mr Cummings,
This is not a good idea, I'm against Strong's proposal. I live off East Mill Road and do not want to see more
environmental impact for Mattituck Inlet, water Pollution, destruction of plants, trees, and animal ecosystems.
I cherish the North Fork and do not want it too become disruptive commercial hub.
Please do not allow Strong's to do this to our Mattituck Community, it's a quality of life issue for all residents
who live around the inlet.
Regards,
Barbra Salerno
Sent from my Wad
1
[ tL L 0,
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:11 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica � ,p 2020
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina ,1 J !
i
From: toni bryan [mailto:tbryan355@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 1:50 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina
To Mr. Brian Cummings,
I am writing to you about the proposed construction of boat-yacht storage sheds as a part of the Strong's
Marine expansion at the former Mattituck Inlet Marina. Noteworthy, the plans name the facility Strong's Yacht
Center.
As a resident of the area, the removal of hundreds of trees, disruption of animal life, excavation of land and
the change in character of the area is of great concern to me. The expected year long trucking associated with
the removal of soil and trees is significant. The almost 3 mile loop of West Mill Road,Naugles Drive and
Breakwater Road is used by many walkers,joggers and bicyclists. There are no sidewalks, let alone bike or
walking paths.
But most alarming would be the increased boat-yacht traffic on the creek. The creek is enjoyed by
recreational boaters including kayakers, fishermen and women, and those fishing from the breakwater. There is
a NYS boat ramp not far from the mouth of the inlet. There are several draggers that leave from a dock near the
Mattituck Fishing Station. It is already challenging for some boaters to safely navigate the inlet as larger craft
pass in either direction. Increased emissions jeopardize water quality. Just as we have seen growth in housing
and commerce on the North Fork and the resulting road traffic and seasonal traffic jams, so too do we see this
on our beautiful waterways. Sometimes, it seems, at the expense of the immediate residents.
Who will benefit from the expansion?
Sincerely,
Toni Bryan
355 Rose Lane
Mattituck, N.Y.
for 4iy 1355 gm il.com
12/4/20
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
i
Subject:
ect: FW:AGAINST Strong s Marina Project on Mattituck Inlet
i
From: DELEHANTY [mailto:flyer32@optonline.net]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: AGAINST Strongs Marina Project on Mattituck Inlet
Brian,
I am writing you to inform you that my wife and I are totally AGAINST this proposed Strong's Marina
project on Mattituck Inlet.
I grew up enjoying Mattituck Inlet with all my childhood friends. I still boat on the inlet each and every
Summer. The inlet is beautiful! It would be totally out of the communities character to build such a
monstrosity on the inlet. Not to mention the numerous serious Environmental and Marine Traffic
Safety concerns.
The Southold Town leadership has done a wonderful job preserving the charm of all of Southold
Township, including Mattituck. Please don't let us down now.
Regards,
Sean & Debora Delehanty
1000 Knollwood Lane
Mattituck NY 11952
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected eails.
i
L
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:21 PM ;i �J 1 . 1 u t "°
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Mattituck Inlet yacht center developments
From: Jerry Adler [mailto:jadler9999@gmaii.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Mattituck Inlet yacht center development
Dear Mr. Cummings:
I am a resident of Mattituck, at 465 Harbor View Ave., on the east side of
Mattituck Inlet, roughly across from the proposed yacht center on Mill
Road. Strong's already has a substantial footprint in Mattituck and this
very large project will bring increased boat and vehicle traffic, to the
detriment of the environment, tranquility and esthetic values of our
community. I am greatly concerned about the effects of silt and effluent
runoff, during both construction and operation of the facility, and from
large boats as they transit this narrow waterway. The inlet already sees
considerable traffic from private pleasure boats and party fishing boats. In
particular I believe the development poses a threat to the wetlands on the
east side of the inlet between the proposed location and the Sound, which
support egrets, ospreys and other waterfowl.
For the above reasons, I strongly oppose this development in its present
form and urge the Town Board not to approve it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jerome Adler
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
u Lt 7
From: Cummings, Brian A. C
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica L
Subject: FW: strongs marine
From: puffinandco@netzero.net [mailto:puffinandco@netzero.net]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:53 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: strongs marine
Southold Town Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold N.Y. 11971
Marjorie Richards
1845 Bay View Avenue
Mattituck NY 11952
4th December 2020
To whom it may
concern:
This is in regards to the
proposal of Strongs Marine to build two, 55-foot high SF propane-heated structures at 3430 Mill Road
Mattituck to store yachts during winter.
At a time when we see volunteers turning back abused land back to nature or to clean up the
environment to encourage animals & birds to return. I am appalled at the intent of one person to even
think of fouling the country side of the North Fork.
The plans Strong Marine has will ruin the wildlife preserve his property abuts too & the surrounding
water supply we rely on for our wells, & the beautiful view that neighbors & boaters visiting the inlet now
enjoy.
am disgusted that this matter has come this far that local people have to address it. Southold
Town should have said NO from the beginning. Say NO now before its too late to repair any
damage. Our goals should lie in trying to improve biodiversity, not destroy
it.
Concerned
neighbor
Marjorie Richards
Top News - Sponsored By Newser
• An Elderly Man Died of COVID. His Obit Pulls No Punches
• Mistake Leads to Mauling at Carole Baskin's Rescue
• Biden: It's 'Important'for Trump to Attend Inauguration
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
R�iTlL t "TIL
Kathleen A. Neumann h) °:C 4 2020
750 East Mill Road S o�u d .,I0
Mattituck,Ll NY 1195 � ���i�,� I� W.t I'd
December 4,2020
Donald J.Wilcenski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board
James H. Rich III,Vice Chairman
Martin H.Sidor
Pierce Rafferty
Mary Eisenstein
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
RE: p srtlon to Strong_Storage Buildlq&Prcrr oral
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and members of the Southold Planning Board,
I am a Mattituck resident and owner,with my sons James and Michael, of 750 East Mill Road, Mattituck,
the property directly opposite Strong's Yacht Center. I believe I am uniquely qualified to comment on the
threat to the Inlet and the surrounding area made by Strong's proposed expansion.
p al ansa _. laring t.ife Inlet Slorellne
1. St. _ �e to Inlet ...
ron�s ria o .a Will Carse��•re aral�i'e AdditioMiu
and Be uty of the Inlet.. While I am not an environmental expert, in the 50 years that I have lived
on the Inlet, I have seen detrimental changes to marine life, the erosion of wetlands, and the
death of sea grass. The once abundant clams and mussels on little beaches have all but
disappeared and the remaining shellfish are often off-limits because of pollution. Strong's
proposed marina expansion is a further assault on the health of the Inlet. It calls for the removal
of almost 500 trees and the excavation of 134,000 cubic yards of sand and soil. It will mean a year
of heavy machinery for excavation and construction of two new huge storage sheds for an
industrial complex that will forever change the landscape of this quiet residential and pastoral
neighborhood. How can this proposed expansion be viewed as anything but a blight on marine
life,the health and beauty of the surrounding shore front, and the land and water that Southold
has promised to protect?
2, An Approval bj1he Plqnning Commission of Strong's Proposal Will Perpetuate a Dual
Approval Standard That UnfairlyF yprc Cornaiercial"Ventures and Penalizes Residential
Pro J3'os Is.-
I have first-hand experience with Southold's environmental protection program. For
20 years now, we have had a subdivision application before the Planning Board. It was our
intention to build one additional family home on our 24-acre property. We have run into many
obstacles, primarily due to Southold's environmental concerns and, specifically, their aim to
protect water and marine life, conserve trees and open space and preserve the character of the
Town. As responsible, eco-friendly owners, we have worked hard to meet their requirements.
After 20 years, we are still waiting for approval. Meanwhile, for the past 15 years, uncontrolled
irrigation water from a farm uphill and across the street from our property has been allowed to
wash across the street, uprooting trees and bushes and carrying dirt and debris into the Inlet.Our
neighbor Jimmy King, longtime Town Trustee who oversaw water quality, Pete Harris, who was
Highway Superintendent, Martin Sidor, Planning Board member who once farmed the offending
property, and Charles Cuddy, who was our lawyer until, unbeknownst to us, he signed on to
represent the Strongs, can all, if asked, attest to the severe environmental damage to the land
and water caused by the agricultural run-off that is permitted by law by Southold Town. I
personally kept Supervisor Scott Russell advised with a series of photos taken in dry periods,
showing the flood of irrigation water carrying road debris and dirt cascading into the Inlet. Now
that the farm has been sold and that problem appears to be under control,with Strong's proposal,
the Town is considering another commerce-driven project that favors business interest over
public good.Are there two separate standards for meeting the Town's environmental protection
regulations—one for individuals and another for commercial enterprises?
3. tron 's Proposal Plies in the Face of Sou thold's Duty tea Protect its Land and%Waterways,and,
preserve Our Qj!siroty pf We. The proposed industrial project at Strong's Yacht Center flies in the
face of all ofSouthold's avowed aims.The site is particularly unsuitable,placed as it is on a narrow
portion of the Inlet. Strong's proposal is clearly not designed to promote boaters' enjoyment of
local waters. It is instead meant to haul,power wash, refurbish and store mega yachts.The 88 60'
or longer yachts they hope to attract will, on the whole, not be local.There is no room for them
to dock.They will simply tax the already over-burdened Inlet while offering no real benefit to the
community. The Strongs already have a sizable marina at the head of the Inlet where there is
storage and amenities and where boaters can walk to the village and support local merchants.
The Yacht Center, where there are already six storage sheds, offers no such advantage. Rather
than permit a commercial venture that will stress and pollute the environment and despoil the
landscape, the Town should consider ways to reduce commercialism and the accompanying
pollution and return the Inlet to a healthier and more tranquil state.
As a long-term tax paying resident of Southold, I urge the Planning Board to do the right thing. Prevent
the expansion of this environmentally destructive industrial complex,ensuring that the health and beauty
of the Inlet we have so loved will be protected for the next generation. Please deny Strong's proposal.
Sincerely yours,
t
Kathleen A. Neumann
cc: Scott Russell,Supervisor Southold Town
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:14 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Storage Building Project
U,
"'J
B o
From: Jonathan Baker [mailto:jtbl22536@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:22 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Storage Building Project
Dear Mr. Cummings,
In regard to the proposed Strong Storage Buildings Project, one of my
objections to this endeavor is the hauling of excavation material for at
least 13 months on the neighborhood roads. This is completely
unacceptable for the many reasons already expressed in the Suffolk
Times. I propose that the excavation material be removed by barge
and disposed of in a responsible manner. The project must not be
allowed to proceed without this method of removal.
Another concern is the possibility of runoff of water borne soil or other
contaminants into Mattituck Inlet while the project is under construction
when subjected to many hours of torrential rain. I don't see where this
possibility has been addressed and a solution presented (unless I have
missed it). This possibility must be addressed and a strong solution
provided.
As I see the layout, the proposed buildings will be sufficiently positioned
away from and shielded from view along West Mill Road by the existing
tree vegetation on the Strong Marina property abuting West Mill Road. I
believe that this is acceptable provided that a guarantee is offered that
no existing trees and vegetation will be removed in the future.
I
The removal of approximately 493 trees will reduce the available carbon
sequestration. This must be completely mitigated by the planting of
trees with great capacity to remove carbon dioxide through
photosynthesis as well as other means to provide a path to a zero sum
for carbon sequestration. Otherwise, this project must not go
forward.
I have a concern that the proposed Sanitary System has not been
designed to meet the new nitrogen reducing contamination goals of
Suffolk County. It must be so for this effort to go forward. The
proposed system is very close to Mattituck Inlet waters.
Please be guided by my concerns and suggestions.
Respectfully,
Jonathan T. Baker
920 Naugles Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
631-298-3887
o" R L l
Town of Southold
Planning Board �1� (, �° �;G 202,0
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Heather M. Lanza, AICP
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Storage Buildings
Dear Heather,
I am a local Captain/Commercial Fisherman that has been in business for 20
years along the Mattituck Inlet. I wish to express my support for the Strong's Yacht
Center proposed building project. Having Strong's Yacht Center Marina as a resource
to service both of my fishing boats is of value to me. The location of this full-service
marina off of the Sound provides an essential port for the fishing industry. If not for this
location, then the next available marina that I could get any type of assistance with my
boat would be in Greenport.
Over the years, Strong's Yacht Center has provided service to both of my boats
in a quick and professional time frame. This allows us very little time out of the water to
keep our business operational in any time of need, especially during a pandemic. From
boat hauling, bottom painting, or engine repair; to annual maintenance and diagnosing,
my business would be affected greatly if it wasn't for Strong's Yacht Center.
It is Strong's Marine's dedication to preserving this marina, and continuing to
provide service and storage for commercial boats like mine, that helps me to stay in
business. The approval of these proposed buildings will ensure that the needs of my
industry, as well as others, will be supported. I appreciate you taking the time to read
this letter, Thank you.
Best Regards,
Captain Devin Anderson
Anderson Fisheries
781 Mill Road
Riverhead, NY 11901
P: 516-445-6888
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:15 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck inlet' �
r
From: Nancy Lustenring [mailto:nlustenring@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:27 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck inlet
Hello
Ive lived on Knollwood Lane with view of inlet in mattituck for over 12 years. Before me my father
was here for more than 10 years.
Since Strong's marina took over the marina on grand avenue I have witnessed first hand the increase
in use of the inlet as well as the increase in noise resulting from the music concerts which Strong's
hold from June through officially September.
I have not lodged any complaints as Strong's does ensure the music does not go beyond the 10. pm
Mark. However it is irritating to be in my own yard and wishing quiet or opportunity to hear birdsong
as this area has been rich with migratory songbirds and yet be distracted and disturbed by these
concerts.
Additionally the mattituck inlet is during boating season in constant motion with boats visiting
Strong's. My neighbor has expressed that during the season they have difficulty even getting out
because of the non stop boat traffic.
I'm writing to express my concern about the potential effect on quality of life for people living here as
well as the destruction of natural habitats which are inevitable.
am depending on the Town's leaders to seriously consider the pros and cons of this additional
business venture by Strongs. Please be sure to keep the fragile eco system at forefront of these
visions and decisions.
Thank you
Nancy Lustenring
775 Knollwood Lane
Mattituck any. 11952
i
.moi` ....
1225 Jackson Landing
)Wll
Mattituck,N.Y. 11952
,�ann- g BordNov 30,2020
Dear Mr. Cummings,
This letter concerns the proposal of Strong's Marina on the Mattituck Inlet. Having_just moved to the
area I lend a project of this size is not in keeping with the area. I have been to the area where the Old
Mill Inn was and feel this area to be ecologically sensitive.
I would ask that you thoroughly examine the size and scope of this pr+ ject in reiationsl p to where it is
being proposed .
' hank you for your time concerning this important and environmentally sensitive matter.
Sincerely,
`f 4wa Pte/
Barbara MacLeod
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Marina expansion
1
i
3
-----Original Message-----
From: Toyia Frenzel [mailto:toyia.frenzel@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday,December 2, 2020 2:34 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Marina expansion
Dear Mr Cummings,
The expansion of Strong's Marine in Mattituck sounds like a really awful idea for all of Southold, with the
exception of a very small group of people consisting primarily of the marina owners and some yacht owners.
The impact on the eco system and wildlife will be extremely negative as well as irreparable. It makes no sense
for you to approve something like this when it is your responsibility to protect the land and people of the area
from this very sort of invasive development.
The benefits dont even come close to outweighing the harm.
Toyia Frenzel
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
r 1Ait ff
December 2, 2020 � �i
�'
Dear Mr. Cummings, .-.�
As a Mattituck resident, I am writing to register my objections to the construction project
proposed by Strong's Marina on the Mattituck Inlet.
As a resident of Hideaway Estates, which includes several homes bordering on the Inlet, I
object to the disruption of ground water wells, flooding, run-off and erosion and potential
pollution of surface water that the construction of two 55-foot high, 50,000 SF propane-
heated structures will lead to.
As a concerned human being who has chosen to live on the North Fork, I am deeply
disturbed by the destruction of plant and animal ecosystems not only in our waters but
everywhere that is impacted by the destructive machinery enlisted by this mammoth
construction project in the place we call home.
I made the choice over 20 years ago to move to the North Fork and to Mattituck in particular
so I could lead a life as steward and conservationist among the creatures and flora I hold dear.
I deeply object to the possibility that a gargantuan commercial project could destroy or
disrupt my life's trajectory. I object that the aesthetic character of the community I have
chosen in which to spend the latter half of my life might be held hostage to make the lives of
very large yacht owners more convenient. I especially object to the proposed felling of
almost 500 trees at a time when so many of our trees are already losing to too many deer,
invasive species and broader climate change impacts.
I turn out of my house onto Miller Lane which opens on to West Mill Road. If I turn right, I
pass the Mill Road Preserve and, if I continue, I will pass right by the site of the proposed
Strong's Marina. But I won't be doing any of that because, as the Plan indicates, my safety as
handicapped pedestrian or car driver will be seriously impacted by the 50 or so daily trips by
construction vehicles that will claim our narrow, two-lane road down to Breakwater Beach.
And, more than a year later, when they are gone, those roads will be destroyed.
Finally, as a senior citizen resident of the house in which I live in a place I call home, what
will be the value of what is also my family's investment? It's true that the proposed marina
will be a financial boon to the Strong family and those involved in its construction, but what
about those of us who simply live here?
Kindly convey my comments to the Southold Town Planning Board,
Hazel Kahan
890 Miller Road/Mattituck, NY 11952
631 2985540
From: Cummings, Brian � �` 8o�mA. � Ili I �
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:49 AM lig '
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet �,]� 2 02,0
pla�1i1irg raoar(f
From: Brad Ascalon [mailto:productstudio@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:26 AM
To, Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I am writing out of deep concern for the proposed expansion of Strong's Marina at the Mattituck Inlet. As a
resident of Laurel for almost four years, I chose to move out to this incredible and rare region because of not
only its beauty and charm, but because of how the local community, leaders included, fight so hard to maintain
this beauty. This is one of the reasons we fully supported the Peconic Bay Trust tax when we first moved,
because we saw how much the town cares about the region, a region like no other I've seen in the tri-state due
to this fact.
The proposed marina would be a tremendous blight on this region for many reasons, not least of all because it
would force distrust that our leaders actually do care to maintain our pristine surroundings. Trust is everything.
With every passing farm, we trust that housing developments won't go up because we trust our leadership.
Please don't make us lose trust. We'd get storage for rich peoples' yachts but we would lose all faith that this
region will remain what it is, because we all know that this won't be an isolated event should the proposal pass.
Eventually we, like many others, will leave for literally greener pastures.
Please consider these words strongly (no pun intended).
Sincerely,
Brad Ascalon
Bray Avenue, Laurel.
i
From: Cummings, Brian A. -
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:14 AM 1 %�'' VII
To: Michaelis, Jessica
t arr
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Project 40
u
�,
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Claire [mailto:donnchal0@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 7:13 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Project
Mr. Cummings,
I am writing in opposition to the Strong's marina project in Mattituck. There are few areas of forested land left
in Mattituck,let alone the North Fork, as large as the one subject to destruction for this project. Large,
untouched forests, estuarine ecosystems and open space allow for the normal and natural function of these
natural areas to provide ecosystem services that are not sufficiently equated into projects like this. The
buffering capacity of estuarine ecosystems to storm surges, their carbon sink potential and their ability to act as
a nursery to the LI sound ecosystem cannot be understated. There are few estuaries on the north shore from
Port Jefferson to Orient, and the Mattituck inlet is the womb of this greater ecosystem. The destruction of this
forest, which harbors some of the greatest biodiversity in Mattituck, would be destructive to the long-term
natural health of the North Fork.
I grew up in Mattituck,just steps from this area and spent many hours running, cycling and exploring the
natural world in the area from Rosewood drive to the Mattituck hills to the inlet. Like many, I could not afford
to stay in the area and reluctantly left my beloved dunes along the Sound shoreline, partly seeing the writing
on the wall with the wave of wealth which has supported the destruction and development of lands along the
water and short-sightedness in sacrificing a collective treasure for individual capital wealth.
I worked marine construction on the North Fork and also taught Biology at Greenport high school during 4
years of my early 20s. I obtained old videos from the 50s and 60s of old NF families sustainably handcutting
locust trees in East Marion to hand build fish traps in Orient bay. Even watching this 20 years ago, the
diversity of the estuarine ecosystem was astounding compared to present day.
I understand the wealth that projects like Strong's bring to an area lacking in wealth and jobs for locals, but the
destructive footprint from this project will be severely self-defeating for any character that the NF aims to
preserve, and certainly continues the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystem services the natural world
provides for the greater good of its inhabitants.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dr. Dennis Patrick Claire
i
Af�,"ED
Stephanie Villani I-
1735 Breakwater Road 2 02 0
Mattituck,NY 11952
631-298-4036 "' �0VV11
December 2, 2020
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 NYS Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Stron- s Marina Mill Road, Mattituck Project
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to request that the Strong's Marina project on Mill Road not be
passed by the Planning Board in its current form.
My husband and I are part of the local commercial fishing community and have
been working out of Mattituck Inlet for more than 30 years. We support Strong's Marina
as part of our local fishing and boating industry but feel that the project is too big and
invasive. We acknowledge that boats need to be stored near the Inlet but think that this
can be done on a smaller scale.
As a resident of the neighborhood I am familiar with the marina and the area that
these storage barns are to be built on. There will have to be a large amount of sand
removed and a large number of trees removed. This will disrupt an ecologically sensitive
area right on the water, one that we should protect.
This project will also increase the number of large boats being trailered through
the neighborhood from now on. I submit that this plan is simply too big for the area and
can be done on a smaller scale so as to disrupt the neighborhood less, and to keep the
environmental impact to a minimum.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Villain
From: Cummings, Brian A. I. III„
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:14 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica r
�,«J
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina Build Proposal Objection
I'Ia ni°n'ng P orrd
From: Cherie Ftexroad [mailto:ocherie@gmail.lcom]
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 1:58 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina Build Proposal Objection
Brian A. Cummings
Town of Southold Planning Board
Mr. Cummings:
As homeowners, full-time residents, and concerned neighbors on Mattituck Inlet we are writing
to object to Strong's Marine proposal to add two storage buildings on their property.
There are serious ecological reasons for our objections to this project.
The inlet is home to numerous species of wildlife that will be affected by any building
project. Swans, geese, cranes, egret, osprey, hawks, and cormorants all nest and raise their
young here. We have varieties of fish and all manner of shellfish here as well. Building will
disrupt them as will the noise, an increase in the amount of vessels, and fuel discharge, and the
churning of the water. Increased traffic alone on the inlet is already high and many of these
birds would leave to find a quieter place elsewhere.
The noise impact simply cannot be overlooked. Removing trees and mining away the hillside
for their buildings would add to an increase in erosion that will affect the very ecosystem of the
waterway. There is a delicate balance in our groundwater as well and it is our fear that it could
be affected too. Additionally, more boat traffic in the already overpopulated waterway will add
to surface water pollution.
Construction alone would increase traffic on Cox deck Lane and West Mill Road by a
significant amount over roads that are not currently in the best of shape but will further break
down due to truck traffic for the construction, and additional people on site working and
maintaining the proposed storage facilities. We locals use these roads to walk, run, bike, and
get our children back and forth to school. This becomes difficult enough in summer with our
increased population, but having these buildings would permanently increase our traffic. We do
not want that.
w
Lastly, we want to address the impact to our lives and our community. We bought our house
here because of all the above, and we have spent 4 years improving it and getting to know our
neighbors. We are incredibly concerned about what will happen to our property values with
the noise and disruption created by a large construction project and, then the increased traffic
and environmental damage to our quiet, secluded community. This is the reason we relocated
to the North Fork. There are not many neighborhoods like ours left out there in the world. We
vehemently oppose this project and what it will take from us.
We understand that Strong's is a business that wants to grow but we ask that you remember the
families that live here and oppose this expansion. We do not want the negative impact to our
lives on Mattituck Inlet that comes with this proposal
Sincerely,
Cherilyn Rexroad & Lee Schultheis
3 72 North Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
Sent from my Wad
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Storage SEQR Comments
i
VIIlaurvoo°n ng Il3csrd
From: Stephen Boscola [mailto:boscola@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:55 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.; Lanza, Heather
Cc: Donna Boscola; Boscola Yacht Sales
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Storage SEQR Comments
Dear Planning Board Members,
Regarding the SEAR on the Strong's Storage Buildings project, we would like to clarify some of our comments
made verbally during the last public zoom meeting. The laserfiche file (page 4) indicates there are two phases
of excavation with phase one being the most significant at 1.03,000 cu yds of soil removed and phase two at
32,000 eu yds. We respectfully request that the SEAR and Planning Board take into consideration and examine
the following:.
1. The destabilization of the soil at the adjacent properties that will occur due to the vibration from each of the
separate instances of excavation.
2. The further/incremental destabilization of the soil at the adjacent properties that will occur due to the
continued vibration and disruption of repeated major excavations, collectively, and the impact of timing in
between each proposed phase at that same site.
3. The potential scale of catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is pause in any or all phases of excavation
once the project commences (i.e. - if the developer or excavator stops prior to completion for whatever reason
or if a major weather event causes a significant delay).
4. The required future maintenance of a retaining; wall of this size (both height and length) and type of
construction, as well as the longevity of the wall, including inspection intervals and monitoring for latent
defects.
5, The impact of a potentially catastrophic failure of the retaining wall, in whole or in part, to the adjacent
properties.
6. The current erasion taking place at the .site, noting nothing has been clone to mitigate the previous sand
mining at the site for the last decade - each heavy rainfall and nor'easter has caused more and more loess of earth.
7. The potential future request to develop the property further. Doubling the .storato c capacity of the current .site
and allowing for 80 additional vessels that are 60' in length will overwhelm: the current site and its
infrastructure. There would likely be a future need for another travel lift slip and more in-water dockage,
potentially impacting adjacent wetlands (i.e. where would these large vessels be staged while Nvaiting for haul
out or spring pick up). The review should address these issues now otherwise the environmental review of this
project would be segmented.. which would be contrary to the intent of the SEQIZA and its regulations.
I.
For our family personally, we are seriously concerned that the vibration would have major adverse effects on
the structural integrity of our home's foundation, as it is a mere 120' from the site. We are also very concerned
that the wall could fail at some point in the future, which poses a significant risk to us - a risk we feel we should
not be subjected to for the sake of a new owner who wants to cash out the hill after 60 years.
Thank you,
Donna, David, and Stephen Boscola
m
Stephen M. Boscola,
CPA
cell 631-830-3082
email bcas. .<:;t.�.��c�!������rl:..,.c.om
/p
C. _
From: Cummings, Brian A. �
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:12 AM E E E i
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Outsized Development �� i4`��
1"OW111
Hann��G9 t'03ua°:i
-____Original Message_____
From.: CAROLYN MCCALL [mailto:cmccall2@me.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:15 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Outsized Development
I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the construction project in Mattituck proposed by
Strong°s Marina, which I believe would be an assault on the character and environmental integrity of our
community.
Chief among my concerns are the following:
-The proposed reconfiguration of the natural hillsides would forever alter and damage the surrounding
ecosystem, with surface water pollution being a major issue.
-Disruption of groundwater wells and possible flooding and erosion and its effect on the surrounding
ecosystems is a probable outcome of the development.
-The quaint character of our community would be greatly diminished by introducing two grossly
oversized and unsightly buildings to the landscape.
- In addition to the potential impact on our native land, the lengthy construction is a major concern
regarding pedestrian and overall safety. Some say that the project could take up to a year to complete, with
oversized trucks on our roads five to six days a week non-stop.
For these reasons, I implore the Planning Board to protect our community and reject the development as
proposed.
Sincerely,
Carolyn W. McCall
Cutchogue
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links fro»
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Cummings, 'Brian A. W
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:56 AM R,E Co E,11 V E
To: Michaelis,Jessica 2020
Subject: FW: Strong Marina Project
f0VVF1
From: Edwiin Piisani [mailto:edwinjpisani@gmail.com]
Seat: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:52 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Fwd: Strong Marina Project
Brian - I resent this
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edwin Pisani <occ t- pisaJai: ilia 1carne:"
Date: Mon,Nov 30, 2020 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Strong Marina Project
To: brian.cummings town.southold <brian.cumrnings@a town.south old>
I have been a resident of Laurel since 1995 and have relatives that live in.
Mattituck - the Dennis Claire family. I am deeply concerned about the scope
of the Strong Marina project both during the construction phase and if it
commences operations. The Mattituck Inlet is a real treasure and is very fragile
from an environmental standpoint. The destruction of trees, removal of sand on
air overtaxed waterway is very imprudent from an environmental perspective.
The North Fork has done a very good job protecting agriculture and the environment. We cannot let businesses
that have profit motives only to weaken the
strength of the North Fork- its beauty and its culture of environmental concern.
We have been under siege by helicopters and sea planes, and business propositions that are not sensitive to the
concerns of the larger population.
They may have valid profit principles and an interested customer base but
do not pass an acceptance test by the majority.
This project is far beyond an acceptable scope . It is a major threat to a fragile
area and should not be permitted. Thank you for your attention.
Edwin Pisani
7180 Peconic Bay Boulevard
Laurel, New York 11948
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. leo not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emalls.
1
JEAN S. SCHWEIBISH � , L'il���
200 Walnut
� tuck, NY 11952
631655-503VED
schweibish@hotmail.com
1.
Ralilklg r)ar i
November 29, 2020
By email: iri n.curLim-��gh2bill
_ h
Planning Department
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attn: Brian Cummings, Planner
Re: Strong's Marina application
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Although I am not an immediate neighbor of the property in the above application, I am
familiar with the parcel and oppose the environmental destruction presented by Mr. Strong's
plan. In addition to a complete leveling of the terrain. it seems staggering that the structures he
proposes to erect will rnore than dor~rblq the gross square footage of what presently exists.
The Old Mill Restaurant, situated just before the Strong property, has been shuttered for some
time, but it had been a popular restaurant for many years. The Strong property is currently
quiet, but it had been a working marina and boatyard. Undoubtedly the residents in the
immediate area have experienced traffic and noise originating from both a working restaurant
and the operation of the existing boatyard. However, the size and scope of what the Strong
application proposes will inflict a much greater hardship on them.
It seems the only entity who wins, if this application is approved, will be Strong's Marina.
Residents, flora and fauna, soil and water, and the thrust of preservation in Southold Town's
Comprehensive Plan will all be losers.
Sincerely,
„pec,n1 s. s chhue a)i4�
11
From: Cuimmings, &rian A. .R„ E ,1 ,
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Project
� ntii:9 :ek.
R
..
i
,i ',.
-----Original Message-----
�mG,�i:i°7�uh1 Twin
From: Marlon Faint [mailto:martinfaint@gmail.coml Planr.nkig B )arcl
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 110:06 AM
To: Cummings,Brian A.
Subject: Strong's Marina Project
Dear Mr Cummings,
I am greatly concerned to hear of the proposed Strong's Marina development in Mattituck.
As a resident in Peconic I value all of the North Fork's natural beauty both personally and consider it one of its
foremost assets.
I understand the need for local businesses to thrive, yet ultimately destroying our natural environment will
undermine much of the local economy. One project at a time, the North Fork will surely lose its unique beauty.
My mother-in-law grew up in Queens when it was farmland. Now all of that is gone -- in the span of one life
time.
I hope the planning board shows wisdom in preserving the small-scale that draws people to the North Fork in
the first place and serves as an ongoing resource to us all.
Yours,
Martin Faint
1000 Mill Lane
Peconic NY 11958
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
t
From: Cummings, Brian A. E E P�,
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
V 2 ('� 2 0 2(
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Environmental impact of Strong Marina proposal
rlianliiilg P)m,,Id
From: Lynda Dobrin [ma ilto:lynda.a Ila n.dobrin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:37 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - Environmental impact of Strong Marina proposal
B riaii.cLiiiiii-iini,,sd'i7i,itown.Soutlio Id.ny.gs
I was recently advised of the proposed construction project hi Strong's Marina.
As a full-time resident of Mattituck, I am particularly concerned about the environmental impact of this
proposed expansion in our community and particularly the impact of specific areas outlined in the draft scope
for the project including but not limited to:
- Destruction of over 400 trees in the forested area of the project
- impact of strip-mining the hillside
- Pollution of already over-taxed waterway
- Disruption of ground water wells, flooding, run-off and erosion
- Destruction of plant and animal ecosystems
- Diminishment of the aesthetic character of our cherished North Fork community
- Pedestrian safety in our community during the construction
- Destruction of local roads by oversized trucks
I am sure I am only one of many residents of this community that is deeply concerned about this project and its
potential impact on our waterway and eco-system. I hope that you will give pause to this project to consider our
concerns and will keep us informed of your over-sight.
Thank you.
RECEIVED
Nov. 6
Attention: Brian Cummings, town planner
, 4"Pd,�V"b
Re: Strong s Marina expansion
We live on West Mill Road, Mattituck, which is designated to be the access road for
the trucks that will be removing 135,000 cubic yards of sand, roughly 27 truckloads
per day, for more than a year in the proposed Strong's marina expansion. This is as
much a sand mining business as it is a marina expansion.
Our initial concern was about the impact of this work on our quiet community- the
danger to our children playing outside, our dog-walkers, our joggers and cyclists.
Like many local communities, we have no sidewalks, and speeding traffic is already
a concern.
We still worry about expanding an already sizable commercial operation in the
middle of a residential neighborhood, but as we have learned more about the
project, our concerns have grown significantly.
The environmental impact on our waterways and native forests will be dramatic;
the potential for structural damage to neighboring homes and the loss of well water
to some in the community indicate a disregard for the community; the impact on our
property values promises to be significant.
And for what? To house the yachts of wealthy people who do not live in the
community and who do not spend their money here. Is this project really worth the
cost of our local quality of life, our safety, and our environmental ecosystem?
We are deeply opposed to this project moving forward as it is currently designed
and ask that the town seriously consider the myriad negative impacts before moving
forward.
Anne and Jeff Pundyk
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck
Rf
f 1,
k�9 a Own
Y a ����r�r(,l
Friday, 6, 2020 aa,n
Dear Mr. Cummings,
I've lived on Mattituck inlet for thirty years. I cherish its natural habitats, its bucolic expanses of
sea and woods. I enjoy much of it on my morning walk, down West Mill Road to Naugles Road,
towards Breakwater Beach. So I was appalled to see the notice of a hearing ---which I Zoomed
into on November 4—inviting local voices to air their views about the Strong's Marina proposal
to build between this charming farmland road and Mattituck inlet, two approximately 50,000
square foot yacht storage units, I grew even more alarmed as I listened to my neighbors de-
scribe the inevitable consequences of such a project. Please enter my strong opposition to the
plan into the record.
I appreciate the March 2020 remarks made, recorded, and available online, regarding the his-
tory of the Strong family to the economic life of the community as I acknowledge a number of
brief assertions by some residents that the family wishes only the best for the hamlet. But their
past good intentions have no agency with the realities facing our now endangered environment.
The plan will decimate what little is left of our pristine wooded acres (the proposed project backs
up against a town-preserved habitat that will be badly compromised). But that only begins to
state the devastating impact of this proposal: problems with water runoff, sewage, erosion of
land, flooding, noise pollution; the loss of 493 trees and the subsequent degradation of plant
and animal life; noise pollution and motor vehicle emissions due to traffic, already strained to the
limits. And the sorrowful visual impact; two football sized yacht container warehouses in our ru-
ral midst!
Has anyone mentioned the added maintenance costs to taxpayers? There is but one road of
egress from this site, a narrow winding country road that serves as a recreation and exercise
corridor for local joggers and family strollers. The pavement is already badly pitted and pot-
holed from the seasonal parade of wide boat trailers accessing the New York State launch site
on Naugles Road. So is it endangered by a steady stream of irresponsible drivers, visitors
mostly, who violate speed limits. What will unrelenting construction and subsequent traffic to
and from the planned facility do to this already compromised roadway and who will pay to fix it?
What about home values? Who wants to live anywhere along this kind of traffic hub? I wonder
too about the claim Strong's makes for creating 15 new career positions." This is different from
the language they use when they refer to "13 current full-time staff. " Will these new hires be full
time and paid a salary enabling them to live within the Mattituck community?
Strong's already claims three commercial sites in Mattituck as it boasts other sites throughout
Long Island. There is also a NY State boat launch and and town launch along the North Road.
Thus do I believe Mattituck offers more than its fair share of boating amenities to the boating
community, most of which, I understand, does not consist of denizens of our hamlet, or of the
Town of Southold. I don't believe any reasonable person believes that this facility will benefit an-
yone in our environment besides the Strong family.
I urge the board to reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Joyce Beckenstein
From: Cummings, Brian A. ._. ... .
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2020 12:57 PM IIS
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Strongs Marine Site Plan Application 202
.,
�lo'Ge� C�'aww�'p
t I
p° atjijing Boan;i
From: Anne Sherwood Pundyk [malto:annesherwoodpundyk@gmail.com]
Seat: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:05 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Fie: Strongs Marine Site 'Plan Application
Hello Brian,
I hope you are well.
I have a few follow up questions after the zoom meeting on November 2nd.
1. Was the meeting not properly advertised? If not, will there be another opportunity for the
community to comment?
2. 'What is the meeting that is happening on November 16th? Is it public? Is it being advertised?
,. 'What is the significance of the December 7th date? It was described as the "end of a phase." Could
you please explain?
4. To tape a step back, what are the next steps in the application review for this project? 'Would you
please lay out for me the milestones and dates for the Town Planning Board's process for reviewing
this application?
5. How will the comments from the March 9th and November 2nd meetings be incorporated into the
application process?
6. There was mention of bulldozing taping place, seemingly without a permit, on the property. Who
will investigate this? If illegal activities are taking place on the site, how will they be stopped?
7. When will the transcript from the November 2nd meeting be available.
Thank you for your help.
All the best,
Anne
(917) 612-1863
t\,iarke Shcmrood 1-1u md'mI,
:
wpi C E)VE^_ Imo.
I
Nov. 6
Attention: Brian Cummings, town planner '"' '
Re: Strong's Marina expansion
We live on West Mill Road, Mattituck,which is designated to be the access road for
the trucks that will be removing 135,000 cubic yards of sand, roughly 27 truckloads
per day, for more than a year in the proposed Strong's marina expansion. This is as
much a sand mining business as it is a marina expansion.
Our initial concern was about the impact of this work on our quiet community-the
danger to our children playing outside, our dog-walkers, our joggers and cyclists.
Like many local communities,we have no sidewalks, and speeding traffic is already
a concern.
We still worry about expanding an already sizable commercial operation in the
middle of a residential neighborhood, but as we have learned more about the
project, our concerns have grown significantly.
The environmental impact on our waterways and native forests will be dramatic;
the potential for structural damage to neighboring homes and the loss of well water
to some in the community indicate a disregard for the community; the impact on our
property values promises to be significant.
And for what? To house the yachts of wealthy people who do not live in the
community and who do not spend their money here. Is this project really worth the
cost of our local quality of life, our safety, and our environmental ecosystem?
We are deeply opposed to this project moving forward as it is currently designed
and ask that the town seriously consider the myriad negative impacts before moving
forward.
Anne and Jeff Pundyk
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck