HomeMy WebLinkAboutPBA-05/09/2022 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex ��0f S P.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 Ojy®l Southold, NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Q
Southold,NY � � Telephone: 631765-1938
www.southoldtownuy.gov
CA
CUM
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
Monday, May 9, 2022
6:00 p.m.
Options for public attendance:
♦ In person:
Location: Southold Town Hall, 53095 NYS Route 25, Southold.
or
♦ To join via computer:
Click Here
or
Online at the website ZOOM.US
Click "Join a Meeting"
Meeting ID: 857 6567 0320
Password: 988880
♦ Join by telephone:
Call 1 (646) 558-8656
Enter Meeting ID and password when prompted (same as above)
Southold Town Planninq Board Public Meeting — May 9, 2022 — Page 2
SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Board to set Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. as the time for a Special Planning
Board Meeting.
Board to set Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. as the time for the next regular
Planning Board Meeting.
SITE APPLICATIONS
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Draft Environmental Impact
Statement Adequacy for Public Review:
Strong's Storage Buildings —This site plan is for the proposed construction of two (2)
buildings for boat storage, one at 52,500 sq. ft. and the other at 49,000 sq. ft., located
on 32.6 acres in the MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of
existing boatyard buildings. The property is located at 3430 Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM#1000-106-6-13.4
OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall AnnexP.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 ®�`�®� S®U��®� Southold, NY 11971
(cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY JL Telephone: 631 765-1938
ir www.southoldtowimy.gov
Cou V,
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 10, 2022
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
P.O. Box 1547
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: SEQR DEIS Adequacy Determination
Draft Environmental Impact Statement December 2021
Strong's Yacht Center— Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Located at 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY
SCTM#1000-106-6-13.4 Zoning District: M-II and R-80
Dear Mr. Cuddy:
The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolution at a meeting held
on Monday, May 9, 2022:
WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) buildings for boat
storage, one at 52,500 sq. ft. and the other at 49,000 sq. ft., located on 32.6 acres in the
MII and R-80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard
buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617, has determined that the proposed
action is a Type I action pursuant to 617.4(b)(10): Any Unlisted action, that exceeds 25
percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or
substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or
designated open space, including any site on the Register of National Natural
Landmarks pursuant to 36 CFR Part 62, 1994 [see 617.17]. The physical alteration of
3.74 acres exceeds 25% of the 10-acre threshold listed in 617.4(b)(6); and
WHEREAS, on August 10. 2020 the Southold Town Planning Board declared itself as
Lead Agency and issued a Positive Declaration for the action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2020 the applicant submitted a Draft Scope prepared by
P.W. Grosser Consulting Inc.; and
Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 May 10, 2022
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Regulations of the State of New York Title 6 Department of
Environmental Conservation Chapter VI General Regulations Part 617 State
Environmental Quality Review the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Draft
Scope on November 2, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020 the public comments received to date were
discussed at a Planning Board work session; the public comment period was held open
until December 7, 2020 and additional written comments were received; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, adopted an
Amended Final Scope; and
WHEREAS, certain clarifications and corrections were agreed to by the Planning Board
at the applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2021, the applicant submitted a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement December 2021 Strong's Yacht Center— Proposed Boat Storage
Buildings (DEIS); and
WHEREAS, the review period of the DEIS was mutually agreed to be extended
between the applicant and Planning Board to April 11, 2022 and due to circumstances
beyond their control again to May 9, 2022; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617, of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, hereby determines that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
December 2021 Strong's Yacht Center— Proposed Boat Storage Buildings to be
inadequate with respect to the adopted Final Scope and content for the purpose of
commencing public review.
A complete list of inadequacies is included.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please
contact the Planning Board Office.
2 Re pectfully,
aures H. Rich III
Vice Chairman
Encl.
The DEIS can be found here:
h ftp://24.38.28.228:2040/we b l i n k/O/fo i/l 067645/Rowl.as px
'Southold Town Planning Board Page 3 May 10, 2022
cc:
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor
Yvette Aguilar, Riverhead Town Supervisor
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Building Department
Southold Town Engineer
Southold Town Police Department
Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator
Southold Town Highway Department
Southold Tree Committee
Southold Economic Advisory Council
Mattituck Fire District
Suffolk County Department of Public Works
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
Suffolk County Legislator Albert Krupski
Sheri Aicher, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Michelle Gibbons, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYS Natural Heritage Program
New York State Department of Transportation
PSEG Long Island/ National Grid
Environmental Notice Bulletin
Town Website
Any Interested Party
File
FINAL
May 9, 2022
SUMMARY OF INADEQUATE SECTIONS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STRONG'S YACHT CENTER—PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE
BUILDINGS
3430 MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NY
SCTM No.: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 106,BLOCK 6,LOTS 10& 13.4
Page Numbers Correlate to the Amended Final Scope or Noted Otherwise
Page 15
Review the estimates of traffic anticipated to be generated during the construction of the
proposed development. Determine the make-up of the added traffic and hourly new traffic
volumes to be placed on the existing road system.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The magnitude and duration of expected large adverse
impacts (significant) to the quality of life of residents and visitors, community
character, and infrastructure that is being proposed regarding the number of vehicle
trips for this action have not been adequately discussed.
Notably, a total of 40 truck trips per day from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm five days per week
(Monday to Friday) are proposed on local and regional roadways (Sound Avenue) for
approximately 5 to 6 months has been presented in the DEIS.
The DEIS combines both directions when assessing the adverse impacts of a truck
trip when in fact the total number of trips is expected to be much greater and is not
discussed in the document.
Therefore,the Planning Board finds that the discussion provided in the document on
impacts to transportation, community character and infrastructure is not a true
assessment of what will occur on local and regional roads and the direct and indirect
adverse impacts on the quality of life of residents and the character of the impacted
areas.
During Phase 1; it is expected that a total of 80 trucks loaded and unloaded with sand
would travel the route each weekday passing a single point on the route 9,600 times
over a six-month period. For example, a single-family residence (single point) located
on Cox Neck Road or Sound Avenue would be subject to these potential large adverse
impacts along the specified truck route.
During Phase 2, approximately 12,000 CY of material would be excavated and
removed and would generate 400 total trips or 800 trucks passing a single point
loaded and unloaded un to 1 month (2 to 4 weeks)with a commencement date of May
2023.
Phase 3 would generate a-total of 60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining
wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for material delivery and 89 trucks for
concrete foundation) for the two boat storage buildings. over approximately 6
months. This would result in 322 trucks passing a single point along the route over 6
months.
Please provide a more accurate and detailed discussion on the:
1. The total number of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional
roads over the duration of the project.
2. The mitigation proposed to address potential large adverse impacts from the
total number of trucks on the quality of life, community character and
infrastructure along the route.
3. Verify that no truck trips will be operating from any phase of this project
over local and regional roadways from the site or staging areas along the
route.
4. Verify that a staging area to store and transport material during the weekend
and holidays over local and regional roadways will not be used.
Page 16
Provide and discuss a vehicle routing plan for all phases of the project (site preparation,
construction and operations after construction). Identify the roads used, speed limits,
existing road condition with photographic representation, all intersections, all school
zones, anticipated traffic levels and traffic chokepoints along a proposed route. Determine
the dimensional characteristics of the road and the existing traffic control provided.
Examine whether the additional construction related traffic can safely be accommodated
on the existing roadways Discuss the suitability of the road capacity.The traffic flow along
Cox Neck Lane and West Mill Road and how vehicles will navigate the curves on the
roadways.
STAFF: This discussion on this section of potential large adverse impacts is
INADEQUATE. There is a direct connection to the magnitude and duration of
potential large adverse impacts on the quality of the life of residents and visitors,
residences(vibration),community character,and infrastructure(road damage)along
an entire route due to the total number of vehicles trips proposed.
Page 17
4. Include a roadway user group safety study and analysis in the DEIS during all four
seasons on the use of the roadways (route) by user groups, including potential adverse
impacts on pedestrians walking (with Strollers),jogging,biking and children waiting for
the school bus that will could be adversely impacted by vehicles including loaded trucks.
Include an analysis of the proposed truck route's road width and the capacity to
accommodate two vehicles passing at the same time and location as a pedestrian or
cyclist, and whether the roads are currently safe for such an interaction,, including the
perceived safety from the perspective of the pedestrian or cyclist.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. We are of the opinion that sampling methodologies
were not representative of timeframes when user groups were expected to use the
roadway(morning and evening hours). The sampling methodology was too
narrow in scope and does not provide a comprehensive assessment of user groups
along the entire route.
Discuss the potential damage and destruction of local and regional roads by trucks and
all other vehicle types involved in the staging, clearing, excavation, site preparation,
construction and post construction and operations of the facility. Include the aprons at
the access points. Provide all specifications of the loaded and unloaded trucks involved
in the excavation and construction.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The route has not been identified. No discussion on the
road condition and impacts to Sound Avenue or other roadways in adjacent Towns
have been discussed.
Discuss specific provisions for a performance guarantee to assure appropriate
reclamation/restoration of any areas (including local roadways)that may be required, or
in the event that the project does not come to completion after a specifically defined
period of time.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. A performance guarantee discussion has not been
provided for all impacted roadways or Townships.
Evaluate and discuss the duration of potential adverse impacts from all vehicle trip
types included in each phase and post-construction,the wear and tear on roadways
caused by vehicle types, quality of life impacts to the community and receptors along
the routes including adjacent Towns where vehicles will be traveling.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The route has not been identified in detail. No
discussion on the road condition and impacts to Sound Avenue and other
roadways in adjacent Towns have been discussed. Regional large, adverse
impacts are expected.
Page 17
5. Discuss the impacts of vibration from loaded trucks on structures along the vehicle
route(s).
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The vehicle route is not identified regionally.
Page 19
7. Provide a detailed analysis on the potential, long-term adverse impacts to adjacent
roadways (surfaces, condition), surrounding properties, neighborhood(s), and region
through the clearing, excavation, storing and transporting of cleared vegetation,
excavated materials and construction of the site over a multi-month period in multiple
phases.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The total number of vehicle trips is not accurately
stated in the DEIS.
Page 21
1. The potential adverse impacts from Transportation on community character(see above).
STAFF: INADEQUATE. There is no discussion on the regional, adverse impacts
to community character and receptors along the routes.
Page 22
Impact from Noise
STAFF INADEQUATE
Do the noise levels assigned to the tub grinder and wood chipper include the sound
generated while grinding and chipping is in progress? The levels shown in the table
in the acoustic report are similar to other machinery, which leads us to believe the
additional noise from the actual grinding and chipping is not included.
Page 26
1. Discuss how the unexpected site conditions, weather, pandemic, and work flow and
schedule changes will be addressed to not impact the community?
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The DEIS states that clearing, grubbing and stripping
will be conducted in dry weather. Will work be conducted in wet weather
conditions?
The DEIS also states that "It is noted that the proposed construction schedule is a
maximum time period and considers delays that could occur from unexpected
weather and task delays." (DEIS Page 272). What is unexpected weather? What
would be considered task delays?
Page 28
1. Describe the public benefit to the community.
STAFF: INADEQUATE. The DEIS states that"Constructing and operating winter
boat storage buildings would bring additional jobs and a new tax revenue stream to
the Town of Southold. In addition to direct benefits to the Town, the Applicant is
responding to market demand for larger boat owners looking for local indoor winter
storage" (DEIS Page 231) Please elaborate as to why meeting market demand in this
location is a public benefit.
s
NE YORK Parks, Recreation,
U P6 HC`�' &G
RECEIVE®
STAT
oProeTUNiTe. and H15tOfIC Preservation ._ _.
i----
KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID APR 12 2022
Governor Commissioner
Souinoid'town
Planning Board
April 8, 2022
Mr. Charles Vandrei
Agency Historic Preservation Officer
NYS Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands and Forests
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-4255
Re: DEC
Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
5780 W Mill Rd,Town of Mattituck, Suffolk County
21 PR04396
Dear Mr.Vandrei:
Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation(OPRHP). We continue to review the project in
accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980(Section 14.09 of the
New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the
Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources.
OPRHP has concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a result
of vibrations,from construction vehicles. OPRHP recommends the preparation and
implementation of a Construction Protection Plan for the following two structures, which have
been determined by OPRHP to be eligible for listing in the New York State and National
Registers of Historic Places.
Structure Name Address OPRHP No.
Mattituck Creek Tide Mill /Old Mill Restaurant 5775 West Mill Road 10310.000348
The Water Tower and Building 3380 West Mill Road 10310.001551
If you have any questions, I can be reached at nancy.herter@parks.ny.gov.
Sincerely,
x ;%C
Nancy Herter
Director, Technical Preservation Services Bureau
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Division for Historic Preservation,Peebles Island,PO Box 189,Waterford,New York 12188-0189
(518)237-8643•https://parks.ny.gov/shpo
M NELSONronmental-
Se.POPE VOORf—HIS
envning
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Southold Planning Board
From: Carrie O'Farrell,AICP, Senior Partner, Nelson Pope Voorhis and Osman Barrie, P.E.
Nelson+Pope Engineering
Cc: Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director and Mark Terry,AICP,Assistant Planning Director
Date: May 6,2022
NPV No: 08265
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Nelson Pope Voorhis, LLC("NPV") in association with Nelson +Pope Engineers,Architects, Surveyors ("N+P") has
conducted a preliminary review of the December 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the
proposed Site Plan for Strong's Yacht Center's Boat Storage Buildings at 5780 West Mill Road in Mattituck. The
purpose of this review is to:
• assist the Town Planning Board as lead agency in determining the DEIS's consistency with the scope and
content requirements of the adopted February 8,2021, Final Scope,as amended by the Planning Board's
April 5,2021 "Response to Final Scope Amendment Request from the Applicant";and
• review the DEIS for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its
implementing regulations established pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617,Subsection 617.9(b)"Environmental
impact statement content."
This review, along with the Town Planning Department's assessment of other pertinent topics outlined by the
Final Scope and amended scope, is specifically intended to assist the Planning Board in determining whether to
accept the DEIS as adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review
or if additional revisions or amendments are necessary to satisfy these requirements. Per our agreement with the
Town, NPV's primary review responsibilities for this DEIS completeness review include consideration of hydrology,
hydrogeology and associated factors (e.g.,groundwater, surface water, wetlands, soils, and topography). N+P's
focus was on the DEIS's completeness in terms of traffic and transportation related analyses.
Based on our review of the DEIS submission, NPV and N+P recommend the Planning Board deem the DEIS
"Incomplete" and that the following comments be addressed prior to DEIS acceptance, distribution, and review
by the public and involved and interested agencies.
HYDROLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
Comments:
1. There appears to be limited information on existing groundwater quality in the area. The Existing
Conditions section under the Water Resources section should include a general discussion of existing
groundwater quality in the area based on recent available drinking water quality data such as is available
Long Island:70 Maxess Road, Melville, NY 11747 • 631.427.5665 nelsonpopevoorhis.com
Hudson Valley: 156 Route 59,Suite C6,Suffern, NY 10901 845.368.1472
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
from the SCWA for its nearby Inlet Drive wellfield,SCWA Annual Drinking Water Quality reports,or other
available sources. This information will provide a necessary baseline for the groundwater (and surface
water) quality assessment including current conditions and any existing groundwater quality issues that
may be exacerbated by the project.
2. The Applicant was required by the Final Scope and April 5, 2021 "Planning Board Clarifications and
Comments in Response to Final Scope" memo to assess groundwater quantity available to neighboring
wells over the course of four seasons. Instead, as noted in the DEIS,the Applicant utilized a numerical 3-
D groundwater modeling assessment and provided a report to address the potential impacts from the soil
excavation on-site that the Amended Final Scope identified as "potentially capable of affecting the
hydrology and zones of influence for nearby private wells, and the quantity of water available after
excavation is completed.The groundwater model was employed rather than taking monthly water level
observations over the course of a year because the model can reliably predict groundwater levels and
aquifer responses under numerous different conditions and scenarios.Also, rather than one year of data,
multiple years of groundwater level data were used to construct and calibrate the model(in this particular
case some of the local monitoring wells used to construct the model had monthly data going back as far
as 1975), which allowed for more long-term averages to be used.This also allowed for the identification
of anomaly years, such as when drier or wetter conditions may prevail. Longer term groundwater trends
(rising or falling water levels and potential causes) can be observed as well when looking back over many
years as opposed to a single year.
NPV reviewed PWGC's October 2021 Groundwater Modeling Report and concurs with the Applicant's
contention that the model provides a suitable methodology using appropriate data to analyze and address
the issues and parameters the Town has requested.
3. The assessment of tidal flow restrictions did not include the use of a model. Instead, as permitted by the
April 5, 2021 "Clarifications and Comments in Response to Final Scope memo," a quantitative and
qualitative discussion was provided that included NOAA and Mattituck Inlet Survey data. The vessel trip
generation estimates for the two eight-week periods when boats are expected to arrive and depart is 11
boats per week over eight weeks or 1.57 trips per day during this period, but this does not take into
consideration peak periods of vessel activity within those eight weeks that may be preferred by boaters
(e.g., certain weeks during the eight-week arrival and departure periods), certain days of the week(e.g.,
Saturdays or Sundays rather than Tuesdays or Wednesdays),and preferred hours of the day(e.g., midday
rather than midnight). With this information, a determination of peak vessel traffic times and an
assessment of queueing boats within the creek can be more accurately assessed. It is recommended that
the yacht center's records be researched to identify peak periods of vessel activity, boat trips in the Creek
should be tallied, and any vessel trip generation numbers be sought or generated to provide a more
reasonable peak trip count. NPV also recommends that a simple sketch be provided depicting a vessel of
the size anticipated to be stored onsite along the property's shoreline being docked (parallel and
perpendicular to the shoreline as may be expected), any conceivable queueing, creek depths at that
location, and the space available for boats to pass without surface and bottom obstructions.
4. Page iv, next to last paragraph, indicate that surface elevations are"AMSL".
5. Page vi,first paragraph states that potable water usage for post-development conditions would increase
by 18 gpd from 1,058±gpd to 1,076±gpd. Please indicate how this was estimated including sources and
applicable multiplier(s). Other information provided in the DEIS indicates that upon implementation of
ON P V Page 2 of 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
the proposed action, an additional 11 full-time positions are expected to be created to service the boats
in storage (pp. 14 and 292). However, this additional demand alone, would suggest a larger increase in
water use than 18 gpd. Also,please indicate whether additional groundwater water will be used for other
activities associated with 88-boat storage area, such as washing, detailing, painting, antifouling and how
much water, if any,would be needed for these operations?
6. Page viii,fourth paragraph,states that higher levels of dissolved oxygen and HAB events indicate the water
quality of Mattituck Creek trends towards poor. Aren't higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen
considered indicator of good water quality rather than poor quality?
7. Page viii, fifth paragraph provides the acronym "HAB" for"Harmful Algal Blooms". The full term should
be indicated in this paragraph,where it first appears in the fourth paragraph (see No.7 above).
8. Page 27, first paragraph, uses the phrase "poorly rated sand". Shouldn't this say, "poorly graded" or
perhaps"poorly aerated"? If"poorly rated" is the intended description, please define this term.
9. Page 27,last paragraph provides the soil classifications"SP","SP-SM",and"SM". The Geotechnical Memo
defines these classifications; however,the DEIS should also define them either by text,chart,or footnote.
10. Page 35,first paragraph mentions the need for soil mixing to loosen over consolidated soils.Will there be
any need to ship poorly drained soils such as clays offsite and import clean sand as fill?
11. Pages 37-38 discuss erosion and sedimentation controls, but do not mention the requirement to submit
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP").
12. Page 41/42, regarding the 2018 McDonald Geoscience borings: Please provide a generalized written
description of where these borings were dug,similar to the PWGC 2021 borings discussion that follows it.
13. Page 48 contains a list of the existing storage tanks currently onsite and indicates that an Article 12 permit
is in place for any hazardous materials stored on the property. Even though these are existing tanks, it
would be beneficial to know for the existing onsite conditions inventory, if any existing safeguards are in
place such as secondary containment,double walled tanks,overfill protection,spill detection,etc.
14. Page 93,last paragraph states that:"...land disturbance within 100 feet of the regulated tidal wetland area
would not alter the existing grade and would not increase the likelihood of flooding." Will there be an
increase in impervious surfaces within 100 feet of a wetland that may impact wetlands?
15. Page 104, first paragraph under "Precipitation" states: "the average annual precipitation was 3.97±
inches." This appears to be monthly precipitation rather than annual precipitation.
16. Page 108,first sentence says: "Elevating structures two feet above the BFE for non-critical infrastructure
and three feet above BFE for critical infrastructure is also recommended." Does critical infrastructure
include sanitary systems?
17. Page 109, footnote to Table 17 states: "**2050 Separation is less than the current recommended
separation distance to groundwater for sanitary effluent(3 feet)or stormwater(2 feet)." Is providing final
grade at 11 or 12 feet AMSL rather than 10 feet AMSL been considered? Is this practical and feasible?
k LM N PV Page 3 of 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
18. Page 138, third paragraph states that: "It is estimated that approximately 547 boats are active in
Mattituck Creek on a peak season day.Therefore,the increase in vessel traffic of 0.48 boat trips per day
is nominal and the potential for increased erosion of tidal marshes due to vessel traffic is not significant."
The impact of increased vessel traffic in Mattituck Creek should be based on the eight weeks when boats
are expected to arrive and the eight weeks when the boats are expected to leave storage, rather than
average traffic over the course of a full season.This, as previously noted on page 8 of the DEIS is 11 trips
per week on average,or the equivalent of 1.57 trips per day. See also comment above.
19. Sections 3.7 and 3.8,air and noise analysis: Please see comment#20 and comments under the Traffic and
Transportation heading below which will impact the assumptions and findings of the air and noise
analyses.
a. Page 254, Fugitive Dust—the total suspended particulate (TSP) concentration utilized is based on
"apartment and shopping center construction projects." The applicability of this TSP rates should
be verified and explained, particularly given the nature of the proposed project, which includes
significant slope excavations.
b. Page 246,Construction Noise and Global comment—the DEIS text states that"there is a significant
increase in noise at Receivers 111-139. These increases would be considered a significant and
adverse impact, as defined by the NYSDEC criteria, during the periods of excavation and
construction." The DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impacts associated with
significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary heavy
construction trucks on local roadways. The applicant has provided no meaningful and enforceable
mitigation to address these impacts.
20. Page 269,Section 3.10.2: Construction Schedule and Activities (also Section 1.4).
a. The scope requires a construction vehicle routing plan for all phases of the construction. As the
construction period will overlap with peak periods (summer and fall), the DEIS should evaluate
potential routing using both the Sound Ave.and Main Road due to backups that commonly occur
on Sound Ave. in the peak seasons. Additionally, the entire construction route should be
identified and evaluated from the subject site to the Long Island Expressway(i.e.,West Mill Road,
Cox Neck Road,Sound Ave./Main Road, Northville Turnpike, Route 25,etc.).
b. The basis of truck trip analysis for the construction period assumes use of 22-wheel,30 yard dump
trailers for the removal of excavated material over the course of construction. The size,mobility,
and wear and tear on local roadways from repeated use of these large heavy construction vehicles
has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS to ensure that trucks of this size and weight can
be reasonably utilized for the extensive construction period proposed. Such analysis should
include
i. A truck turn radius evaluation along the entire construction route to ensure such large
construction vehicles can properly maneuver within the existing paved roadway while
allowing for passage of on coming traffic and pedestrians. The basis for the construction
truck traffic analysis and potential construction duration is largely reliant on the use of
large 30 yard trailers, therefore the feasibility of use of this equipment must be fully
evaluated to determine if the projected construction duration is reasonably analyzed, or
N P V Page 4 of 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
if smaller (i.e., 20 yard trucks) will be necessary (which would increase the number of
truck trips and may impact the expected construction duration accordingly).
c. This section describes a 1,454 linear foot haul road that would be utilized by heavy equipment to
transport construction materials and excavated soils to and from the site. The road is shown in
areas of steep topography. The estimated timeframe and feasibility of construction of the haul
road should be further evaluated, including evaluation of the necessary grading that may be
required to establish the haul road with grades viable for use by the various heavy equipment
necessary to construct the project as well as for future fire trucks/emergency vehicles as the
applicant indicates that this road is proposed for long term use as an emergency access road—
this equipment has limited mobility on steep grades. Additionally,the estimated quantity of RCA
needed to stabilize the access road for use by heavy equipment should be provided and the
analysis of truck trips updated to address the number of truck trips required to bring this material
to the site.
21. Page 295, Barge Alternative — The applicant indicates that the purpose of the proposed project is to
provide for storage of yachts, but states that the limitation in utilizing barges for material transport off
site is limitations in bottom depth. Additional information should be provided to explain the typical draw
and bottom depth limitations for the larger boats targeted for storage at this location.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
1. According to the Final Scope, accident analyses should be conducted for the most recent three-year of
accident data published by the NYSDOT and accident data from the Southold Police department if more
recent or more detailed than that available from the NYSDOT.From a review of the accident data analyses
in the Traffic Study,it appears accident records for the most recent 3-year period were only obtained from
the NYSDOT and there was no mention of any data request from the Southold Police Department. Written
confirmation for a request for accident data to the Southold Police Department should be provided.
2. Existing Traffic Flow Conditions — Figures 5-7 of the Traffic study provide useful comparisons of the
weekday traffic volumes. A figure should also be provided for weekend traffic volumes to better describe
variations in seasonal traffic volumes during various times of day.
3. The Traffic Study assumed increased trip generation rates based on an increased number of employees.
However,this does not address the increased truck trips expected to support future operations(increased
deliveries . The truck volumes associated with the current use should also be increased proportionally
with the increased storage capacity and the traffic analysis updated accordingly. This will also impact the
modeling assumptions of the air and noise analyses included in the DEIS.
4. The Traffic Study discussed the vehicle routing plans for all phases of the project and identified the roads
used,speed limits, existing road conditions, but did not provide any photographic representations.
5. The Traffic Study did not address how vehicles,especially construction trucks and equipment will navigate
the curves along Cox Neck Lane Road and West Mill Road (see comment#19 above). Given the size and
extent of heavy construction equipment anticipated for the proposed project and nature of local
roadways, the DEIS must evaluation the feasibility of use of 30 yard trucks along the proposed
construction route,including truck turn radius evaluation along the proposed construction route to ensure
such large construction vehicles can properly maneuver within the existing paved roadway while allowing
N P V Page 5 of 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
for passage of on-coming traffic and pedestrians. The traffic study should also be updated to address the
construction of the proposed haul road, including necessary equipment, delivery of RCA,and duration of
construction.
6. The Traffic Study discussed the potential impact of construction traffic(trucks and vehicles)on pedestrians
walking(with strollers),jogging,biking and children waiting for school buses.The pedestrian analysis must
provide additional analysis to fully evaluate the potential for impacts to pedestrians along the entire
construction route, including:
a. A pedestrian and bicycle count along Cox Neck Road/W Mill Road between 6 am and 6 pm to
quantify the number of pedestrians and bicyclists on this roadway segment during the period of
the day when construction trucks are arriving and departing the site.
b. The width of all the roadways along the entire proposed truck route and the capacity to
accommodate two vehicles passing at the same time and location as a pedestrian or cyclist, and
whether the roads are currently safe for such an interaction. This should account for the
perceived safety from the perspective of the pedestrian or cyclist, as well as areas with known
high pedestrian activity for road crossings, particularly during peak tourist activity in the fall
months (crosswalks at Harbes Family Farm on Sound Ave., and similar crossings frequented by
pedestrians in peak season).
c. As stated in the Traffic Report, the Saturday roadway volumes are higher than the weekday
volumes. The anticipated timeframes for the various phases of construction described in Section
3.10.2(and Section 1.4)of the DEIS are not consistent with the timeframes evaluated in the Traffic
Study.This should be corrected. Additionally, it is not clear how work on Saturdays during Phase
1 of construction would be prohibited without a formal and enforceable commitment.. Unless the
applicant is formally committing to no work on Saturday during Phase I,the Traffic study should
be updated to account for the worst case condition,which according to the construction schedule
provided in the DEIS,will overlap with peak seasons of roadway traffic.
d. The Traffic Study provides information on existing truck volumes on the major and minor
roadways that were counted. The scope requires an assessment of potential damage of both local
and regional roads. The applicant should obtain NYSDOT historical data on major roadways
(including Route 48, Route 25 and Sound Ave.) and minor roads that may be utilized for
construction routing to determine truck volumes/trends for last 5 years to quantify the increased
truck volumes on local and regional roadways.
e. Measures to mitigate any impacts on pedestrians and bicyclist during the construction phase of
the project.
7. The Traffic study discusses the potential impact of vibrations from loaded trucks on structures along the
vehicle route(s) and concludes that the "only existing structure that may be susceptible to increased
vibrations from trucks would be the existing water tower located close to West Mill Road on adjoining
property to the subject property at the southwest corner." The basis for this conclusion is not clear. The
setback distances of historic homes along the construction route should be considered based on the
extent and duration of proposed heavy truck trips associated with the proposed action. The discussion of
truck trips during construction should also be clearly and consistently described to account for round trips
(empty and loaded)trucks passing the residential homes along the route.
8. The Traffic Study did not adequately address the potential long-term adverse impacts to the adjacent
roadways(surface conditions),surrounding properties,neighborhood(s),and region through the clearing,
N P d Page 6 of 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Completeness Review
excavation, storing and transporting of cleared vegetation, excavated material and construction of the
site over a multi-month period in multiple phases.This should include an analysis of existing heavy truck
traffic on these roadways and provide a comparative increased volume of heavy trucks (based on the
weights/sizes of required construction vehicles) based on the projected total number of passes of
equivalent standard axle loading(ESAL) in accordance with NYSDOT/FHWA standards.
9. While discussed in other portions of the DEIS, the Final Scope requires that the Traffic Study include an
evaluation of use of barges as an alternative means to transport materials for mitigating impacts from
transporting material associated with the site preparation and construction of the project.
N P V Page 7 of 7